I’ve held my tongue for way too long on the issue of climate change. As a scientist and a default approach to life via a scientific viewpoint, this issue is so NOT about science that I can’t even believe it continues to be couched that way.

Do you know how I know? Money. If you would consider just for one second the motivational aspect behind the “debate” – you’ll soon conclude that stirring people up about climate change is just another ponzi scheme orchestrated by environmentalists that have long been frustrated about the lack of credibility they have been able to muster. That lack of credibility has resulted in very little capital investment, which has hampered their ability to advance their cause.

So, they got their heads together and got a spokesman who spent time in the White House, made a movie or two and created a script that everyone read verbatim ad nauseam everywhere from the nightly news to the cartoons on public television. I have my 4 yr. old son telling me about turning off lights to save the planet because Sid the Science kid’s Teacher Susie is preaching it every day from 7:30 – 8:00 am.

And it’s working – government subsidies for alternative energy sources have soared through the roof. We have windmill fields cropping up everywhere and driving people out of their homes due to the 80+ decibel noise each mill creates. We have electric cars that have a range suitable for a trip to the grocery store. We have solar panels that generate enough wattage to recharge your iPhone. All of which can’t make enough sense to consumers to get real funding and consequently have no real incentive to produce any tangible results.

Sorry – didn’t mean to get sidetracked by government spending and lofty goals with no accountability. Anywho – back to climate change.

Fact: the climate does change. The biggest influence on our weather is our sun and a star has a life cycle and goes through patterns of change, which are influence everything from temperature to magnetic pole strength. Do some research sometime on solar flares – fascinating stuff!

Fact: our planet has gone through both warmer and cooler seasons ever since we’ve had the capacity to keep track and, guess what, we’ve been in a warm one.

Fact: most high-profile environmental activists live very wasteful lives. Al Gore has several houses and flies on private jets all over the world. Why not sell some of those houses and give the money to solar panel or energy storage research? BECAUSE HE DOESN’T BELIEVE IT EITHER, but it sure pays well!

Fiction: mankind has the power to influence nature. Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see us develop technology to control the weather like on Star Trek. Need rain for the corn crops in the midwest – no problem, I’ll just submit a request to the weather satellite. Wouldn’t that be sweet!

Simply put – human nature is fond of making itself out to be God and to think we can control the system (either destroying or fixing) He put in place is ludicrous and arrogant. It is the oldest lie we’ve ever bought and now, we’re being sold it again. Some of us are able to recognize it for what it is and deny it any place in our lives. Others…well, are buying it hook, line and sinker – even (and perhaps more poignantly) our kids.

Do we need to ramp up the development of energy alternatives to replace a finite resource like oil? Sure. That’s called being prepared. And there is a right way to do it – it’s called Capitalism and using the Free Market Economy to prove your idea has merit rather than work everyone up in a frenzy about how life on this planet is in peril unless we help those who refuse to contribute get a free ride putting up wind farms in our back yard.

I feel a point of clarification might be needed. I am and desire to be a good steward of the resources given to me. So, I turn off lights, use CF bulbs and turn the water off while I brush my teeth – but not because my heart breaks for a polar bear’s habitat melting. I do it because for every watt of electricity and gallon of water I’m punished financially each month when I get my bills.

Don’t be fooled and don’t drink the Kool-Aid. Remember, if you can find anyone benefiting financially from a crisis – resist the urge to call it a crisis. If it was, help would be free and clear and nothing about climate change is free and it is anything but clear…

Today, I heard Rush Limbaugh talk about how he doesn’t think “positionally” when he thinks about politics. He was describing how he doesn’t think about the need to elect/appoint people based on filling a quota or making sure some sense of positional “fairness” is obtained.

This made me think and immediately disagree with El Rushbo based on the fact that we (conservatives) do desire people in office that subscribe to and believe in a moral authority. Let me explain what a moral authority is. Morality is our sense of right vs. wrong and is built in us from a very early age most notably from our parents. Their morality is impressed on us and shapes our morality and somewhere along the way, we build a moral authority in our minds that then helps us filter decisions based on right vs. wrong.

The problem with individual morality is that there is no consistency from one person to another and that leads to what seems right to one person is heinously wrong for another. It is in that tension where trouble is born. This discrepancy played out in politics is the recipe for corruption and closed-door deals that are not in the best interest of the majority.

