Have you ever tried calling a radio show? It can be difficult and frustrating, and you may not even get past the busy signals. I tried one night for over 2 hours, getting through to the call screener and having him hang up on me 4 different times before I got him to tell me that my phone was making crackling sounds. I rebooted it and called back and got through, but Mark Levin was sick that night, so I had to talk with his substitute. And I’ve tried several times this week, only to keep getting busy signals. There are a lot of folks calling in as Levin is quite popular.

Well tonight I timed it just right and got through with a good sounding phone and got to speak to The Great One (that’s his nickname). Thanks to Mark Levin giving his podcasts away, I have edited out my part and you can listen below.

Enjoy.

iPhone (non-flash): Download MP3

This aired today on CNBC and is exactly what needed to be said on live TV.   Notice how the desk analysts are trying to minimize what he is saying, but he won’t be minimized. This was just awesome, as it is, to the mark, exactly what is going on in our country. And, this is what we should expect from Obama, since he revealed himself before the election as a redistributionist.

Watch it.

Let’s get a few things straight first about our population.

• Each person works 45 years
• Each person makes $30,000 per year

Now, remember, the stimulus bill before congress with interest equals around 1 trillion in spending.  So what’s the answer?

741,000 people.

Has that sunk in yet?  Thats 741,000 people working 45 years, each making $30k/yr.

Wait, we can’t forget the 2 trillion dollar TARP 2 that the Obama administration announced.

So, in only 3 weeks of being president, Obama want’s to spend 3 trillion dollars.  That’s an easy trillion per week!

So how many people would it take to make 3 trillion?

2.2 million people, each working 45 years making 30k per year!

What have we done?!

Have any of you ever known someone who at first just needed help, but after a while they were becoming more and more dependent on you?  There was always a reason to need you, and you began to see a pattern arising. Perhaps it was money, or maybe it was emotional well being, but it began to take it’s toll on you until that dreadful day that you had to cut them off.  These are the conversations we don’t like to have; but the ones that we must have in order to help both them and ourselves.  So you did it, only because you knew that enabling that dependency had become unhealthy for both you and them, and for them to really succeed they needed to learn to do things for themselves out of their own volition.  They needed to become independent.

I think at the heart many of us care for people, but sometimes we have to learn how to care.  We learn from these past relationships and try and avoid them when we see them coming; not because we don’t care but because we want to really care for the person the right way, even though there may be some initial pain.

But this idea becomes more difficult when we begin to think of people in groups, on more of a macro scale.  When we see the pain of poverty, for instance, we want to remove that pain and make better the lives of as many as we can.  It’s a deep desire in each of our hearts to try and quench suffering.  But we also know that our resources are quite limited, and to take care of even one family would be an overwhelming task for our wallets.

Here recently, just on the other side of our elections, I’ve had time to think about the overriding philosophies in our culture regarding government intervention.  As I watch our current government try and expand to take care of those who are in need (which happens to be many right now), spending trillions of dollars to stabilize an economy in recession, and trying to affect monetary industries in such a way as to leverage money away from them and toward those in need, I wonder if this is going to work at all.  After all, our budget deficit will increase in magnanimous amounts if proposed legislation is passed, and someone will end up having to pay for that.

So I ask myself is this the best way to care for people?

Small government has taken quite a hit in this election cycle, with that majority of America voting for the candidate who stood for bigger government, proclaiming that government can solve our bigger problems.  And I think that many believe that government is the best way to help those who are in the greatest need.  But I wonder if this is true?  When we grow the size of our social programs because we want to bring aid to more people in need, it certainly affects the whole in the form of increased taxes.  And while I believe this is a problem, there is a much bigger problem looming in the shadows of big government:  dependency.

As I listened today to President Obama’s town hall meeting, I heard a lady of little means cry out for help, needing a roof over her head for her family.  Such a real need is one of housing.  And Obama directed her to his staff and someone gave her a house.  I am very grateful that she now has a roof over her head but what I fear is that because of this (and the rhetoric of his campaign) people in increasing number are going to expect the government to solve all of their problems, and they are going to run to Obama with arms open wide hoping he will fill them. And this is just an impossible task.

