I am proud to call myself a denier of catastrophic human-caused global warming.
I deny that there is any scientific evidence that the carbon dioxide I emit while breathing, driving, flying, or computing, is going to change our planet’s climate in any measurable way.
I deny that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. I affirm that carbon dioxide is the source of all life on earth, and that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will promote the growth of plants, thus providing more food for humans and animals.
I deny that carbon dioxide, the vital gas of life, is anything more than a very minor part of the misnamed “greenhouse effect.” I affirm that the most important part of the so-called greenhouse effect is water.
I deny that there is any scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, from whatever source, will make the earth’s oceans less alkaline, will cause more and bigger hurricanes, or will make the sea level rise any faster than the current ~2mm/year.
I deny that humans and their activities are a cancer on the face of the earth.
I deny that humans are the most destructive species. I affirm that only humans can love polar bears, save the whales, and enjoy the beauties of our still-mostly-untouched planet.
I deny that politically funded science, done at the behest of politicians whose sole lust is for more taxpayer money and more power over ordinary people’s lives, is science. I affirm that such politically funded science is, in fact, propaganda in its most insidious form.
I affirm that the pseudoscientific religion of human-caused climate change is deceit and deception.
I affirm humanity and human intelligence, and affirm that humans are capable of adapting to whatever climate the planet may change to, whether that be warmer or colder.
I am a denier of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change.
And I’m proud to call myself a denier.
2009-11-20
2009-10-07
First, DO NO HARM!
Dear Jared (Polis), Mark (Udall), and Michael (Bennett):
In response to a previous missive of mine, I received a franked, printed letter from Mark Udall, Colorado Senator, dated September 16, 2009. In it Mark listed five requirements that would have to be satisfied before he would vote for health care legislation:
1. Allow people who like the coverage they have to keep it.
2. Bring costs down so that all Coloradans are able to cover their families while staying within their means.
3. Preserve the critical doctor-patient relationship, ensuring that decisions about treatment are made by those who know the patient best.
4. Call for insurers to provide coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions or medical history.
5. Be fiscally responsible.
Jared and Michael, I invite you to listen in on my response to Mark's requirements, since you all will have some effect on the final shape of health services in these formerly free united States. Here's my take on the five:
1. Merely allowing people to keep their current coverage if they like it isn't enough. Any bill that surreptitiously undermines the economic structure of insurance by providing an expensively subsidized "public option" (actually, let's call it by its right name: Government Mandate) will eventually destroy the private insurance business, since private organizations will be unable to compete with the anti-competitively subsidized government "option."
2. A far better way to truly bring costs down is to reopen a free market in medical services by first desanctioning all organizations like the AMA, ADA, etc., and allowing these organizations to evaluate their practitioners privately, without the force and violence of government looming behind their membership requirements. In other words: abolish the phrase "illegal practice of medicine." I hesitate to mention the corollary "illegal practice of law" and its accompanying phrase "malpractice reform."
3. The best way to restore the doctor-patient relationship is to relink its economic lifeline by either removing the unfair and economically devastating tax deduction that only corporations get for providing health insurance for their employees, OR level the playing field by making all healthcare costs fully tax-deductible by individuals. If the health reform bill that you vote for does not address this long-entrenched unfairness, it will do nothing to improve the doctor-patient relationship, and will likely destroy it instead, by interposing government bureaucracies between the patient and doctor.
4. The completely nonsensical and ruinous call for insurers to cover all pre-existing conditions and ignore medical history will lead to people buying insurance only when faced by medical expenses they can't handle on their own. This flies in the very face of the bald meaning of the word "insurance." Are you trying to redefine the English language? Please drop this pandering to those whose foresight lacks the basic common sense to prepare themselves for situations they can't imagine might happen in their future. And it is pandering, pure and simple. Stop it.
5. It isn't possible for a taxpayer-financed government program to be fiscally responsible. This is oxymoronic for any government program. Medicare: bankrupt. Social Security: bankrupt. Please quit voting for fiscally irresponsible programs that inevitably turn out more expensive than "expected." Listen to the CBO. Hear what they're saying about both HR3200 and the equally fiscally irresponsible Baucus permutation of health care "reform." Don't vote for either. And don't vote for any fraudulent anti-democratic "reconciliation" to force passage of health care legislation around the machinations of equally irresponsible Republicans.