The way through this seemingly natural difference between what is right and what is wrong is to agree to subscribe to a higher moral authority – one that isn’t subjective and based on our own experiences, but rather objective and based on timeless principles. For followers of Jesus Christ, this moral authority is God and His Word.

Even without the proclamation of faith in Jesus, we see proof of a even more basic moral authority and the evidence of that is when we can all look at something and all identify it as wrong. Take the World Trade Center (WTC) attacks of 2001. The majority of Americans identified that attack as wrong and most went on to call it evil. How on earth were we all able to agree on that if it weren’t for some basic moral authority we all subscribe to?

What separates that morality from the morality of God is the source from with the determination of right vs. wrong is made. General morality is man-based and isn’t universal. Again, look at the WTC attacks – apparently the terrorists that carried out the plan didn’t think that was wrong and it is that kind of disconnect that prevents us from being able to trust general morality to ensure we all make the right decisions – it is still subjective because it is a construct of man.

The morality of God is a construct of the One who exists outside of time; who is completely consistent; who is all powerful; and who isn’t surprised by anything. So when He says something is wrong – we can all trust that it is.

So, when we vote people into office without looking at whether or not they subscribe to God’s moral authority, we should not be surprised when they act in a way that is inconsistent with how we would act. Their decisions are based on a personal moral code.

So, Mr. Limbaugh, I disagree that we shouldn’t elect/appoint people based on positional qualities. I do agree that we shouldn’t care about their race, color or gender; however, we should care a great deal about their character and to which moral authority that character submits. Most notably, you’ll find submission to the higher moral authority in people that profess to have a faith in God. In light of this, religious position must be a characteristic by which we choose candidates. At least then there is hope that they will act in a way that is consistent with an objective standard of right vs. wrong. No guarantee, but still hope nonetheless.

Most of you know where I stand politically, but for those of you who don’t, I’m a Constitutional conservative. I believe in small government, personal responsibility, strong national defense and a free market where competition is the driving force that keeps things balanced.

Ever since I became sensitive to the political climate in this country, I’ve been intrigued at the strategies of liberals. In a recent post, I reveal what I think to be the motivations behind their actions and today I want to add some fuel to the fire.

This new facet of the liberal agenda stems from their intense desire to give something to people who do not deserve it according to the foundational principles of this country. We call these programs to give where it isn’t warranted “entitlement” programs. Welfare and unemployment benefits are two programs that readily come to mind.

Embedded in that very term is the idea that these programs have become “rights” by which they can and should never be taken away. See that? What was designed to assist someone in a hard spot has become a right, not a gift or a loan or even a gracious provision. The implications are staggering.

On the surface, these programs look like a good idea – they are designed to bridge the gap for those less fortunate in times of need. On paper, they look great because they were designed to be TEMPORARY programs – a hold-over until one could get their feet back under them.

What was not considered when these programs were still ideas is the human heart and its propensity to desire something for nothing. We love to get presents and gifts and unexpected surprises that we don’t deserve or have to pay (in any way) for – it’s in our nature to desire this.

And what’s missing is an incentive to wean oneself from these programs. Sure, they don’t provide much money when compared to what a full-time job offers, and that should be enough to get back in the game. But when combined with other programs and exceptions to other rules, one can (and does) survive solely on the handouts from the Federal government, which is really those of us who work hard and pay our taxes.

And the long-term problem with these programs is that they:

1. Produce a lazy and expectant segment of our population that will just want more and more
2. Pave the way for other entitlements (can anyone say health care?) to be created for the same reasons
3. De-incent people to work hard, earn a commiserate wage and contribute to the principles that make this country great
4. Become a template for use in the state government to further “protect” the less fortunate

Before I conclude, I want you to know that I am all for helping those that need it. I have been the recipient of unexpected gifts and, likewise, been the giver. I realize there are certain situations where temporary help might legitimately turn into permanent help (e.g. injury sustained while protecting this country in the armed forces), but these should be the greatest of exceptions and, sadly, they are not.

As the political landscape in Washington becomes more liberal, the number of social programs continues to rise and we are primed and ready to turn these programs into rights that cannot be taken away without much pain. Let us not forget, the government (Federal or State) does not create any wealth – all of the money they spend comes from the people by way of taxes.