And this is the problem with big government.  As I understand it, there are people who live on welfare their whole lives for one reason or another and their children follow in their footsteps.  There are some who stay on it because it’s the most stable form of income they can acquire, especially in times like these.  There are others who simply can’t find a job that pays more than what they receive from welfare.  And this perpetuates dependency on the government in what would seem like a never ending relationship.

What about government health care.  It sounds like a great idea at first, but when we begin to  realize the amount of resources that the government will need to provide everyone with health care, and the regulations they will impose to keep costs low, not just on the doctors and hospitals but on us, it starts to sound way to big and imposing to be realistic.  Do we really want the government telling us that we can’t have that knee operation because it’s too expensive, or that we can’t go to the doctor of our choice to get that knee operation?  Unfortunately, when we become dependents of the government, we lose our freedom to choose.

But even more so, what really happens here is that the government creates an environment that promotes irresponsibility.  And just like in that dependent relationship we mentioned earlier, we become enablers of irresponsibility.

Think about it, when you were growing up, your parents took care of you because you were unable to take care of yourself.  But then at some point you were thrust out of the nest and you had to get a job, go to college, and learn how to take care of yourself.  Now this doesn’t mean that one doesn’t fall on hard times and need assistance occasionally, but for the most part America as a whole has done this very thing.  We all grow up and move out, creating lives for ourselves.

And this is exactly how we should expect our government to operate.  It’s great for it to be there when we fall on hard times, but it should push us to better ourselves through working, learning new skills, and making our own money.  It should promote responsibility.

Everyone who can work should work, and the government should create an environment that promotes jobs, giving incentives for the creation and sustaining of businesses through lower taxes.  Because what we are really talking about is freedom, and we lose that freedom when we ask the government to do to much.

After all, capitalism and small government provides the best opportunity for an ordinary man to improve his lot in life. What do you think would happen if the government told that man on welfare that he only has 6 months left before they remove him from the program?  He will get a job.

So when it comes to actually caring for people (from a government perspective), I really believe the best way is encourage them to take care of themselves.  Sadly, I do not believe this is happening right now as we keep moving toward socialism, but as we aim for the future, we should set a path toward individual responsibility and freedom.

Here’s another classic clip from Mark Levin. He states unequivocally that Obama may in fact be the world’s biggest spender if his pork bill makes it through the senate and the house. Just having three weeks in office under his belt, Obama is slated to push for three separate bills, the first two of which will cost around a trillion a piece. And in the least he looks to almost double the national debt before he is done. I just wonder when he is going to raise our taxes, because you know it’s coming.

iPhone (non-flash): Download MP3
Source: http://www.marklevinshow.com/
Clip: Feb 09, 2009

After reading the headlines on Michael Phelps, I began to wonder why we (the public) always tend to be astonished when we read/hear about a high profile athlete being caught in some kind of scandal. There are many that have fallen to the struggle of drugs/alcohol or anything else. Think about it: the continuing story of steriods in the MLB, the multiple athletes from college level to professional level that have been arrested for DUI, and then there are the NBA and NFL boards fighting against marijauna use in the leagues.  Is it really too much for us to expect them to be REAL role models? They have the ability and power to influence so many, but so many times they are the ones that are so easily influenced.

I would not be telling the truth if I said that I had not jumped on the Michael Phelps band wagon while he was competing in the 2008, Bejing Olympics.  I enjoyed cheering for him in every race. I loved reading all the stories about him and hearing about how he can/does eat 12,000 calories a day (that is insane).  However, I did not find myself totally discouraged and let down when I read that he had been seen smoking pot. There were a few questions that soon crossed my mind. Have we become desensitized to the immoral actions of the people that live in the lime light? Should we let the actions of a highly celebrated athlete slide as “bad judgement” and “youthful behaviour” when they have seen the results of “bad judgement” more closely than some of us?

