Prairie Agenda

Liberals can't understand why anyone would have a problem with the President of the United States giving a speech to K-12 students. The release of his prepared remarks, they say, prove the negative reaction was at best silly.

What this really shows is that the arrogance and prejudice is so ingrained that liberals cannot remove their blinders even momentarily to consider the possibility that others have different but legitimate concerns.

Ironically, in a sense I agree the controversy surrounding President Obama's speech is much ado about nothing. John Stuart Mill predicted more than a century ago that government-run schools would end up serving largely as indoctrination centers. In my opinion, this has become painfully true. Before we pulled our children out of public schools we found ourselves increasingly frustrated by not just the political correctness but the Stalinist tactics with which questionable ideas were being forced upon students and their families. For example, our daughter was once given a homework assignment to inspect the cupboards at home for products deemed harmful to the environment, to report back to the teacher and class on the number and severity of offending items, and to have all family members sign an "Earth Marshal Oath."

To wit, if you have had kids in public schools for more than a couple of years you should know by now that the public schools have no qualms about taking sides in political debates and using a variety of psychological and social tactics to mold children to be good (liberal Democrat) citizens.

There are many things wrong with Obama's speech (which I presume has been reworked and sanitized since the uproar began), but if I had to reduce it to one simple idea it is this: The speech presumes that government's proper role is to instruct, guide, and command citizens in order to achieve a balance between personal success and the common good.

I don't fault the President for sharing his feelings as a youth with the start of a new school or school year. Nor do I fault him for encouraging children to aspire to be successful inventors, writers, or athletes. But I do find fault with the suggestion that personal success is part of a group effort. I find fault with the implication that parents are not doing a sufficiently good job inspiring and motivating their children. And I particularly find fault with the notion that, at the end of the day, it's all about the contributions that we make to our country.

I come from a different perspective. I believe this country was founded with the intent to maximize personal liberty. The institutions of government were conceived not to guide and encourage us, but to prevent or at least limit abuse. We have laws not to ensure the greater good as envisioned by certain self-anointed intellectuals, but to prevent others from imposing their wills on us through force or fraud.

This speech is far from my biggest concern about the present administration. You might even say it is something of a sideshow. However, it is representative of the growing sense among liberals that they--and they alone--know what's best for the rest of us. It is offensive in that it targets the most vulnerable to their collectivist ideas and Stalinist tactics: our children.

The Democrats' Health Care Reform Bill is a threat to the health of my family. And I'm sure it's a threat to the health of most families. The bill is designed to drive out private health insurance, seize funds from citizens' bank accounts, and impose "end of life" counseling on senior citizens. But that's just the start. This legislation, if passed, will lead to rationing, delays, and a general decline in the quality of U.S. health care.

It's not too early to begin planning for offshore health care.

Medical tourism is already a big and growing phenomenon. However, it is scattered around the globe and caters to those who can endure long journeys.

What we need is to set up medical centers in locations within easy reach of the continental United States. The locations could be in the Caribbean, Central America, and/or the northern part of South America.

Offshore medical centers could be a haven of freedom and quality health care not only for patients and their families, but physicians and other health care workers who believe that this legislation will severely damage our great health care system.

I will post more about this idea in the weeks ahead.

If you guessed this story took place in Canada, the UK, or some other country with a national health service, you guessed wrong. It took place in the Midwestern US.

First, let's debunk a couple of myths. Proponents of Obama-care claim that people with pre-existing health conditions often can't get health insurance. That's not true. Most state governments have set up health insurance pools for those who can't find affordable private health insurance. Often these plans will waive the pre-existing condition waiting period.

Proponents of health care reform also imply that some people in this country are being denied live-saving treatment because they don't have insurance and can't pay. I don't think that there is one emergency room in this country that would turn away someone in urgent need of care just because they can't pay.

Some of the members of my immediate family have health insurance and some don't. We've used various ERs in our area recently. There has been no difference in the way our insured and uninsured family members have been treated. Plus, we've found that many health care providers will give discounts to self-pay patients. Others offer financial aid and/or are willing to negotiate payment terms.