So, for each new program that comes out or an extension of existing programs (e.g. unemployment benefits), the taxpayer (individuals and businesses) will be called on to fund them. The implications of taking that money out of the private sector and putting it in control of the government will have catastrophic implications on this country’s ability to respond to the ever-changing global landscape.

There’s a reason that a 235 yr. old country is viewed as the most powerful, influential and desirable destination in the world – innovation in everything we do. If you want to know why I am so against big government, it is this one point. Taking money away from people and businesses to fund programs designed to make people dependent on the government kills innovation because it kills the spirit needed to push past the pain and sacrifice to obtain the dream of freedom and liberty.

It’s been a slow boil (frog reference) and along the way we’ve been collared and harnessed to serve the government all in the name of compassion. We’ve become slaves to our government and liberalism the master. More programs means that freedom becomes harder to see because the carrot of a free ride becomes more and more enticing.

More people see that entitlements are easier than fighting every day for your wage and don’t realize that with each bite, the water temp goes up. But this isn’t just a problem for them, it’s a problem for us all. Nobody is immune to the effects of big government – especially if you are a hard working wanting to obtain financial independence (a form of freedom).

This is a philosophical fight that has real-life implications and the long-term good isn’t found standing in the line at the unemployment office:

• it’s found in taking personal responsibility for your actions
• it’s found in doing what’s right in the face of intense opposition
• it’s found in making sure the next generation has more opportunities and options than you do
• it’s found in punishing the corrupt and rewarding the righteous so others will see where we stand and what we value
• it’s found in the freedom to choose what to do with the hard-earned money in our pockets

it’s found in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness!

The time is now to decide to stand up and say with a loud voice that you desire the long-term good over the short-term salve that never leads to true healing. Don’t know how to make your voice heard? With your vote in November. With your e-mail and phone call to your elected official. With your voice online. Just start flapping those gums and people will listen…you did after all.

Now that Heath Care Reform (HCR) has passed in this country, I’m wanting to hear what this historic piece of legislation means to you. I’ve seen many people on Twitter today range in emotion from excited to angry to passive – some even grateful that the process has come to conclusion.

Where are you? How do you feel about the government getting into the insurance game? Regardless of where you stand, I’m interested more in why you believe what you believe and will challenge your comment openly if you don’t add that in there.

In addition, does this change how you will vote in November based on how your representative voted on the issue? Here is a list of how the votes were cast by state: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2010-165

I’ve been stewing over the constant dribble over health care reform coming out of Washington and I’ve had enough. It is time for us all to snap out of the trance, put the Kool-Aid down and get our heads into the game. What set it off for me is this excerpt from an e-mail sent by the Whitehouse.

“Over the next month there is going to be an avalanche of misinformation and scare tactics from those seeking to perpetuate the status quo. But we know the cost of doing nothing is too high. Health care costs will double over the next decade, millions more will become uninsured, and state and local governments will go bankrupt.”

There are several things to take now of here, so let’s dive right in (hang with me – it’s a bit wordy).

1. I don’t think anyone – no matter what political party or affiliation – is asking for the status quo to be perpetuated. Health insurance costs too much and is, consequently, harder and harder to get (and keep in some cases). This should alarm us, but the source of that alarm is what is in question. The Whitehouse and Congress want you to believe that nothing can be done about the “cost” of  medical treatment and the trouble lies in the insurance companies. I’m here to tell you that is a bold-faced lie. Insurance companies are like any other for-profit company. They have a fiduciary responsibility to their stakeholders to stay solvent – i.e. make a profit. As such, they hold to the same supply/demand macro-economic principles everyone else in a capitalistic society does, which is to say that if their costs go up, their retail prices go up.
2. “Health care costs will double over the next decade.” – I’m sure someone has looked at trending from the past several decades and can project the doubling of health care costs over the next 10 years, but in no way should we believe it to be gospel. Nobody can tell the future and to word this in this way only serves one purpose – to scare you into thinking that this has to be dealt with sooner rather than later.
3. If that weren’t enough, to say with certainty that millions more will be uninsured and the eventual consequence is bankrupt state and local governments is OUT OF LINE. In the last 233 years, there has NEVER been a bankrupt government. Do you know why? Because they all have the ability to raise taxes or adjust budgets. Don’t buy this – it isn’t true and the sky isn’t falling.

