Blue Republicans and Ron Paul

When a presidential candidate gets endorsements from pastor Voddie Baucham, Herb Titus, Norma McCorvey, Oliver Stone and Blue Republicans (who are really Democrats), what does that mean? Are you a right wing nutcase or a liberal fruit loop?

Voddie Baucham is a pastor well-known for his movement to reform the Southern Baptist Convention to be more patriarchal and to abandon public schools. Baucham says that sending your christian child to public school is like sacrificing him to Molech. Strong language. Baucham calls homeschooling the christian alternative. He endorses Ron Paul, calling him essentially the Christian choice.

Norma McCorvey is Jane Roe from the case that enshrined abortion as a federal issue, Roe v Wade. It was her lawsuit that made it to the Supreme Court of the United States and lead to the death of tens of million unborn children. Today Norma is a vocal pro-life activist. And, she endorses the Ron Paul approach to returning jurisdiction to the States. No pro-lifer disputes her credibility.

Herb Titus is a constitutional attorney that has won at the Supreme Court level, working with Judge Roy Moore’s team defending the State of Alabama’s display of the ten commandments in a courthouse. Titus is also party to a lawsuit that questions Obama’s credentials as a natural-born citizen. That lawsuit is currently before the Georgia Supreme Court. If successful at proving that natural born means born of two American citizens, it may be that not only Newt Gingrich fails to make the ballot in several states but also Obama fails to make the cut. Titus says that Ron Paul is the constitutionalists’ choice.

Oliver Stone, the liberal Hollywood blockbuster production machine, known for rated-R films of grotesque content, said in an interview that he would vote for Ron Paul instead of Obama, if given the opportunity. Stone cites not Paul’s anti-isolationist foreign policy, but instead economic reasons. Stone says he’s sick of the spending spree, and that Ron Paul’s view of the future is the only intelligent view. The world economy is on the brink of collapse, an increasingly non-partisan finding of fact.

Blue Republicans are supporting Ron Paul as well. Is that a Reagan Democrat or a depressed Republican? It turns out that Democrats are disaffected by Obama’s foreign policy (attacking countries unpredictably), corporate welfare bailout schemes (TARP and stimulus), violation of the 4th amendment (patriot act extension), and expansion of TSA. The founder, Robin Koerner, says that Obama is Bush III, if judged by the size and valency of his programs. Some Democrats thought Obama would make the USA more free. They were wrong. But, they are coming out for Ron Paul to make up for their mistake. See this local BSU event for more.

Blue Republican Event
Saturday, January 28, 2011
Boise State University,
Jordan Ballroom
7:00 – 9:00 PM

In primary elections the old-guard Republicans warn against choosing the most conservative candidate, citing the need to attract independents in the general election. In general elections the same Republicans say it is necessary to move to the center to appeal to the independent voter. Ron Paul consistently scores very high among independents. So, it follows logically that Ron Paul would do well in a general election.

Paul doubters either want to maintain power or are convinced that constitutionality is a concept beyond which we have long since de-evolved. They say of the constitution what they say of Ron Paul, “We like it but it will never happen.” Newsflash! if it doesn’t happen, we will likely live a worse future than we have seen in Oliver Stone’s movies.

The last note is for Christians. For those that can’t bear to eat with sinners, remember that God’s ways are mysterious and he confounds the logic of the world. Who are you to say that God will not use unusual circumstances to glorify himself and perhaps preserve an undeserving America, just as he saved Ninevah?

Blue Republican Event
Saturday, January 28, 2011
Boise State University,
Jordan Ballroom
7:00 – 9:00 PM

ROMNEYCARE better than OBAMACARE?

Romney wants to replace federal healthcare with federal healthcare. That’s right: he doesn’t want to repeal and defer the issue to states. He promises to “repeal and replace.”  Replace with Massachusetts healthcare?  No thank you.  Isn’t it time we’ve called a spade a spade?  Obama rightly claims most of the ideas for O-care came from R-care.  Even Obama sees the irony.  Obama thinks this is funny, but America doesn’t.

(See my last post on Idaho politicians who are selling Idaho’s healthcare decisions to M.Romney.)