The following story should be a wake up call to anyone tempted to embrace the creation of a public health care system in the U.S.

My children were enrolled in a private health insurance plan. One day we received a letter stating that our premiums were being increased approximately 300%. This may have had something to do with the fact that we were not members of a group and we moved to another state.

I contacted the new state's health insurance pool (run by a state agency) and was disappointed to learn that while it offered an affordable plan, benefits were only payable for services provided in-state. Since my family has a serious medical condition, we needed the freedom to track down the best hospitals and doctors for each situation.

I contacted the Executive Director of the state-run health insurance pool and asked if they made any exceptions. As they say, it can't hurt to ask. I was pleasantly surprised when he assured me that the restriction was never intended to dissuade anyone from signing up for coverage. I asked him to send me a letter waiving the restriction. He not only did so, he explicitly stated that benefits would be payable to two specific out-of-state hospitals that I had mentioned.

A few years later my son required surgery for an aortic aneurysm. We chose a hospital on the east coast with the most experience performing this repair. That hospital had been named in the letter from the Executive Director. We notified the insurance company that administered the insurance pool, and they sent us a letter pre-certifying admission.

The day before we were scheduled to fly east we received a call from the hospital telling us that they received a letter by overnight courier saying the pre-certification letter had been sent in error and no benefits would be paid. I thought this was just a mix up. However, the hospital said that unless I prepaid the estimated hospital bill, my son would be taken off the surgery schedule. (This was considered elective surgery and not an emergency.) I ended up sending the hospital >$20,000 via wire transfer and we proceeded as planned.

After the operation, the surgeon told us we acted not a moment too soon: though the aneurysm was not alarmingly large, he found a thin spot in the tissue that wasn't detected by ultrasound or CT scan.

The surgery was very successful and my son has been doing fine for several years now. When we got home, I followed the official procedures and filed an appeal to the state agency. I included a copy of the letter from the program's Executive Director (who I then learned had recently left) and the precertification letter. I also explained that the surgeon told us this surgery turned out to be more urgent than we had thought going in.

The state health insurance pool's governing board rejected my appeal. They claimed they had no record of any letter from their own Executive Director confirming benefits for out-of-state service would be paid. (They claimed the copy I sent of the letter was not received.)

I filed several additional appeals. Each time I received the same answer: they didn't receive a copy of the letter I claimed was attached but in any event the decision to accept or deny an appeal rests exclusively with the Board. One time I fax'ed a copy of the letter and called to ensure that it was received. Finally, they stated that the surgery could have been performed in-state, and told me in so many words that the fact my son might not have survived rescheduling was not relevant to my appeal because--you guessed it--the final decision rests exclusively with the Board.

Finally, I contacted a member of the state legislature and explained what was going on. She reviewed the correspondence and said this was clearly fraud. She said that if the state agency refused to reverse its decision, she would bring it to the attention of the legislature. She also told me that I had a very strong court case if that became necessary.

Shortly after this the new Executive Director of the health insurance pool called me and said that our case had been "mishandled." She wanted to know how much was owed and where to send the check.

Though I finally won, I am still amazed by what happened. There is no way that a private company would have acted this way. A private company would know that if they provided a written guarantee they would have to honor that guarantee. If the state agency didn't receive the copy of the letter I attached to my appeal the first time, I'm sure they received it the second or third time I sent it. They acted as if nothing I did or said mattered. Their collective mind was made up. They were all-powerful, I was just a citizen.

Their attitude seemed to be that it was too bad for me that I accepted an offer made by their former Executive Director... as if a letter urging me to drop my private coverage and promising to cover out-of-state services was now (without warning) null and void because he had left the agency.

If a private company cheats you, there are independent government agencies that will hear and intervene in your case. But when the government tries to cheat you, you must appeal to the same government. I can only guess that the state health insurance pool's Board thought I would be intimidated, worn down, and would eventually give up.