Until you know exactly, within $100 million, what a ginormous new health care bureaucracy will cost, I'd suggest you not impose it on the economically suffering people of these formerly free united States. If you vote for a bill that you don't know the exact costs of, I will hold you fully responsible, and will make sure that your career as my Representative or Senator is as short as is electorially possible.
And how deceptive of all of you to push the full imposition of your destructive vision of our health care future beyond the 10-year accounting window used by the CBO. That's fraud on a massive basis. I will hold you accountable for that fraud in the next election.
If corporate CEOs behaved this way you'd use Sarbanes-Oxley to put them in jail.
Madoff defrauded in the billions. Youse guys commit fraud in the trillions.
Reset, reboot, restart, and look for the true causes of health care unaffordability: government interventions that have distorted the market for health care into an unrecognizable money pit. Once you have recognized these causes, repeal them. Only so can the people of these formerly free united States once again experience affordable, high quality health care.
Repent or electoral retribution is mine, saith this voter.
Earl
In response to a previous missive of mine, I received a franked, printed letter from Mark Udall, Colorado Senator, dated September 16, 2009. In it Mark listed five requirements that would have to be satisfied before he would vote for health care legislation:
1. Allow people who like the coverage they have to keep it.
2. Bring costs down so that all Coloradans are able to cover their families while staying within their means.
3. Preserve the critical doctor-patient relationship, ensuring that decisions about treatment are made by those who know the patient best.
4. Call for insurers to provide coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions or medical history.
5. Be fiscally responsible.
Jared and Michael, I invite you to listen in on my response to Mark's requirements, since you all will have some effect on the final shape of health services in these formerly free united States. Here's my take on the five:
1. Merely allowing people to keep their current coverage if they like it isn't enough. Any bill that surreptitiously undermines the economic structure of insurance by providing an expensively subsidized "public option" (actually, let's call it by its right name: Government Mandate) will eventually destroy the private insurance business, since private organizations will be unable to compete with the anti-competitively subsidized government "option."
2. A far better way to truly bring costs down is to reopen a free market in medical services by first desanctioning all organizations like the AMA, ADA, etc., and allowing these organizations to evaluate their practitioners privately, without the force and violence of government looming behind their membership requirements. In other words: abolish the phrase "illegal practice of medicine." I hesitate to mention the corollary "illegal practice of law" and its accompanying phrase "malpractice reform."
3. The best way to restore the doctor-patient relationship is to relink its economic lifeline by either removing the unfair and economically devastating tax deduction that only corporations get for providing health insurance for their employees, OR level the playing field by making all healthcare costs fully tax-deductible by individuals. If the health reform bill that you vote for does not address this long-entrenched unfairness, it will do nothing to improve the doctor-patient relationship, and will likely destroy it instead, by interposing government bureaucracies between the patient and doctor.
4. The completely nonsensical and ruinous call for insurers to cover all pre-existing conditions and ignore medical history will lead to people buying insurance only when faced by medical expenses they can't handle on their own. This flies in the very face of the bald meaning of the word "insurance." Are you trying to redefine the English language? Please drop this pandering to those whose foresight lacks the basic common sense to prepare themselves for situations they can't imagine might happen in their future. And it is pandering, pure and simple. Stop it.
5. It isn't possible for a taxpayer-financed government program to be fiscally responsible. This is oxymoronic for any government program. Medicare: bankrupt. Social Security: bankrupt. Please quit voting for fiscally irresponsible programs that inevitably turn out more expensive than "expected." Listen to the CBO. Hear what they're saying about both HR3200 and the equally fiscally irresponsible Baucus permutation of health care "reform." Don't vote for either. And don't vote for any fraudulent anti-democratic "reconciliation" to force passage of health care legislation around the machinations of equally irresponsible Republicans.
Until you know exactly, within $100 million, what a ginormous new health care bureaucracy will cost, I'd suggest you not impose it on the economically suffering people of these formerly free united States. If you vote for a bill that you don't know the exact costs of, I will hold you fully responsible, and will make sure that your career as my Representative or Senator is as short as is electorially possible.
And how deceptive of all of you to push the full imposition of your destructive vision of our health care future beyond the 10-year accounting window used by the CBO. That's fraud on a massive basis. I will hold you accountable for that fraud in the next election.
If corporate CEOs behaved this way you'd use Sarbanes-Oxley to put them in jail.
Madoff defrauded in the billions. Youse guys commit fraud in the trillions.
Reset, reboot, restart, and look for the true causes of health care unaffordability: government interventions that have distorted the market for health care into an unrecognizable money pit. Once you have recognized these causes, repeal them. Only so can the people of these formerly free united States once again experience affordable, high quality health care.