While pondering all of this, there was a song that came to mind. In the Toby Mac song “Lose My Soul”, Kirk Franklin sings the second verse that says:

“The paparazzi flashes, and that they think that it’s you,  But they don’t know that who you are is not what you do, True, we get it twisted when we peak at the charts, Yo before we part from the start, Where’s your heart? You a pimp, hustler? Tell me what’s your title, America has no more stars, now we call them idols, You sit idle, While we teach prosperity, The first thing to prosper should be inside of me… “

Kirk Franklin, being a man of fame and prosperity as a Christian artist who fell into the slippery slope of poor moral decisions, sums it up by stating that as Americans we “idolize” the people in the spot light when they are people just like us. Have we added to the problems and pressures that so many “American Idols” face? How forgiving should we be to the failures of those that easily mold the views and aspirations of those of our sons and daughters?

As I am sure that Phelps’ pipe picture does not depict one of his proudest moments, I do believe that we should realize that we all have had moments in our lives that we are not too proud of.  This can be used as a learning moment for us and our children to see that no matter who you are, where your from, or what you do, you are never excluded from falling and making mistakes. The difference is where do you turn once you have fallen and who do you have help you back up. So many fall and can never seem to get out of their self-chosen pit, where others rely on their faith and their promise of forgiveness to pull them back to their feet.

Greed is a topic of much discussion in our society, with CEO’s making millions upon millions while the economy is tanking fast.  Banks that have been bailed out by the federal government are going to be obligated by President Obama to limit compensation for upper executives to $500,000.  There is much to do about this topic, as many feel slighted by the overpayemnt of so few executives while many are losing their jobs.

But this isn’t anything new.  In 1979 this question was asked of Milton Friedman in an interview with Phil Donahue, regarding how with so few “haves” and so many “have nots” , did he ever question capitalism.  And his answer was riveting.

And a special thanks to Mark Levin for bringing this man to my attention in his nightly radio broadcast.

Tonight President Obama addressed the nation in a 20min speech about his economic recovery package.  Admittedly, he sounds passionate about his appeal, however it really lacks much in the way of actual content.  It’s more of an emotional plea to support his bill, based in fear rather than actually explaining how it helps us.  He made his case that we will be in very dire circumstances, much more than what we already are, if we don’t pass this recovery bill soon.  It sounds alot like what the Bush administration did at the end of 2008 which didn’t turn out to be very effective.

Now Obama tries to sound bipartisan, saying that Americans don’t want a republican or democratic solution, that they want an “American” solution.  But he goes on to say that the voters decided what they wanted last November, and that’s what he intends to give them.  This is a very partisan approach, which he seems very comfortable with; however he keeps trying to paint it as bipartisan.  You can’t get bipartisan support for a bill if you don’t make the bill appeal to both democrats and republicans alike.  And as I understand it now, there’s so much spending in the bill on stuff that won’t stimulate the economy that it is the furthest thing from what republicans will support.

But here’s where I have my biggest problem with Obama.  He keeps saying that we can’t use the same old tired tactics of the last 8 years that got us into this mess.  But what this proves to me is that he is clueless on what did get us into this mess.  I’m not saying that he last 8 years of increased spending didn’t contribute to this financial debacle, but it was the mortgage crisis that started in the mid 90′s under Clinton’s watch that really caused this fiasco, and it was primarily the democrats who caused it.  And it’s because of this that he looses all credibility in his argument to spend spend spend to fix the economy.

Now I’m not saying that spending at all is a bad idea, but again, there is so much pork in his bill and it won’t do anything but stimulate his ego and push the economy deeper into a recession or possibly a depression.  And until he fixes the bill so that it does stimulate the economy he won’t get much in the way of bipartisan support.

President Obama signed the SCHIP bill yesterday with much applause by his supporters.  But this bill is much worse than he claims, as it subsidizes 6 kids out of 10 who already have private insurance.  If they already have private insurance, why do we need to bring them under a tax payer paid system? Have they forgotten that we are in a recession? I understand that kids need health insurance, but in 2007 Bush vetoed a much cheaper plan because it subsidized children who already had health insurance.  Of course, the left made him look like a child hater, which is stupid because he would have passed it without the subsidies.  It’s just common sense.

Oh, and give the dems the majority, and hmm…they more than TRIPLE the size of the bill to $115,000,000,ooo as opposed to it’s 2007 predecessor of $35,000,000,000.  It’s simply ridiculous.  Listen to Mark Levin below.

Source: http://www.marklevinshow.com/
Clip: Feb 04, 2009