A Deo et Rege

I have been thinking a lot about politics lately, probably because I believe our country needs a change and the election season is fast approaching. Although at this point committed to Ron Paul, he may not be a viable candidate by the time I vote (since Ohio is such a late primary state). So, I’ve been thinking a lot about who else would be a viable option. I am interested in Mike Huckabee in a way. I like his disavowal of torture and his willingness to call the Bush administration what it clearly is: arrogant. On the other hand, I think he is largely a “compassionate conservative” in the mold of Bush (including “compassionately” spreading democracy around the world). And, although I think Ron Paul’s response to Huckabee’s recent ad was over the top, I do get sick of how much the candidates seem willing to try to see who can be the most Christian to win over evangelical voters. As strongly Catholic and Christian as I am, I also can see pandering a mile away. Peggy Noonan pretty much sums up my take on the whole Huckabee ad controversy.

One final thought: if it’s Huckabee vs. Obama in November 2008, it will be the battle of the lightweights.

The Tories in Great Britain, recognizing the spiraling cost of healthcare suggest that the obese and smokers be denied treatment until they clean up their act. They suggest giving incentives, similar to frequent flier miles, for those who have or develop healthy lifestyles. This news coincides with a CNN story that focuses on two businesses that save money by either penalizing those with unhealthy lifestyles in the form of higher insurance premiums or rewarding those who are healthy with lower out of pocket costs. The firm that practices the rewards saw no premium increase when the average firm saw the prices rise by 8.8%.

My thoughts? The Tory plan has some merit, but it would have to be implemented in a somewhat forgiving manner, at least at the start. The plan of penalizing or rewarding an employee financially sounds great. A healthy person should not have to pay more to cover people who show an indifference to health. I’ll bet some habits will change when the wallet thins.

President Bush’s new war adviser says that the USA should consider the draft. This means that men and women (yes, thanks to feminism, women will be certainly eligible for the next draft) in their late teens and early twenties could be called upon to fight for the USA or to serve in other capacities. As a teacher and new father it saddens and angers me to read this. However, as long as leaders in both parties continue to insist that the USA is the world’s policemen, there must be bodies to do the policing. I hope our President and Congress choose peace and reality in their foreign policy decisions rather than perpetual war and the inevitable draft that comes from it.

Now that the presidential primaries are near (at least by campaigning standards), one issue that frequently arises is health care. The media presents touching stories of average people angry or sad because they and their families do not have health insurance. The solutions range from universal insurance to more capitalistic plans like requiring families to buy basic health insurance. I think that most of these solutions miss the point about the high cost of health care and insurance. Health care is a commodity like anything else and subject to the laws of the market. If demand for health care is extremely high, then the cost is going to go up. If the insurance companies pay out a ton of cash to cover those who buy their policies, the premiums will rise. The current solutions all focus on getting more people insured rather than reducing demand in health care, which is kind of like saying the government should pay to fill up people’s tanks since oil prices are so high. I’ve been uninsured and had trouble with less insurance than I needed. So, I understand. I also recognize that short term solutions will require that we find ways to insure the uninsured. However, ultimately, health care costs and insurance premiums can only be reduced by reducing how much we use the health care system. Here are a few ways I want to discuss (based loosely on this article ):

1) Prevention- many diseases are completely preventable through adjustment in diet and activity; the odds of getting others can be greatly reduced in the same way. If Americans made healthy food choices, kept near their healthy weights (I’m talking health here, not looks), and followed even minimal fitness guidelines, health care costs and insurance premiums would probably be greatly reduced. A recent estimate predicts that 75% of Americans will be overweight by 2015. That doesn’t bode well for health care costs.

2) Reduce risky behaviors- Riding motorcycles without helmets. Not wearing seat belts. Smoking. Doing illegal drugs. All of these increase the chance of serious medical problems and even death and they raise the cost of health care for everyone. I’m fairly libertarian, so I’m not necessarily arguing for banning all these activities. However, individuals engaging in these activities should definitely pay more for their insurance premiums. I feel the same way about obese people. Even though it would affect people I love, they must bear more of the cost. If people have to pay more, then they would be more likely to stop the risky and unhealthy behavior. Money talks.