Repent or electoral retribution is mine, saith this voter.
Earl
2009-09-09
Questions For My Federal Imposers
Dear Jared, Mark, and Michael:
I'd like you to use the following set of questions as you listen to our President speak on health care this evening:
1. How does Obama reconcile creating another government bureaucracy which spends trillions of taxpayers’ hard earned money and insures 350 million Americans, with creating "efficiencies" and "reducing costs?"
2. When Obama talks about the people who say “we just can’t do nothing,” who, specifically, has said that besides Obama?
3. Does Obama talk about comprehensive tort reform and reducing defensive medicine/documentation practices which will reduce costs by tens of billions of dollars?
4. Does Obama talk about allowing the 1300+ insurance companies to sell plans across state lines by enforcing the Constitution's Commerce Clause, which will reduce costs for every single American dramatically? It’s worked for millions of products and services for decades, why does he think it won’t work for health insurance?
5. Does Obama talk about making health insurance for the individual tax deductible which will allow Americans to use their own dollars to make their own choices about their own health care?
6. Does Obama talk about the numerous alternative plans that have been offered and why does he keep saying no plans have been offered by Republicans? Hasn’t he seen HR 3400?
7. Does Obama specifically address how he will reform Medicare’s $38 trillion of unfunded debt?
8. Does Obama specifically state how ObamaCare will improve the quality of health care for every American?
9. How does Obama reconcile his mantra of deficit-neutral health care reform with the knowledge that the CBO tells him that his plan will add tens of billions every year to the deficit?
10. When Obama talks about the public option, does he inform the American people that the only choices they will have are mandated by hundreds (perhaps thousands!) of government regulations?
11. Does Obama inform the people of America about the 50+ new agencies, committees, and panels that ObamaCare will create?
12. Does Obama inform the American people that the main agency that will enforce compliance with ObamaCare is the IRS?
13. Does Obama inform the American people that participants in Medicare D will see their premiums rise by 20%?
14. Will Obama inform the people that the 47 million uninsured number is inaccurate according to the Census Bureau?
15. Will Obama tell the truth about the "uninsured" -– That only about 4% of the total population in U.S. is uninsured. Allowing about half of the 18 million (ages 18 to 34) as part of the 17 million (household income > $50K), 9.5 million + 17 million + 9 million = 35.5 million. 46.6 million – 35.5 million = 11.1 million potentially “uninsured.” In 2006, the Census Bureau reported that there were 46.6 million people without health insurance. About 9.5 million were not United States citizens. Another 17 million lived in households with incomes exceeding $50,000 a year and could, presumably, purchase their own health coverage [1]. Eighteen million of the 46.6 million uninsured were between the ages of eighteen and thirty-four, most of whom were in good health and not necessarily in need of health-care coverage or chose not to purchase it [2]. Moreover, only 30 percent of the nonelderly population who became uninsured in a given year remained uninsured for more than twelve months. Almost 50 percent regained their health coverage within four months [3]. The 47 million “uninsured” figure used by [Speaker of the House Nancy] Pelosi and others is wildly inaccurate.” [From "Liberty and Tyranny" by Mark Levin.]
16. When Obama talks about special interest groups, will he inform the American people that he is the biggest monetary benefactor of special interest groups like the ABA, the AMA, the SEIU, the AFL-CIO, and the Teamsters?
17. When Obama starts bringing up the stories of people who have problems with their insurance will he bring up any stories of the 85% of Americans who are happy with their insurance?
18. Will Obama have an explanation for the American people as to why he hasn’t invited GOP leaders to the White House since April of this year for talks on health care reform? Will he tell the American people why he said to GOP leaders that he has health care reform under control?
19. When Obama talks about health care/insurance reform, does he know the actual definition of reform – ‘to put or change into an improved form or condition?’
20. Based on the actual definition of reform, does ObamaCare come anywhere close to true reform?
21. Does Obama present a plan that is market-based, limits the role of government, decreases costs, improves the quality and delivery of health care, has comprehensive tort reform, and allows for complete freedom of choice by the individual?
Please, please, take notes on the speech and send me your answers. I'll be teaching a class tonight, and won't be able to watch it. I'd be very interested in your answers to the above questions.
Your voting, vocal, and very concerned constituent,
I'd like you to use the following set of questions as you listen to our President speak on health care this evening:
1. How does Obama reconcile creating another government bureaucracy which spends trillions of taxpayers’ hard earned money and insures 350 million Americans, with creating "efficiencies" and "reducing costs?"