Back to the real reason you are still reading – the real story. Creating a government-run, tax-funded insurance option doesn’t address the costs, but it does do something else that should make you take notice – it adds competition to the market that is not only unfair, it is un-American. Capitalism demands that competition be part of the mix for fairness and equality TO PROTECT THE CONSUMER. Without competition, we have monopolies, and monopolies are bad for us – remember the telecom breakup of the ’80s?

If the Federal Government can “set” the cost of coverage without regard to natural market pressures (profit & loss largely), they in essence become a monopoly and the rest of the market has no way to compete and therefore no way to survive. The President knows this. Congress knows this. It is what they are counting on. They don’t want private insurance companies to survive because they desire more control over our lives – in part, to justify their own position and to further the agenda of big government, higher taxes and more control.

Taking this to the logical conclusion – without alternatives to the government-run option, we end up like Canada and the UK…there simply isn’t a way to avoid it because the real problem isn’t being addressed, which is the high costs associated with medical services. If the President and Congress wanted to fix the health care problem in America, they would have started there – as it is the most logical place to start. If health care costs are PROJECTED to double over the next decade, are we helpless to prevent that? I think not.

What are the contributing factors to the rise in the COSTS of medical services?

• Advancement in technology | This is a natural (and good) progression. Better technology should eventually lower health care costs as it helps to diagnose faster and more accurately as well as speed the treatment/healing process. We want this to continue and I think we all are willing to pay for it, but what if research hospitals can’t fund research because the government is controlling their profits? You know the answer…
• Malpractice insurance | The courts have done this country a huge disservice in providing a place to attract medical lawsuits. The millions upon millions awarded to those cases are paid via malpractice insurance. And because insurance companies are subject to profit/loss pressures, they must consequently raise the rate for said insurance. The doctor has no choice but to pay the increased premiums and consequently passes that along to you and me in his/her rate.Limit the amounts awarded in medical malpractice suits and the premiums come back down and so will the rates – all a natural consequence of competition in the marketplace. This is known as tort reform.
• Uninsured care | Nobody is denied emergency care in America. Again, something we can almost all agree that is good WHEN RESERVED FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS. A large portion of the costs for uninsured care comes from illegal aliens (I use the term on purpose) as they can’t get insurance BECAUSE THEY ARE ILLEGALLY IN THE COUNTRY. So, this cost is linked to another failure of our government – border security and immigration law enforcement. The hospitals therefore are forced to pass those costs on to those that actually pay the bills, which hits the insurance companies first and so on and so on…

I’m sure there are others as I’m not an expert in the field – my degree is in Physics and I design websites for a living, but even I see bad things ahead.

So what are we to do? First, tell your representatives and senators to slow down. Health care reform is a HUGE issue and should not be taken lightly and needs much debate and investigation. We didn’t get into this mess in a week, and we won’t get out of in a week. In fact, how about we focus on the economy and then tackle this issue? We must not let present-day circumstances force us into thinking that we can’t wait. We can – we have – we must.

For me there exists a line – a tolerance line of lunacy. Lately, the area of my life where this line is being danced upon is our government.  Rather than rant ceaselessly, I thought it would be good to list out the series of bad decisions our new President and his “troop” are making that have a direct impact on me and mine.

