We are at a critical time in our nation’s history. If we open the door to socialized medicine here in the United States, it will be almost impossible to recover from that blow. In 1964, Ronald Reagan said as he concluded his famous speech warning of the dangers posed by totalitarian governments around the world:
We’ll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.
If we turn this country into a socialist nation, we will have gone down that path. We still have a chance to save ourselves, but we are in a precarious position right now. Aiding us in this battle is an unlikely and an unwitting hero: Ralph Nader. Mr. Nader made a name for himself decades ago as a passionate consumer advocate. He crusaded against products that he felt were harmful to the general public. In recent years, he has campaigned for the office of President of the United States several times. He runs on a platform that is so far to the extreme left that it makes the Obama administration look downright reasonable. (I seem to recall hearing him suggest that the government should nationalize – that is, steal – the largest 100 corporations in America.)
Nader saved us from Gore
Most notably, Ralph Nader ran as the nominee of the Green Party in 2000. In the state of Florida, George W. Bush won the vote in that state over Al Gore by a margin of 537 votes (Yes! Yes, he did!). Ralph Nader received a tiny percentage of the vote – only 1.63%. That’s not very much at all. However, it does amount to 97,488 votes. There is no question in my mind that the presence of Ralph Nader on that (oh, so confusing) ballot prevented Al Gore from winning the state of Florida. There is almost nobody who voted for Nader who would have voted for Bush. Even if most of the Nader voters had stayed home, surely at least 1% of them would have still voted. And they would have cast their votes for Gore.
By running for President in 2000, Ralph Nader saved our country from an Al Gore presidency. Gore’s advocacy for radical extreme environmental policies could have been a disaster. (President Obama is attempting to implement those same policies now, but that is a discussion for another time.) The watermelon (remember: green on the outside, red on the inside) environmentalists are really just using their issues as a cover for wealth redistribution.
His campaign is still helping us today
By preventing a Gore victory in 2000, Nader did our nation yet another service that is benefitting us right now. Since Gore’s running mate, Senator Joseph Lieberman, did not become the Vice President, he remains in the U. S. Senate to this day. He is one of the very few senators on the left side of the aisle who is standing up and fighting this so called “public option” in the health care bill. (Despite his official label as an Independent, his is still in reality a Democrat.) If it were not for him, the advocates of socialized medicine in our government would have a much easier time.
We may still lose this battle and find ourselves trying to explain to our grandchildren how it is that we got stuck on this road “into a thousand years of darkness”. But right now, people like Senator Joe Lieberman are still giving us a fighting chance!
When you find yourself on the same side of a political debate as a large crowd of people who are consistently wrong on just about every major issue, it should make you pause and think for a moment. Back when the Obama administration was supporting the illegal move by Honduran President Mel Zelaya to run for a third term (a move expressly forbidden by the constitution of Honduras), it was Charles Krauthammer who said:
Whenever you find yourself on the side of Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega and the Castro twins, you ought to reexamine your assumptions.
I find myself in a similar position where I am on the same side of the debate over this health care bill as Howard Dean, Keith Olbermann, and Michael Moore. If that group of people told me that the earth was in orbit around the sun, it would cause me to go back and review all I currently understand about the solar system. However, they and I are in agreement that whatever bill is being debated right now in Congress should be voted down. Hell, I even find myself in agreement with Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont – the only socialist member of Congress who has the integrity to identify himself as such.
Of course, we are not really on the same side. They oppose it because it is not socialistic enough for them. I oppose it because it goes too far in the direction of socialism and would cause great harm to our economy and our health care system. We both agree it is a bad bill and if the end result is that it does not pass in Congress, then it will be good for our country.
I wish I could take credit for this, but I cannot. I saw it in an e-mail that was sent to me by a good friend. The e-mail had a bunch of pro second amendment posters. This one, I think, best captures the mindset of those on both sides of this debate.
Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.
One of the reasons given by the Nobel Committee for awarding its Peace Prize to President Barack Obama was his stated desire to provide a world free of nuclear weapons. He has done nothing, mind you, to make that happen, yet. Nevertheless the prize is his just because he wishes it so. The irony is that if we ever did find ourselves living in a world without nuclear weapons, it would not achieve peace. Quite the contrary, the world would be a much more dangerous place!
Stuck in a gun control mindset
People like President Obama and the Nobel Committee are stuck in a gun control mindset. They hold the ridiculous belief that the evil lies within the weapon itself. In reality, the weapon is neither good nor evil. It is just a tool. Good or evil can only result from the actions of the one who possesses the weapon. Those who are horrified at the prospect of a law abiding citizen owning a gun fail to understand this concept.
Peace through strength – it works!
If a violent thug and an average decent person cross paths and neither one of them have a weapon, then the odds are very high that the decent person will be badly injured or killed. If they both have weapons, then it is much more likely that no one will be harmed. Even though violent thugs don’t mind killing innocent members of our society, it turns out that most of them prefer not to be killed themselves. If they know that someone can defend himself, they are going to move on to a more helpless target. It is even better if the violent thug has no weapon and the decent person has one! In this scenario, peace becomes more and more likely when the good become stronger relative to the evil.
It works for nations, too!
Likewise, a nuclear bomb has no inherent moral value. Like a gun, or a knife or a hammer or any weapon, morality is dependent upon how it is used by someone. Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran are bad. Nuclear weapons in the hands of the United States are good. In a world free of nuclear weapons, it becomes much more likely that evil states like Iran and North Korea will do harm to others. If the only nuclear weapons belong to the United States and its good allies, then you are much more likely to achieve peace.
It’s OK to think America is bad, just don’t run for president
The problem is that people like President Obama and his fellow travelers do not believe in the goodness of the United States. They are ashamed of this country and its values. This is why he feels the need to apologize for our country everywhere he goes. This is why he has stated that he wants to “fundamentally transform” America. These people have the wrong headed idea that there is no difference between the United States having nuclear weapons and Iran having them. They feel that we have no right to tell Iran that they can’t have nuclear weapons while we still have ours. They fail to recognize our moral superiority in this matter.
When a college professor or a friend or a neighbor holds these opinions it is harmless enough and can even lead to some interesting debate. But when the President of the United States holds these views, it makes the world a much more dangerous place to live.