2. When Obama talks about the people who say “we just can’t do nothing,” who, specifically, has said that besides Obama?
3. Does Obama talk about comprehensive tort reform and reducing defensive medicine/documentation practices which will reduce costs by tens of billions of dollars?
4. Does Obama talk about allowing the 1300+ insurance companies to sell plans across state lines by enforcing the Constitution's Commerce Clause, which will reduce costs for every single American dramatically? It’s worked for millions of products and services for decades, why does he think it won’t work for health insurance?
5. Does Obama talk about making health insurance for the individual tax deductible which will allow Americans to use their own dollars to make their own choices about their own health care?
6. Does Obama talk about the numerous alternative plans that have been offered and why does he keep saying no plans have been offered by Republicans? Hasn’t he seen HR 3400?
7. Does Obama specifically address how he will reform Medicare’s $38 trillion of unfunded debt?
8. Does Obama specifically state how ObamaCare will improve the quality of health care for every American?
9. How does Obama reconcile his mantra of deficit-neutral health care reform with the knowledge that the CBO tells him that his plan will add tens of billions every year to the deficit?
10. When Obama talks about the public option, does he inform the American people that the only choices they will have are mandated by hundreds (perhaps thousands!) of government regulations?
11. Does Obama inform the people of America about the 50+ new agencies, committees, and panels that ObamaCare will create?
12. Does Obama inform the American people that the main agency that will enforce compliance with ObamaCare is the IRS?
13. Does Obama inform the American people that participants in Medicare D will see their premiums rise by 20%?
14. Will Obama inform the people that the 47 million uninsured number is inaccurate according to the Census Bureau?
15. Will Obama tell the truth about the "uninsured" -– That only about 4% of the total population in U.S. is uninsured. Allowing about half of the 18 million (ages 18 to 34) as part of the 17 million (household income > $50K), 9.5 million + 17 million + 9 million = 35.5 million. 46.6 million – 35.5 million = 11.1 million potentially “uninsured.” In 2006, the Census Bureau reported that there were 46.6 million people without health insurance. About 9.5 million were not United States citizens. Another 17 million lived in households with incomes exceeding $50,000 a year and could, presumably, purchase their own health coverage [1]. Eighteen million of the 46.6 million uninsured were between the ages of eighteen and thirty-four, most of whom were in good health and not necessarily in need of health-care coverage or chose not to purchase it [2]. Moreover, only 30 percent of the nonelderly population who became uninsured in a given year remained uninsured for more than twelve months. Almost 50 percent regained their health coverage within four months [3]. The 47 million “uninsured” figure used by [Speaker of the House Nancy] Pelosi and others is wildly inaccurate.” [From "Liberty and Tyranny" by Mark Levin.]
16. When Obama talks about special interest groups, will he inform the American people that he is the biggest monetary benefactor of special interest groups like the ABA, the AMA, the SEIU, the AFL-CIO, and the Teamsters?
17. When Obama starts bringing up the stories of people who have problems with their insurance will he bring up any stories of the 85% of Americans who are happy with their insurance?
18. Will Obama have an explanation for the American people as to why he hasn’t invited GOP leaders to the White House since April of this year for talks on health care reform? Will he tell the American people why he said to GOP leaders that he has health care reform under control?
19. When Obama talks about health care/insurance reform, does he know the actual definition of reform – ‘to put or change into an improved form or condition?’
20. Based on the actual definition of reform, does ObamaCare come anywhere close to true reform?
21. Does Obama present a plan that is market-based, limits the role of government, decreases costs, improves the quality and delivery of health care, has comprehensive tort reform, and allows for complete freedom of choice by the individual?
Please, please, take notes on the speech and send me your answers. I'll be teaching a class tonight, and won't be able to watch it. I'd be very interested in your answers to the above questions.
Your voting, vocal, and very concerned constituent,
[Edited and revised from http://bit.ly/35hEnW ]
2009-08-26
Tribute to Sydney Earl Allen, Jr.
2009-08-25 1800 PDT
Loma Linda University Church Chapel, Loma Linda, CA, formerly free united States
My name is Earl, and I have a few karmic failures to cross off my list, most notably my recent lack of honor for the man whose genetic code I share with my siblings.