Had we been intimidated when they announced at the last minute that benefits would not be paid, it could have had tragic consequences for my family. Fortunately, we had the means to prepay the hospital. I also liked this first taste of paying for our own health care. People were extra attentive to our questions and needs. I'm convinced that if everyone paid for their own health care, prices would come down rapidly by at least 60-70%. In a competitive market, businesses succeed by reducing costs and ensuring quality.

The problem with President Obama's proposed overhaul of U.S. health care is not that it is too expensive. It's that it will severely damage what was the world's best health care system and cause grievous harm to patients and their families.

If this was a good but expensive plan, it would be hard to justify opposing it. It will be hard to stop in any event. Obama's strategy is to introduce massive bills instituting sweeping changes and then pressure Congress to vote before anyone has a chance to read and understand the legislation. In this case, we can thank Investor's Business Daily for sounding the alarm: This bill is a blatant attempt to destroy private health insurance. While the bill states you can keep an existing private health insurance plan, it prohibits the purchase of new private health insurance. This is simply a scheme to phase out private insurance.

So what are the likely ill effects of this legislation if it passes?

More bureaucracy--with more delays, ineptness, and inefficiency.

Health care rationing.

Patients will lose control of their health care decisions.

Fewer choices.

Less investment in health care innovations.

Medicine will become a less attractive career for America's brightest students.

Less recourse for those abused or otherwise treated unfairly by the system.

Though clearly undesirable, these problems would be acceptable if there was a parallel, private health care system alternative. What makes this bill particularly pernicious--and significantly more dangerous than most European national health care systems--is that its architects seem to have taken steps to prevent the development of a parallel private system.

And that means our children will have no choice other than a socialist health care system that is bad for the country and the economy, and could spell the demise of many patients requiring aggressive treatment.

Kudos to former Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar for his opinion piece Silence Has Consequences for Iran in today's Wall Street Journal:

If there hadn't been dissidents in the Soviet Union, the Communist regime never would have crumbled. And if the West hadn't been concerned about their fate, Soviet leaders would have ruthlessly done away with them. They didn't because the Kremlin feared the response of the Free World.

Just like the Soviet dissidents who resisted communism, those who dare to march through the streets of Tehran and stand up against the Islamic regime founded by the Ayatollah Khomeini 30 years ago represent the greatest hope for change in a country built on the repression of its people. At stake is nothing less than the legitimacy of a system incompatible with respect for individual rights. Also at stake is the survival of a theocratic regime that seeks to be the dominant power in the region, the indisputable spiritual leader of the Muslim world, and the enemy of the West.

The Islamic Republic that the ayatollahs have created is not just any power. To defend a strict interpretation of the Quran, Khomeini created the Pasdaran, the Revolutionary Guard, which today is a true army. To expand its ideology and influence Iran has not hesitated to create, sustain and use proxy terrorist groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. And to impose its fundamentalist vision beyond its borders, Iran is working frantically to obtain nuclear weapons.

Those who protest against the blatant electoral fraud that handed victory to the fanatical Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are in reality demanding a change of regime. Thus, the regime has resorted to beating and shooting its citizens in a desperate attempt to squash the pro-democracy movement.

This is no time for hesitation on the part of the West. If, as part of an attempt to reach an agreement on the Iranian nuclear program, the leaders of democratic nations turn their backs on the dissidents they will be making a terrible mistake.

President Obama has said he refuses to "meddle" in Iran's internal affairs, but this is a poor excuse for passivity. If the international community is not able to stop, or at least set limits on, the repressive violence of the Islamic regime, the protesters will end up as so many have in the past -- in exile, in prison, or in the cemetery. And with them, all hope for change will be gone.

Read the whole thing.

This is what I've been saying the past ten days. However, it's not just the Obama administration that is making this foolish mistake. Many members of the Iranian opposition make the ridiculous argument that if U.S. support for the Iranian people is too overt and strong it will give the dictatorship an excuse to crush the opposition. This is giving into their lies. It also ignores the bigger problem that, as in 1979, the people yearning for freedom are lining up behind a dissident Islamist rather than a principled advocate of liberty and democracy.