3) Self-Management- Americans view health insurance as free medical care, not something to be used as “insurance” when we get sick. If our otherwise healthy kids have a sniffle, it’s off to the doctor. If we are sore from working out, it’s time to visit doc. That small patch of poison ivy? Better not risk it. Call the doctor. Doctors are great, but they are not needed for everything. For example, there still is no cure for the common cold or the flu. For cases other than kids, elderly, and frail adults, all doctors can do is tell you that you need to rest and drink liquids. If the insurance company has to pay for a doctor’s visit to hear that and to pay for the antibiotics he wrongly prescribes to get you off his back, premiums will eventually go up. If we can use OTC medications, vitamin supplements, diet and exercise to treat an ailment, we should be obligated (morally) to do so.

These are just a few of my thoughts on health care. I now wait for the politician who’s willing to say to the people “you’re too damn fat, too damn immature, and too damn quick to visit the doctor. If you want more people insured and lower premiums, take some personal responsibility!” Ok, that last line was somewhat tongue in cheek. Still, I’d like our leaders to
address the underlying issues of our country’s crisis (even if not full blown yet) in health care.

The story of convicted and incarcerated border agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean reminds why I support limited government and taking power away from bureaucrats. You can read their story here. I’ve not said anything about their story yet because frankly there are some issues. Did Ramos and Compean do everything right in their encounter with Mexican criminals? No, they didn’t. However, I don’t think that justifies the excessive prosecution and sentence. They had been in a struggle with a criminal, shots had been fired, and they were in pursuit of criminals. In that situation, following every procedure could be difficult. I’m not arguing they shouldn’t have received a reprimand or something, but 11 and 12 years in prison?

I am most bothered by two points in this case: granting immunity to a Mexican drug trafficker for testimony against Ramos and Compean and misapplying a federal law. First, the government put up a Mexican drug trafficker in a local hospital and gave him immunity to testify against the two border agents. Why is our government going after our own citizens who risk their lives and giving immunity to a guy bringing drugs to our streets? It boggles the mind. Second, the federal law in question, which accounts for most of the sentence of Ramos and Compean, shouldn’t even apply to their case. Recently liberal California senator Diane Feinstein argued as much, even asking President Bush to commute the sentences of the border agents. Other Congressmen agree with Feinstein and also have appealed to President Bush for commutation or a pardon.

And yet, Bush says he is not going to use his authority to free these guys. California Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a Republican, said this about Bush’s refusal to commute the sentences of Ramos and Compean: “I think it has a lot to do with an attitude in this administration that refuses to admit any mistakes and protects its own clique but nobody else.” Well said Congressman.

So, I hope, along with a bipartisan group of Congressmen, that Ramos and Compean are freed immediately. Should they face some internal disciplinary action? Perhaps. But the response shouldn’t be a prison sentence based on giving immunity to a drug dealer and misapplying a federal law. The ball is in Bush’s court, but I’m not hopeful.

Never feel unsafe again…create your own gun free zone!

This to me sums up most of the so-called “top-tier” presidential candidates from both parties: they are pro-war, pro-abortion and/or stem cell research, and favor the interests of multi-national corporations over the national interests of the American people. These values would be most pronounced in a Clinton vs. Giuliani contest in 2008. As much as I value voting, what kind of choice would that be?

I’m amazed especially by how many candidates and politicians in general espouse an interventionist foreign policy. The American people keep saying “no, no, no” and the presidential (and other) candidates are saying “yes, yes, yes.” Don’t be fooled by the Democrats who oppose the Iraq war. If you listen to most of them, they just have a problem with the Iraq War or its execution. They would gladly station American soldiers in dangerous parts of the world that fit their pet agendas. When the American people clearly desire a change and a Democratic Congress and a Republican President both act like they could care less, I seriously question the value of the two party system.