Romneycare Pledge

Romneycare at the federal level is still unprecedented federal expansion.  Romney thinks he’s smart enough to manage America.  But, we don’t need a manager.  We need a man who understands the power of a free man and the destructive nature of governors who don’t know when to let America self-govern and troubleshoot locally.  That’s the free market, not a Republican version of a socialist law.

Healthcare Exchange is Bureaucratic Expansion

The little-discussed basis of the healthcare-exchange idea is that government sets it up, runs it and writes the rules governing it. Many right-wing politicians are talking about how great the idea is, and how it will save Idaho from Obamacare. But, will it? One of the backdoor mandates, which is the motive behind Otter’s move to seize the federal funding ($40,000,000), is that Idaho has been threatened with an ultimatum. Create a health exchange or else. Or else what? Or else the Obama administration will set one up. That doesn’t sound like much of an option. Idahoans don’t want government to expand its already bloated bureaucracy.

Even if she wanted to, Idaho, coming off of a 25% decline in revenues, can not afford to set up a new bureaucracy. Nor should it want to set one up. The taxpayers are perpetually on the line for bureaucratic largesse, especially after the grant monies dry up. Talk about esto perpetua.

The preferable option is to just say no. Kansas recently joined Oklahoma and gave back federal money for an exchange. Otter on the other hand is running Obama’s way. See the following excerpt from the August 11th, 2011 story:

“The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has dispensed more than $240 million in taxpayer-funded grants to six states and a multi-state consortium to facilitate the creation of “Obamacare” health insurance exchanges. However two states and counting — Oklahoma and, more recently, Kansas — have sent the money back, which essentially marks their refusal to comply with the health care bill’s unconstitutional mandates.” -NaturalNews.com Jonathan Benson

So, what exactly is this exchange? Politicians in Boise say it will decrease costs, and we should do it even without Obamacare money. But, that argument is really dishonest. Without the federal dollars this would never be a preferred solution to inflated costs.

A healthcare exchange is a centralized marketplace. Like a healthcare bizarre you would go there to shop for the best deal. And, the government owns the bizarre. Even if it doesn’t own it. It writes the rules for a quasi-governmental agency (non-profit) to run it. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

The bad thing about the bizarre is that if you don’t come to it, you can’t sell anything. You can’t buy anything either. That doesn’t sound like a free marketplace. It sounds like the Idaho-owned Liquor store. It sounds like the bizarre is really a government monopoly, because you have no other choice. And, companies like Blue Cross are going to want to employ their lobbyists to write the rules. If I want to sell insurance or participate in private healthcare sharing or even want an exemption for my Amish family, I have to go to the government market. It is a lot like requiring all students to register for public schools, even if you go to a private school. Does your health belong to the government any more than your education decisions or your child belong to the government?

Privacy becomes obsolete. At the door the government requires you to register to participate. Your healthcare information and your purchasing choices will now be centralized. Centralization is not the American way. Freedom involves a sometimes chaotic, decentralized system, in which smart consumers find the best deals on their own. Since when can government choose better than the consumer? Since Obama took over, that’s when. And, careless, misguided politicians are not good defenders of your freedom. They are too willing to fall for big-government under the guise of local control. But, Americans are smarter than that. “Government is the problem.” said Reagan. If only so-called Reagan conservatives in Boise knew better.

Even healthcare sharing organizations, which give people a much cheaper alternative to insurance, would be subject to the rules of healthcare exchanges. Under the current department of insurance, healthcare sharing is not considered eligible for regulation by government, according to the Idaho Department of Insurance director. So, why would we want to expand government jurisdiction to control free-market innovation that works to reduce costs?

Although every free-marketeer understands that decentralization and free-market regulation (risk) are the keys to a cheap and productive healthcare system, many Republicans (like Butch Otter) are supporting the implementation of Idaho’s own healthcare exchange. Healthcare exchange has been called “Travelocity” of healthcare, but it is more like a centralized database, where every citizen will have to register. And, last time I checked, Travelocity was not government owned or regulated. The comparison is absurd at face value.

It is another governmental panacea, which will do harm to Idaho’s healthcare, by centralizing control and power. If it is such a good idea, the free market would have thought of it. Free market and free men work well together. Centralization and spending don’t.