The only word to describe the invitations extended to Iranian diplomats for July 4th cookouts at U.S. embassies around the world is pathetic.

But not to worry; the State Department assures us that no Iranian diplomats have RSVP'ed.

I propose that the U.S. respond to the events of the last ten days in a very different manner:

1. President Obama should publicly declare that recent events show the Iranian government rules by coercion and not consent. Therefore, we are forced by Iran's unjust words and actions to conclude that it is an illegitimate government and there is nothing to gain by engaging it in dialogue.

2. President Obama should also declare that Iran's government has forfeited the right to conduct its internal affairs without foreign interference by aggressively and repeatedly meddling in the internal affairs of other countries by establishing and arming proxy armies and supporting terrorists.

3. We should call on our allies to break diplomatic relations with Iran and declare or reiterate their solidarity with the Iranian people's struggle for freedom and democracy.

4. Behind the scenes, the U.S. and its allies should study all options for undermining Iran's theocracy and possibly assisting the Iranian people in overthrowing it.

5. The U.S. should step up efforts to prevent Iran's development of nuclear weapons technology. The President should emphasize that the Iranian government's belligerent statements and activities demonstrate that it is a serious and imminent threat to world peace.

6. Other actions should be considered such as a broad-based economic boycott or even militarily-enforced blockade of Iran.

7. President Obama should state that while the U.S. may have interfered improperly in Iran's internal affairs in 1953, that in no way disqualifies the U.S. from supporting the Iranian people's demands for human rights today. If anything, it only underscores the U.S.'s duty to do the right thing for the Iranian people, and we urge the Iranian opposition to reject the lies and distortions about the U.S. peddled by the Iranian government.

I realize that many Americans believe that we should avoid getting embroiled in foreign disputes. I'm not completely unsympathetic to that view. However, in this case we are dealing with a government that has encouraged and glorified terrorism; that stirs up trouble outside its borders; and that openly declares its hostility to the U.S. and its allies precisely because we value individual liberty.

UPDATE: Now that the Iranians ignored our invitations to enjoy July 4th cookouts at U.S. embassies around the world, the White House has rescinded those invitations. Well, I can hardly criticize President Obama for correcting what was clearly a foolish mistake. But has he drawn the right conclusions from his "dialogue" fiasco? We can all breathe a sigh of relief that the Islamic republic ignored the invitations.

US rescinds July 4 invites for Iran diplomats
WASHINGTON (AP) — An offer for Iranian envoys to attend U.S. embassy Fourth of July parties has been rescinded as the violent crackdown in Tehran continues, the White House said Wednesday.

"Given the events of the past many days, those invitations will no longer be extended," presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

You would think this is the time to go all out in isolating and weakening Iran's Islamist regime. Surprisingly, many people say strong U.S. support for the Iranian opposition could be the kiss of death. Specifically, they say that because the CIA engineered a coup that brought the Shah to power in 1953, the U.S. has little if any credibility as a champion of freedom in Iran.

Get over it. The people who made U.S. foreign policy decisions 56 years ago are either dead or retired. The CIA is no longer chartered to choose foreign leaders--though I suspect its ability to do so has been greatly exaggerated. The American people were instantly drawn to the side of the Iranian people. The U.S. Congress has made it clear that the overwhelming majority of our elected leaders side with the Iranian people, too.

The United States' record at championing and supporting freedom is not perfect, but it's light years ahead of most other countries. Iran's theocracy claims moral superiority vis-a-vis the West. Meanwhile, stories filter out of Iran about clerics conveniently marrying prostitutes and divorcing them 24 hours later. When the demonstrations began, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dismissed them as the work of 20,000 - 30,000 "sore losers." Iran's leaders complain about foreign meddling in Iran's internal affairs while they field a proxy army in Lebanon. And now the theocracy, which has long glorified terrorism, is calling the demonstrators "terrorists." This from a regime that shoots unarmed boys and girls for peacefully assembling to express their opinions.