• FOCA | During the campaign, O’Bama touted his support of the Freedom of Choice Act – a bill that essentially removes a state’s right to decide how to implement Rowe v. Wade and places it in the hands of any doctor’s subjective and arbitrary decision to decide if an abortion can be performed.This bill never became law because it expired at the end of the congressional session.  This was also to be a “secure statutory right (13)”, which means that it isn’t an amendment to the Constitution and therefore doesn’t require Congress or the President to vote on it in any form or fashion.The fact that he (and other Democratic members of Congress) wanted to covertly push their pro-abortion agenda speaks volumes to the lengths they will go to get their way.
• Cabinet appointees | O’Bama’s campaign used the term “change” and he included a new strategy to “cross the aisle” to bring about said change.  Since winning the office, he has done nothing but appoint (or try to – see Daschele) the most liberal Democratic cronies he can find to the most prominent positions in the government.From that – we have seen nothing but a check writing spree for every liberal program and agenda item that has been kept in check over the past 30 years.  All disguised in the “best interest” of the economy – but I’m getting ahead of myself…The point remains that he has not engaged (or required engagement of his team) the Republican leadership in any of his plans to move this country down the road.  In fact, it has been a first 50-days characterized as one-sided politics.
• Economic “stimulation” | We’re engaged in a war on terror in the farthest reaches of the Earth – very expensive.  The average American has between $10 – $15k of credit card debt.  We tolerated $4/gallon gasoline for months.To say the economy has taken some hits is an understatement.  In fact, I think I can agree with O’Bama on at least one thing – this has been going on for a long time before he won the office.  He wants to attribute it to George Bush because it will help him justify his lunacy to the American people, but the fact is that this kind of regulatory mismanagement has been happening for much longer.So, his solution is to draft a 1,200 page bill, couch it as a way out of the economic slump we’re in, use his influence and the Democratic majority in Congress to push it through and spend almost $800 Billion ($800,000,000,000.00) that he doesn’t have and give it to companies that haven’t been fiscally responsible because he can’t stomach the capitalistic consequences this mismanagement brings.Change – no stimulus, more debt.  In fact, the economy continued its downward trend, so he introduces another $750+ Billion package and got it passed.  Then drafted a $600+ Billion healthcare reform package and a $410 Billion government spending bill that included over 8,500 Democratic projects that had nothing to do with stimulating the economy – just another vehicle for Democrats to get what they want.So, let’s see – $800B + $750B + $600B + $410B = … carry the one…add the…wow…that’s HUGE… = $2.56T that he’s proposed and of that number, he’s spent (signed into law) almost $2T.  And the stock market continues to hover around levels it hasn’t seen in 25 years.Change:  no stimulation, more debt in the first 50 days than all other president’s first 50 days combined…by a long shot!But, I’m OK (sorta) up to this point – it’s all money and I have a somewhat easy time giving our fate in this area to God.  BUT…MY President has now gone too far…
• Embryonic Stem Cell Research | March 9th, 2009 marked the day that OUR President lifted the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research thus abolishing the ethical, moral and political stigma this type of research has been held in check by.  Has this type of research been taking place in the US and other countries before the President’s decision – yes.  What benefit has that research yielded – very little, none if you really net it out.On a fiscal note, this is very consistent that O’Bama would throw taxpayer money at something that has no historical precedent of success.  On a ethical note, this frees research companies from the burden of convincing the private sector for funding – they essentially get money without anyone asking the hard questions.This freedom will create an enormous amount of energy for existing and new startups to divert resources to something that has the potential for $Trillions in Parkinsons treatments/cure alone.  The “profit lust” will move the medical community right by the ethical “embryonic life” questions and will most likely increase embryonic production for research purposes.

So The Line has been crossed by a President in the first 50 days of his administration as I see America being restructured and remade according to a liberal vision.  And there are at minimum, 1410 days left – I can’t even begin to fathom what life will look like at that point.

Mr. O’Bama – if you want to stimulate the economy, repeal the Self Employment tax, capital gains tax and suspend income taxes for all Americans for one year.  You’ll see companies open up and be able to hire people, consumer debt retired, consumer confidence increase and the pressure we all feel will be released and true economic innovation can be fostered.  Plus, it will cost the government far less than the $2.56T on the docket.

So, for you – has your line been crossed?

When I heard that John McCain had selected Sarah Palin as his running mate, I have to admin that I didn’t know who she was.  At the time, it didn’t bother me much because I’d decided to vote for McCain anyway – primarily as a vote against Obama.

I saw something last night that makes me “smile out loud” as my wife commented on how Sarah Palin reminds her of her childhood dream to be President.  Smart.  Decisive.  Witty.  Strategic.  All words to describe her speech (and hopefully her as well), but the quality that struck me most was her ability to inspire me to lose the apathy I’ve built up about this election.

All of a sudden, I find myself freely talking politics with co-workers with passion.  What a breath of fresh air in a slugfest that has brought out the worst in many people over the past two years.  These last few months are going to be a neat time for our country.

What are your thoughts on Sarah Palin?