The article, titled Vatican Agrees to Reforestation Project, emphasizes the efforts the Holy See has made to be environmentally friendly. Pope Benedict noted that Christians should unite to take “care of creation without squandering its resources and (share) them in a convivial manner.” The article also notes that the Vatican is considering installing solar panels in some buildings. Good for the Pope and the Vatican! With the big media’s hammering of the Pope for supposed backwardness and lack of inclusivity, a person would expect them to talk about the Pope’s role in one of their pet issues: the environment. I’m not holding my breath.
What is my take on all of this? Good for the Pope and the Vatican. Conservatives and traditional Catholics need to develop an environmentalism (I dislike this word, however) that is sensible, emphasizes human freedom and the common good, and doesn’t necessarily involve the government at every turn. Caring for the earth and using its resources wisely should be a universal concern for all people of all faiths. Radicals cannot hijack such an important movement. The Vatican provides a good, sensible example of how we can move forward: Catholics making a big difference on the local level. The Vatican is going green; how perfect for ordinary time.

I’ll have more to say about a conservative and Catholic approach to conservation and caring for the earth at a later date. It’s an issue that needs to be explored.

Thanks to Dave Hartline at the Catholic Report for the article.

English Prime Minister Gordon Brown has decided that he will no longer use the word “Muslim” in reference to terrorism. This is ridiculous. While I agree that some of the rhetoric used by Bush and Blair has been reckless, this decision by Brown makes no sense. If certain terrorists are Muslim, it seems nothing but political correctness and censorship to pretend otherwise. While it is certainly wrong to equate Islam as a whole with terrorism, it is also equally silly and dangerous to pretend that extremist Islam poses no threat to the West.

Today is the perfect day to celebrate America and its values. Fireworks are nice, but the best way to celebrate our founding is to read, learn about, and follow the Constitution of the USA. Reading and learning about it are the easiest parts; following it is something else. After all, a right unexercised is one that is in danger of being taken away. Here are a few suggestions to enjoy the fourth based on the Bill of Rights:

1) Write a blog entry or a letter to the editor; participate in a rally; worship at the place of your choice; write or call your legislator

2) Go to the range and target shoot; read about the connection between firearms and freedom; legally buy a firearm; apply for a concealed carry license/permit; if you have a license/permit, go out and carry legally (if someone wants to take away these rights, exercise your first amendment rights and let them know you won’t stand for it)

3) Walk around your house enjoying the lack of soldiers

4) Sit in your favorite chair and watch TV securely, knowing that thugs from the government can’t just rush your house without a reason

5) Smile knowing that you never have to tell the government everything you’ve done

6) Consider actually serving on a jury rather than trying to get out of it

7) Know that if you ever get in trouble you have a right to at least be judged by your peers and not a bureaucrat

8) Look at your body and know it will never be subject to government torture (our government doesn’t quite get this today; exercise your first amendment rights and let them know you won’t stand for it)

9) Go out and exercise a right not specifically listed in the Bill of Rights

10) Go out and hike at a state park

Happy 4th of July and God bless!

I came across an op-ed piece from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette entitled Disarm America? Here’s How. Here are a few of the excerpts:

Now, how would one disarm the American population? First of all, federal or state laws would need to make it a crime punishable by a $1,000 fine and one year in prison per weapon to possess a firearm. The population would then be given three months to turn in their guns, without penalty.

Hunters would be able to deposit their hunting weapons in a centrally located arsenal, heavily guarded, from which they would be able to withdraw them each hunting season upon presentation of a valid hunting license. The weapons would be required to be redeposited at the end of the season on pain of arrest. When hunters submitted their request for their weapons, federal, state and local checks would be made to establish that they had not been convicted of a violent crime since the last time they withdrew their weapons…

And

All antique or interesting nonhunting weapons would be required to be delivered to a local or regional museum, also to be under strict 24-hour-a-day guard. There they would be on display, if the owner desired, as part of an interesting exhibit of antique American weapons, as family heirlooms from proud wars past or as part of collections.

And the most chilling:

The disarmament process would begin after the initial three-month amnesty. Special squads of police would be formed and trained to carry out the work. Then, on a random basis to permit no advance warning, city blocks and stretches of suburban and rural areas would be cordoned off and searches carried out in every business, dwelling and empty building. Thoroughness would be at the level of the sort of search that is carried out in Crime Scene Investigations. All firearms would be seized…

Clearly, since such sweeps could not take place all across a city, county, state or the country at the same time, guns would move. But fairly quickly there would begin to be gun-swept, gun-free areas where there should be no firearms. If there were, those carrying them would be subject to quick confiscation and prosecution. On the streets it would be a question of stopping and searching anyone, even Grandma with her walker, with the same penalties for “carrying.”

