|
Tags >> Iran
Tonight, for one evening, put aside your worries and fears about national healthcare and turn your attention to the threats from the outside of this country. Yes, Richard A. Baehr, co founder and Chief Political Correspondent for AmericanThinker.com will be speaking on "Israel and Obama: The Iranian Nuclear Threat and the End of the Special Relationship" tonight at 7:00 p.m. at the Evanston Public Library, 1703 Orrington Avenue. No doubt that as we have been focused on domestic agenda items, much has been going on in Israel and Iran. Mr. Baehr is a nationally recognized expert on Israeli, Middle Eastern and Jewish/American issues and will be able to update and inform us about the developing relations and threats in one of the most important regions in the world. Don't let healthcare and jobs distract you from recognizing the other threats to America as we know it and as it was intended. This lecture is free and open to the public and the Republican Club of Evanston, co-sponsors of the event along with the Evanston Public Library, invite all interested in a social gathering following the event at the Celtic Knot Public House, on Church Street across from the Library. You can call the Library at 847-488-8600 if you need more information. I hope to see you all there!
Voting "present" is like having your cake and eating it, too; you allow things to happen without having to reveal your true position on the matter. Your inaction lets you wait to see if it was the right move. If it works, you didn't vote against it and if it doesn't, you didn't vote for it. Like it or not, President Obama has to address what is going on in Iran and North Korea. His delay in speaking up for freedom and against the violence and ruthless control in Tehran only highlights the fact that what is going on in the world is not what Obama had in his plans. How he has delayed is an insight into his instincts on these matters. The fact that right out of the gate, the greatest man in speechmaking was unable both to posit ourselves as not meddling while simultaneously standing behind those who want freedom tells us that he is not inclined to hold America as a beacon of freedom. He seems reluctant to cast his vote or take a clear position. Only in dribs and drabs and finally yesterday could he bring himself to use the words that have flowed so much more freely from other Presidents' speeches - "those who stand for justice stand on the right side of history". I am not convinced that his heart is behind those words. Given his world tour apologizing for America's role in bringing freedom to and improving the lives of others, how can we expect him to stand up for political self determination, even when it is an issue of national security. His belief that he alone can control the matters of nuclear buildup and stability, in both Iran and North Korea, through diplomacy, persuasion and apologetic politics is finally being questioned. His policies don't seem to have a plan for when that doesn't work and he lacks higher principles to give us confidence in what he might do. When questioned on his plans and principles by those such as Major Garrett of Fox News, we should be troubled by his refusal to answer or to allege that as President he cannot be questioned. There is no doubt that we need to tread carefully when it comes to Iran, that our meddling could disrupt the natural course of revolution or actually be used against the cause of freedom. There is no doubt that our actions regarding vessels carrying arms to North Korea will force our hand prematurely. But my concern is deeper than a question of tone or strategy. I think we now have a right to question our President's commitment to what America really stands for. He is using the current reluctance of this country to enter into another conflict and Iraq-Afghanistan fatigue to excuse himself from making a clear statement against Iran. We have to ask whether he would even under ideal circumstances lend real support to those who desperately want freedom. What lengths would he go to to keep us safe? Is he really a protectionist when it comes to exporting human and political rights? Given tonight's propaganda-fest on healthcare and what he intends to do with the financial industry, does he believe in freedom for Americans?
I am writing this in the Richard J. Daley center waiting to see if I will be selected for a jury for the notorious Cook County Circuit Court. This gives me an opportunity to think about the latest Obama agenda item, healthcare. Especially since sitting in a large room waiting for bureaucrats to determine my fate might be like visiting the doctor under an Obama plan. And, eerily, the TV in the waiting room is tuned to the ABC channel. It is clear our President wants to focus completely on revamping the healthcare industry not just insurance. It is a shame that all that "internal"turmoil in Iran, the mere saber rattling of North Korea testing nukes and imprisoning U.S. Citizens, or the mischaracterization of terrorists being released from Gitmo to take up snorkeling in the tropics might distract us. But these are not the priorities on Mr. Obama's agenda who tells us that the real "ticking time bomb" is healthcare. He is so determined to scare us into believing that there is a crisis in healthcare rather than insurance that he has convinced ABC to broadcast infomercials selling his agenda. Our shepherd-in-chief has gotten very good at crying wolf. Much of what he and the Congressional Democrats are saying is illusory or misleading at best and outright wrong at worst. The rush is on not to fix the problems in existing systems but to write in a whole new one - with no evidence or assurances that it won't face the same shortcomings. Taxpayers need to ask three questions:
Is there a true crisis regarding the quality and delivery of health care? No doubt our insurance system is cumbersome, costly and flawed but people are not being turned away from our hospitals. We have the best medicine in the world and foreigners come here to get what their national systems cannot provide. There is a difference between being uninsured and not having access to care and this is what should be closely examined. Even by the Administration's own accounts, a new plan would only cover a third of those currently uninsured. Isn't it cheaper and easier to examine and fix the problems of the variety of existing (private, federal employee, Medicare/Medicaid) insurance systems? Obama is trying to "sell" his plan by alleging that his plan will make private plans more "competitive" and will be "free" to become more efficient and provide better options. I find it amusing that he of all people is using national healthcare as a tutorial on free market principles. It is a simple fact that when the government enters into an industry where it is not bound by market prices and has unlimited tax funds to provide subsidies, it actually squelches competition. Just this week, here in Chicago at the AMA, Obama tried to sell his plan to the very folks who will live and work by its terms and they remain unconvinced. It did not help that Obama was unwilling to discuss one of the single most stifling costs to healthcare, medical malpractice caps and liability insurance. It will be his plan on his terms appeasing those interests that provide him support. Are Congressional Democrats and this Administration the ones to rewrite healthcare? These are the folks that brought us Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac or currently oversee Medicare and Medicaid. What makes us think that government bureaucrats are good at running these things, although if a 31 year old law student can run a car company...at least Hillary had meetings and a task force. Speaking of which, I realize that having the First Lady involved can be damaging, but currently Obama's only experience with healthcare seems to be having his wife earn $300K a year for a hospital system which has yet to be an example of reform and efficiency.
Our President has made it clear that he is determined to stay on track with his ambitious domestic agenda and nothing, not even the threat of a destabled Iran, will derail him. We all saw how he crushed the fly that got in the way of his CNBC interview. Earlier today, he just announced a revamping of the finance industry, with the typical claim that it is in the direst of straits. What is next? What I don't understand is how he can cry wolf about every domestic policy and downplay the only genuine crises to which he is constitutionally obligated. I guess it's his party and gets to cry wolf when he wants to.
|