Unfortunately, the nominal leader of the free world is reluctant to clearly and strongly side with the Iranians demanding freedom and democracy. During his campaign, President Obama promised he would engage Iran's leaders in dialogue. Shortly after his Cairo speech to the Muslim world, he hailed the "robust debate" taking place in Iran. Meanwhile, President Obama stated that Iran has the right to pursue nuclear technology. When charges of election fraud began to surface, he brushed them off, saying there was no significant difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi.

In the U.S., the Left is more interested in defending Barack Obama than helping the Iranian people. The Left's top priority is to spin Obama's confusion, indifference, and reluctance as evidence of wisdom. The President says he doesn't want to give Iran's dictators any excuses to crack down. However, he also doesn't want to admit that engaging Iran's brutal dictators in dialogue lends them legitimacy and further emboldens them.

Iran's regime is cracking down and they are accusing the demonstrators of being terrorists and spies. The only difference is that they are singling out the UK rather than the US. Obama's strategy hasn't helped the Iranian opposition one bit.

But why do many Iranian opponents of the theocracy defend Obama's ambivalent stance? I fear we are witnessing a repeat of 1979. There were thousands of Iranian students in the U.S. at the time. Almost all of them opposed the Shah; most were Leftists but a distinct minority were what we now call Islamists. In the months leading up to the revolution, I attended a forum sponsored by the Iranian students. It was well known that Khomeini wanted to establish an Islamic republic. I asked if Iran might be trading one dictator for another--possibly more oppressive--dictator. I was told that Khomeini was just a figurehead--just someone to rally around--and that he wouldn't end up running the country.

The Iranian students were clearly wrong to shrug off Khomeini. Now I fear they are missing an opportunity to ask for the kind of support needed to bring down the Islamic government--and all because they are buying into an obsolete argument kept alive by an illegitimate regime.

We don't know whether the Iranian people will succeed soon in overthrowing their oppressors. But we do know one thing for certain: the regime has been unmasked. The world now sees the Iranian dictatorship for what it is: arrogant, brutal, hypocritical, and aggressive. Now is the time to hit them hard from all sides.

Most reports are that Tehran is quiet today. But this video disputes that. Note the determined chants of "Death to the Dictator!"

I am just one small voice, but I want the people of Iran to know how deeply I admire their courage. I have been glued to the Internet over the past week following the events in Iran. It's clear that the majority of Iranians are asking for nothing more than basic individual rights, a real voice in how they are governed, and leaders who do not disgrace their nation by spreading lies and inciting hatred towards other peoples.

I believe that the overwhelming majority of Americans support the people of Iran, too. Though Iran is very far away, and our two countries have not been on friendly terms for the past three decades, the American people cannot help but feel a kinship with all who are decent and freedom-loving. Contrary to what some people say about us, we are naturally drawn to the side of the oppressed. And we understand that much of what was said and done by Iran's leaders over the past three decades did not reflect the will of the Iranian people as much as the belligerence of a small, illegitimate and hateful regime.

You have good reason to doubt an election that seemed close but suddenly turned into a cake walk. It rarely happens that way in real life. However, there was one lopsided vote you can trust. Yesterday, 99.9% of the U.S. House of Representatives voted for a resolution in support of the people struggling for freedom in Iran.

It is frustrating to watch what in one sense appears to be a completely one-sided struggle. The regime has weapons while the people have only their bodies and their courage. Worse, the regime is willing to use lies, foreign terrorists, and even cold-blooded murder in order to cling to power. But in the end, the decency of the Iranian people and the righteousness of their cause will prevail. Do not lose heart!

I believe that as Americans celebrate Independence Day on July 4th you will see an outpouring of public support for the people of Iran.

UPDATE: President Obama has finally issued a statement clearly and forcefully supporting the Iranian people's basic human rights and calling on the Iranian government to stop using violence and coercion:

The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.

