March 23


recently I’ve been making a splash on some of my Facebook friends’ comments which have been both for and against Obamacare. one of them led to a revealing conversation with what I will call “the opposition”. a little background: one friend had posted “All I can say is the government better not screw up/over my health care. I SO can’t wait for Jan 20, 2013!!!!!!!”, to which a fella named David Garcia replied “Obama 2012, hell yeah”, and I then sarcastically replied “David, put a “go to” after that comma and a “!” before that yeah.”. David Garcia then sent me a message and we went back and forth – here is the full, unedited diatribe (non-family language warning).

Between You and David Garcia

March 22 at 1:42am Report
no home boi, you got it all wrong. We The People put the ‘go to’ hell message to Bush/McCain/Palin and the Republican’t-Tea Bagging-Neo Confederate ideology a year ago. Talk to me when the Repubs develop some ideas besides tax cuts. The fear mongering and misleading propaganda that the GOP throws out there has an expiration date. You guys may take some seats in the midterm, but if there are no ideas by the GOP and you run clowns like Palin, your fantasy of defeating Obama is in great peril.

Calen Michael Fretts March 22 at 1:56am
I’ve got news for you bro… I’m not a Republican either. Both parties are totally screwed. Just because you don’t like Obama doesn’t mean there’s an R next to your name.

March 22 at 2:07am Report
Well then you are shit outta luck, cuz there is no one with your view point that will win elections. And I run into people like you all the time that claim they are not repubs which is merely a cope out. I don’t buy your smoke and mirrors because you would never support a liberal or any progressive position. And notice how I included tea baggers and neo confederates, both of which are derogatory names for conservatives and they don’t necessarily have to wear the republican crown. And before you claim not to be of the far right persuasion remember not to join political groups like Michelle Bachman, Peter Schiff, Ron Paul, and the like.

Calen Michael Fretts March 22 at 8:12pm
how is it a “cope out”? no, I would never support a progressive position, because the progressive position is statism, which I am diametrically opposed to. you need to learn the difference between Republican and conservative, brother. you’ve got your liberal talking points down from Olbermann but I don’t think you quite understand them. you can say “tea baggers and neo confederates” or whatever childish words you think are insulting, but again, just by your words you show that you have no idea of the difference between neocon and conservative.

anyways, I hope you get to meet your idol Obama someday and he magically heals you from your pompous attitude or maybe gives you Change superpowers. that is if you didn’t have a love heart attack at first sight, seeing as how you go so far as to create “Obama-ize Yourself” pictures of yourself and put them on Facebook. that’s actually really hilarious man, thanks for the laughs.

March 22 at 9:42pm Report
Dude don’t get your panties in bunch, it’s politics. If you can’t take it don’t dish it, remember you are the one who called me out so don’t take it personal. You fail to understand my plight, I enjoy greatly getting righty’s mad, but back to the discussion… So you’re not a tea bagger, you’re not a republican, and you’re not a neo-con but you are a conservative, ohhh I get it…Notice how all these groups are conservative but different, I am shamefully sorry for confusing such vastly different factions within the Conservative movement. Nevertheless the label game is besides the point, because my assertions about you are all the same. Because the republican’s, the tea baggers, and the neo cons all vote and think the same way. And oh, I’m sorry for confusing neo-cons with regular conservatives but I will nonetheless argue that they are all the same. Conservatism is what is pitched to the American people, but neoconservatism is what they get. Conservative Republicans always say they favor protecting our civil liberties but some how they always become Neo-Conservatives and mock our civil liberties as an unnecessary restriction on government power. Conservative Republicans say they favor a smaller, less intrusive government but somehow when elected they become Neo-Conservatives who Are Willing to spend money (and expand government reach) without restraint, provided it helps them further their agenda. Again I am sorry for confussing the labels, what I meant to say is that tea bagger, conservative, and neoconservative are all the same, they are just at different stages in conservative evolutionary spectrum. Tea baggers is the misguided guppy where no real ideas come to fruition, conservatism is the vision that one grasps for and aspires to be, and neo-conservatism is the final stage where they gain power and abuse such power.

Anyways, regarding your humorous tid-bit about me meeting the great Obama with his ‘magical’ powers. I hope you are not referencing Limbaugh with his Messiah talk and Barrack the magic negro mantra. And stop the projection of your desperate need for a leader. You guys are in such dire need of leadership that you project that love fest on progressives, I know you want to Reagan-ize yourself but he’s dead and Sarah Palin just won’t do the trick. I think you’re version of Olberman, Glenn Beck, has fallen for the Obama-ize posters as well. He has himself, some other neo-cons, and some of the founding fathers all obama-ized on posters on his show’s set. But more importantly, don’t call me out for my political apps on facebook and act like you don’t ‘go as far’ as to have wall posts about socialism and other political imagery on your very profile.