My father was a heretic. Heretics are necessary. Heretics are important. I’m speaking, of course, of heretics like Lao Zi, Socrates, Jesus of Nazareth, Galileo Galilei, Martin Luther, Thomas Jefferson, Ellen White, Mohandas Ghandi, Ayn Rand, and my father, Sydney Earl Allen, Jr. He followed in the footsteps of that civil heretic, Desmond Doss, the conscientiously objecting medic whose beliefs did not allow him to be enslaved by the force and violence of the un-Constitutional draft imposed on him by his political masters in their attempt to override his conscience.
Paradoxically, my father was a believer in force and violence. He agreed with Chairman Mao's little red book dictum that "Political Power grows out of the barrel of a gun." He never used a gun on us children, but he never spared the belt or Uncle John's strap as negative re-enforcement against our annoying or rule-breaking behavior. If he had been born 60 years later, we children almost certainly would have been wrested away from him by Social Services, to be placed into several foster homes by the benevolent State. Oddly enough, none of his children could be called “spoiled.”
My father was never constrained by a foolish consistency. He was a teacher of Boolean logic, but the excuses and rationalizations by which he lived were anything but logical. He ferreted out the injustices caused by church leaders who made profits off the weak and gullible, but he turned a blind eye when his country’s political leaders did exactly the same thing "for the good of the people."
Never was the aphorism, "take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye," more aptly applied than to my father. He was permanently behind in his tax payments, but advocated ever-higher taxes, thus enabling our misanthropic enslavement by the National Security State.
Despite his heretical objections to the political controllers of the church he loved, he consistently supported the most tyrannical political controllers of the country he lived in. He lionized America's second Great Dictator, FDR, for having solved the problem of the Great Depression by nearly bankrupting the country through ruinous spending. My father's fiscal policies, or lack thereof, followed FDR’s model throughout the time I knew him.
My father believed, along with many other deluded Americans, in the malignantly misanthropic prevarication that the breath of life that you and I exhale, pollutes the pristine planet. I hope he would be proud of my environmentally heretical belief that the planet's ultimate resource is the freedom-enabled individual making informed choices on her own behalf. I could never understand his embrace of the hubristically fabricated fallacy of human-caused climate change.
And, in the end, he showed exactly how Leviathan's bureaucratic tentacles prevent Americans from becoming healthy and staying healthy. When he suffered the spiritual blow of losing the one job he truly loved: that of spreading the gospel and knowledge to our petite brown brothers and sisters in the Philippines, he began to drown his sorrows in binges of overeating. Because he was never burdened by the true costs of this unhealthy behavior, he continued to feed his skin cancer and ignore his diabetes and blood pressure problems until almost the very end of his 80-year-long life.
Near the end of his life, my father was embraced by coercively subsidized state health care, allowing his children, including myself, to ignore his pathetic helplessness, letting him slip away in his sleep, by himself, in the quiet anonymity of a hospice bed.
You and I, the family and friends of my father, Sydney Earl Allen, Jr., can learn from his life and his death. Let us be proud heretics amongst our witlessly indoctrinated fellow citizens,
lest we end up,
like my father,
in the land of the enslaved and the home of the gutless.
[for further information, see http://mises.org/story/3657 ]
2008-11-09
Dear Senator McCain,
Hey Johnny,
I can do no better than to recommend that you read this. Too bad about what happened. Next time, think twice about putting your name on such overtly unConstitutional imperatives as McCain-Feingold.
I'll be watching you.
Yours in Liberty,
W. Earl Allen
I can do no better than to recommend that you read this. Too bad about what happened. Next time, think twice about putting your name on such overtly unConstitutional imperatives as McCain-Feingold.
I'll be watching you.
Yours in Liberty,
W. Earl Allen
2008-10-22
Dear Senator OBAMA!
Hey Barry,
Even though it might be a bit early in the game, I'm going to make a donkey of you and me that you are now the Ruler of the Known Universe with all the powers appertaining thereunto. Being a Harvard man, I'm sure you get that lingo.
Since you don't know me from Joe the Plumber, you might note that, like you, I lived for a long time in Asia under several different dictators ranging from the benign Lee Kuan Yew to the malignant Ferdinand Marcos. Unlike Sarah Palin, I can't see Siberia from my front door, but have only seen its blindingly white barrenness from the window of an airliner.
You graduated from high school the same year I graduated from grad school with an M.A. in English Lit. You edited the Harvard Law Review, but I only edited my high school's newspaper when I was in Singapore while you were in elementary school just south of me in Jakarta. Lee Kuan Yew's government benignly censored my high school newspaper, something George Bush 41's government didn't do to your editions of the Harvard Law Review.