Martin Luther King once said - "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples’ belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness.

I think any thoughts of dialogue with the current Iranian regime are kaput.

The world's most evil government has come to a crossroads. Will the Islamists loosen their iron grip, give the people a real voice in how they are governed, and recognize basic human rights? Or will they mass murder their own citizens--perhaps with the help of imported Hezbollah and Hamas thugs?

Let me be clear. The government of Iran is profoundly evil. This is a government that stages demonstrations at which people are instructed to chant "Death to America!" This is a government that blatantly meddles in the internal affairs of other countries (such as Lebanon, where it fields a proxy army). This is a government that takes foreign hostages, executes atheists and homosexuals, and glorifies suicide mass murder attacks--all the while claiming its religion is a source of moral superiority.

There is absolutely no doubt that Iran's evil leaders are seeking, at a minimum, the ability to assemble nuclear weapons on short notice. It is simply not credible that a country possessing 10% of the world's known oil reserves and 15% of the world's known natural gas reserves would have a pressing need for nuclear energy.

Sadly, both the West and Iran's opposition lack strong, clear-sighted moral leadership. Some Obama supporters and Iranian dissidents say that the President is handling the situation just right. I suggest they think about this more carefully. If Iran's brutal regime massacres the demonstrators we will all look back and ask whether the President's vow not to "meddle" made the regime back down or gave them a free hand. The answer is obvious.

The counter-argument is that if the President of the United States loudly, clearly, and publicly sided with the demonstrators, this would allow the regime to paint the demonstrators as tools of the infidel West. This is a ridiculous argument for several reasons. The Iranian regime routinely accuses opponents of being, for example, Zionist spies. Such is the nature of illegitimate regimes that rely on fear, intimidation, and lies. But most of all, I reject the implication that only certain people should raise their voices in defense of universal human rights. It is precisely the reluctance of legitimate world leaders to defend human rights that gives dictators encouragement. We don't need to invade Iran--just let their brutal leaders know that all of humanity and history will hold them to account. Ronald Reagan showed that it is possible to shame and expose evil dictators to the point that they cannot go on.

I don't think this will end the way it did in China in 1989. China's reform movement was massacred in Tienanmen Square. However, in the aftermath China moved towards a free market and in at least some ways a more open society. If the Iranian government massacres the demonstrators, I think it will only tighten its grip more, and the opposition will have no choice but to adopt new forms of resistance. This will likely include armed struggle in one or more forms. The Iranian people have been taught that suicide terrorism is a noble endeavor, and we could see terrorist attacks against the regime and its supporters.

One cause for hope is the Internet and mobile phones. The Iranian people can see that people in other countries enjoy basic freedoms that they are denied. They also know that the Internet can be used as a vehicle for free speech, and that in the end there is no way to stop it short of disconnecting Iran from the world. Iranians have learned they can use mobile phones to call mass protests, take pictures and videos and upload them for wider distribution, and make their voices heard anonymously if necessary.

One way or another, I believe this is the beginning of the end for Iran's evil dictatorship. I hope it ends quickly and peacefully. If not, it will surely go down later in flames and disgrace.

I make no apologies for being a Rush Limbaugh fan. He is one of the smartest people in America.

Moments ago he fielded a call about why Obama has been reluctant to voice full support for the demonstrators in Iran. The caller believed it was because Obama, coming out of the Chicago Democrat political machine and having ties to Acorn, sees nothing wrong with voting fraud.

Rush's response was clarifying. He disagreed with the caller and said that it was because Obama is reluctant to offend Islamists. That we already knew. But then he added that it is also why Obama refuses to back gay marriage.

The MSM has been peddling the idea that Obama has merely assigned gay marriage a lower priority while he works on other issues such as health care reform. But that is not true: Obama has been firing on all cylinders since he took office. Plus, Obama has explicitly said that he opposes gay marriage.

I don't know whether gay marriage is or is not an issue with Obama. But I know it is an issue with Islamists. They put gays to death.