But I cannot believe that anyone would be against social justice, compassion for fellow human beings, and progressive ideas which have shaped this nation into a more perfect nation. Progressive ideas like National Parks, abolishment of slavery, Fiat monetary system, women’s right to vote, labor laws, social security, medicare/medicaid, civil rights, landing a man on the moon, and now health care reform all of which makes this country great and stronger. How can you neglect people for the human right of living a healthy life. The abolishment of recession, no more pre-existing conditions, expanding coverage to most Americans, and allowing young Americans to be covered under their parents plans until they are 26. The bill’s not perfect. Costs would be controlled much more efficiently with a strong public option, but change is gradual. To close, I just do not understand your Me First Skrew Everyone Else attitude.

Keep ‘em coming, I hope you, Beck, Bohner, and the rest of you tea bagging neo confederates have ended your cry-fest and “end of the world, grab your guns” talk in the midst of change…But I permit you to keep your verbal diatribe coming my way because it’s quite entertaining. I bid you farewell homeboy.

PS- Enjoy that socialist government take-over of Healthcare

Calen Michael Fretts March 22 at 11:59pm
I’ll grant you that many people who call themselves conservatives are actually neocons, but this time you’ve bit off more than you know. I am willing to criticize Bush as equally as I am Obama – and yes, he was about equally as bad (although it at least took him a couple terms to get to that point). you clearly don’t understand the difference between “conservative”, “neoconservative”, and “Republican” (and “republican” for that matter). it’s okay, many don’t. but if you’re going to try to talk like the big dogs, you should learn.

the best thing about people like you and me is that people like you don’t know how to argue against people like me. I don’t listen to Limbaugh so I’m not familiar with those apparent quotes of his. I don’t watch Glenn Beck either, so thus continues the iconoclasm. McCain wasn’t and Palin isn’t anywhere near the candidate I would choose for the job. Reagan isn’t even my hero, so I’m afraid none of your completely original assertions hold water. I called you out for the hilarious pictures of you on the Obama “HOPE” poster. you’re just another brownshirt Obama zombie.

even more hilarious is your assertion that a “Fiat monetary system” is a good thing. first of all, the system isn’t named after the car, so there’s no reason to capitalize it. second, if you think that’s a good thing, you obviously either have no idea what it is or you’re delusional. the inclusion of things like “National Parks” and “landing a man on the moon” beside those other things you mentioned is even more hilarious. social security, medicare, and medicaid are bankrupting this country, and this new health care “reform” is only going to accelerate that path. someday if you ever wise up you will realize that liberalism is a no-brainer (it’s for people with no brain).

rock on dude.

PS – enjoy nullification.

PPS – I know you don’t know what that means. Google or should be able to help.

PPPS – while you’re at it, a spelling and grammar class might be helpful too. I’d give you a discount: only 1 gold ounce/hour.

and then I did not receive a reply, because apparently he has been kicked off Facebook (his profile is no more). I didn’t report him or anything, as I was actually entertained by his antics.. but I can’t say he didn’t deserve it.

January 30


I wrote this post on HOPE for my friend Danny at Waking Ideas.

So, a little over one year into the Obama presidency, and here we stand. The depression has deepened, the homeless and jobless rate is skyscraping, but The Administration insists the worst is over. The war is expanding into new territories, even though we stretched our military too thin years ago. Civil liberties are being taken at a record pace, for any reason our rulers can find to take them. We’re spending money we don’t have like it’s going out of style, to the point where other countries are refusing to lend to us anymore, and for good reason. Picking up in almost every way where the Bush administration left off, Obama’s approval rating is below 50% and dropping fast, and America’s praise for his colleagues on the Hill is barely half that high.

And therein lies the hope.

Recently the people of Massachusetts, the most liberal state in the nation, rattled the Democrats’ cage when they elected a Republican senator, a clear and outright rejection of the anti-capitalist, anti-free-market, anti-freedom policies of Obama and his party. Because of popular outcry, the government healthcare takeover bill has been severely weakened and even has a good chance of failing, forcing Congress to go back and take a fundamental look at what they are trying to accomplish and work towards it slowly instead of ramming something through. Ron Paul’s initiative to, for the first time ever, audit the Federal Reserve, the keeper of America’s fiscal policy, is growing wings. The man himself can be seen on news programs almost daily, a surprise but yet an encouragement to people like myself who support his platform.