We thus share a history of living in Asia, where change is happening at a rate that boggles even the Asians. I've noted that one of the major themes of your race for the rulership has been "change." I'm very skeptical, however, that you really intend to change anything.
The Congress of These United States has been dominated by a majority of the members of your chosen party for quite a few years now. Yet we haven't seen much change. American troops continue to occupy parts of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Germany, and around 100 other countries that thus give up bits and pieces of their military sovereignty. I haven't heard any proposals from you or your buddies in the Senate to move away from these united States' current stance of Team America, World Police.
Because I was censored in Singapore, I'm very sensitive to kind of violations of civil liberty that we see most often in airports: loss of privacy through 3D X-ray machines that show human body parts in all their pornographic glory; requirements for every worker in these united States to prove citizenship through showing of "Your papers, please." These routine decimations of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution don't appear to be addressed in your call for "change." And, although you once taught Constitutional law, I suspect your Rulership won't change the trashing that you and all the other law-imposers have inflicted on the Constitution during this century.
I don't see either you or your fellow party members calling for an end to the War on Ourselves that you and most of the other Senators and Congressmen foisted on us in hysterical overreaction to the tragic loss of 3000 Americans in New York's World Trade Center more than seven years ago. Having lived in Muslim Indonesia, you must be aware of the hatred for America caused by our continued occupation of the Muslim holy land, and our ongoing meddling in almost all the other countries of the so called Middle East. Removing any hint of meddling and occupation would also remove the most potent cause for the terrorism that we are no longer experiencing.
Since terrorists no longer endanger us, why are we continuing to terrorize ourselves with airport security that denigrates United States Citizens and makes us look like a Police State to the rest of the world? As an additional side-effect, those same airport security measures have nearly destroyed the once-proud American airline industry. Do you have a plan to change these measures, removing their unConstitutional restrictions on the right to privacy and travel? I suspect not. Yeah, thought so. You're afraid of change that makes you look like you're "soft on terror." Yep.
As a side note, if you and your political buddies had allowed united States Citizens to Constitutionally defend themselves on all airline flights, there would not have been a tragic loss of 3000 lives in 2001. And if the Constitution was as honored in the air as it is (finally) on the ground in the District of Columbia, we would never again see anyone, terrorist or otherwise, terrorize a flight on an American airline. To paraphrase one of my favorite authors, "A society that can defend itself is a polite society."
Which brings us finally to the real issue of change in these united States: you politicians don't trust us. You don't trust American citizens with the rights guaranteed us by the Constitution. You don't trust us with the right to defend ourselves. You don't trust us to be charitable to those less fortunate than ourselves, and instead use the force and violence of the IRS to extract "charity" that you then take 70% away for administration, leaving only 30% to demean and disincentivize its recipients.
You don't trust us to care for our environment in a way that doesn't destroy our ability to make a living for ourselves. You don't trust us to put into our bodies those substances we believe will make us healthier. You don't trust us to decide for ourselves whether or not to continue or prevent a pregnancy. You don't trust us to travel to Cuba and befriend Cubans, allowing them to see the true cost of the authoritarian poverty their government has imposed on them.
You don't trust us to pay for and use wisely the best health-care institutions in the Known Universe. You don't trust us to deduct our own health care expenses from taxes rather than giving that privilege only to our employers. You don't trust us to choose a health insurance company that has, as one of its competitive advantages, a guarantee to cover people who aren't completely disease-free.
You don't even trust our planet Gaia's built-in feedback mechanisms that will prevent runaway warming from whatever cause, be it human or natural. Instead, you trust the garbage-in-garbage-out of a few hand-tweaked computer programs that erroneously continue to predict the warming of a globe that is now cooling, a far more dangerous temperature for human beings. You trust these computer programs to the detriment of hundreds of thousands of poor people, who are starving from a 50% increase in food prices due to your insistence that we burn corn for fuel instead of food.
And, worst of all, you don't trust us to invest in our own future and provide for our sunset years. Instead, you force us to fund a bogus Ponzi scheme that cheats the poorest and least healthy among us out of a decent heritage.
If you could persuade your fellow law-imposers to get rid of a few thousand of the most Constitutionally-infringing impediments that you've imposed during this new century, I might trust you with the Rulership of the Known Universe. Until then, I will remain wary and vigilant.
Yours in Liberty,
W. Earl Allen
P.S. Look for my Dear Johnny letter soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