This author openly states what many proponents of gun control really want: a total ban on weapons, prosecution of law abiding citizens, and a police state to achieve their tactics. Not only does this guy ignore the second amendment in his argument completely, but seems willing to ignore other parts of the constitution to achieve his goals. And, there’s one thing I can promise, even if such a measure were passed: criminals would still commit crimes with and without guns.

I recently received an email from the founder of Catholics for Ron Paul. I have flirted with Ron Paul’s candidacy for ages and have decided to examine where he stands on issues that matter to me:

Abortion- pro-life
Civil Liberties- libertarian
Death penalty- against
Education- favors tax credits for private schools
Foreign Policy- wants us to stop our nation building and pursue only America’s vital interests
Free trade- against
Gun rights- strongly supports 2nd ammendment
Immigration- supports stopping the flow of illegals
Taxes- wants less of them
Torture- against
(Source)

Clearly, a Catholic can support Ron Paul, if anything for his strong pro-life and anti-torture stand. He may not line up with the US Conference of Bishops on every topic, but he certainly does on many (e.g. death penalty, the Iraq War, and tax credits for private schools). When looking at candidates, it is important to distinguish between core Catholic moral teaching and areas of prudential judgment.

As long has as he’s in the race, Ron Paul will get my vote.

I currently dislike all candidates in the field, both Democrat and Republican, except one: Ron Paul. And if Chuck Hagel ever declares, I would consider him an exception as well. The mainstream candidates from both parties would give us unrestricted free trade (US jobs be damned), endless interventions (even if they do condemn Bush’s foray into Iraq), no solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (in fact, most would escalate it), and more regulations and controls on free speech, basic rights, guns, and a host of other things. I think there is one candidate in the field whom the founding fathers would recognize as one of their own: once again, Ron Paul. He mentions on his website:

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
Sounds great to me! He’s also strongly pro-life.

I recently got a letter from him asking for funds. I don’t as a rule give to candidates, but once I get more money in the bank, he also may prove an exception in this way as well. Although my mind is not made up just yet, I am leaning strongly towards Ron Paul.

Many in the media cannot fathom gun ownership and rights. It’s not even on their radar. Most have probably never even seen a firearm in person or handled one. Mind you, they don’t have to agree with me on gun issues, but I believe they at least need to be informed. In terms of being informed, however, the media is about as bad on guns as they are on religion.

Here are two examples. First, I heard (or read in subtitles since I was at the YMCA working out) a former city official from New York City saying how we need more gun control laws, including ways to stop “psychos” from getting concealed weapon permits. Of course, it didn’t occur to him that a) this shooter didn’t have a CCL; he simply broke an already existing law by concealing his weapon and b) every CCL law on the book stops “psychos” from getting a permit through background checks, training, and a waiting period. Second, and with even more ignorance, Lawrence O’Donnell from MSNBC mentioned on the McLaughlin Group how the shooter used an automatic weapon and was able to “spray” bullets rather than having to press the trigger each time. Actually, the killer used semi-automatic handguns, which means he did, in fact, have to press the trigger each time. Pat Buchanan corrected him at least, not that he listened. Still, I’m sure many people will bewail the “fact” that the killers could so easily get “automatic” handguns. I am a recent convert to gun rights from gun control and will probably comment on this in the future.

And yes, I do watch the McLaughlin group. I look forward to it every Friday.

Update: Joe Leonardi comments on the same incident (Thanks to Dee)

John Edwards hires two bloggers who live in the realm of the angry left, including spouting the necessary anti-Catholic bigotry. Mind you, I know and respect many liberals, but I can’t understand the fierce hatred that comes from some liberals in the name of their causes. I’m not saying conservatives aren’t grumpy or angry, but when conservatives do and say stupid, bigoted things, they are expected to express remorse and feel guilty (e.g. Mel Gibson). I probably wouldn’t have voted for Edwards anyway in the general election if he were to win, but now I never will. You can’t win the angry liberal vote and keep your average American.