Even if it is, for now, a bit overshadowed by the faux/pseudo-libertarian neocon movement, the true libertarian party is growing, its ideology spreading. Americans are starting to reject the Republicans and the Democrats, realizing they are just two wings of the same party. An intellectual the likes of Peter Schiff who, four years ago, was being laughed at for his economic outlook, is now running for Senate with a great shot at winning, and there we can take hope in the gradual restoration of sound money policies and Constitutional values. The libertarian ideology’s threatening effects to the establishment can be seen in the removal of people like John Stossel and Lou Dobbs from the airwaves. Andrew Napolitano will probably be next. But we must take hope that it’s too late to chill a movement that’s already taken hold.

It has become clear that Obama, his administration, and much of the Congress have lost touch with the American people. But there is hope. When the banks and corporations are bailed out before the people, they start to call Obama’s false populist promises for what they are: lies. Civil disobedience against the State is making a comeback, in a way that would make Thoreau proud. The number of thought insurgents is growing every day. Baby roots of iconoclasm are growing in our culture. The paradigm is shifting. The curtain is being torn, and the man behind it may finally have to show his face soon.

People are waking up. The insurgency is alive.

Category: economy, healthcare, politics, war | Comments Off on HOPE
October 4

in response to a statist, on healthcare

the following is a copy of comments left on my YouTube video socialized healthcare implications, reality, and solutions – first by another user, then my response. after I posted my response 2 weeks ago, he went back and removed a number of his comments (many of them pertaining to a misguided allegory between car insurance and health insurance), but here’s what remained.

Youre very fortunate not to have experienced the worse of the health care industry, but thats the problem. While many have found themselves in situations where they developed an illness while insured (by lets say their job) then lose that coverage (lets say they were laid off or moved), now they run the risk of being denied treatment or even coverage because they couldnt stay with their old provider. Not enough of you have had this experience, but if and when you do, youll be happy know that theres an indiscriminate insurance provider that will offer you coverage even if youve had cancer before. The Government. May I suggest that you read up on Mr. Lee Einer and what he was hired by health insurance companies to do.

the problem I have with your logic is that it takes all responsibility away from the courts. if the contract between the individual and the insurance company stated that the insurance could be terminated due to such a circumstance, the individual should have taken the responsibility of a) being informed and b) meeting any preexisting stipulations so this situation could not lawfully arise. now, if the courts do not lawfully enforce the contract, then they are at fault, and the problem is not with the healthcare system but with the inability of the insurance companies to be held accountable to the individual. if on the other hand the courts DO uphold the contracts, then the fault is on the individual for not fully understanding the contract they willfully signed. creating a government safety net serves only to accelerate the latter circumstance, as well as to rob people of their property. a co-op plan would make the most sense to me, however, NOT a state-run one. people should be free to voluntarily enter any co-op (across state lines) and do business with any insurance companies they please. the state does not need to be involved in order for this to be effective (quite the opposite in fact), there are numerous non-public nonprofits. this is why the answer is not MORE government, but less. we have not seen a truly free market in a century or two, but if we returned to one, costs would have no choice but to return to normal levels (this is why insurance companies lobby for MORE regulations – more taxpayer money for them). I have read the article on Lee Einer before, and certainly, corporate corruption is despicable – I am no “fan” of corporations per se. let me remind you that any individual is free to start their own insurance company should the existing options not fulfill the needs of the public (ah, capitalism), AND, no individual is forced into any contract with any insurance company (YET). let me also remind you that your solution is to take power from one group of greedy men and give it to another group of (not greedy?) politicians. I would like to return fire a suggestion to read “Confessions of an Economic Hitman” by John Perkins, if you have not already. it is a brilliant example of how we must never rely on corporations nor government, as both are ruled by greedy, powerful, and corrupt men. the responsibility of the individual is infinitely more important than the responsibility of the state. this is key to the health of our Republic.

Category: healthcare, politics | Comments Off on in response to a statist, on healthcare
July 22

socialized healthcare – implications, reality, and solutions

in President Obama’s latest weekly address, he basically claims that insurance companies are not standing up to their end of the deal and paying for certain medicines/surgeries/care that they are obligated to. I contend that, if this is the case, why not hold them liable in court, as we do in every other sector? for example, if a dealer sells me a new car that breaks the next day, and they don’t uphold the warranty, should I expect the government to fix it for free? no, I would take the company to court so that they must uphold their contract. the health industry should be no different. it’s important to note that the courts must actually impel the company to fulfill their obligation – companies breaking the law should be fined accordingly until it either bankrupts them or they start behaving. if the courts do not do this, the onus is on them, and they must be reformed – but it should not lead us to lean on The State to fill the gap.

on the other hand, if the reason that insurance companies don’t pay for certain medicines/surgeries/etc is that they are NOT obligated to, then they are running their business as they should – just as a car insurance company would not be contractually obligated to pay for a home that was destroyed. therefore, the individual is responsible for knowing what their insurance plan does and does not cover, and then deciding whether they wish to continue paying for that plan.

now, since I suspect that many times the reason insurance companies don’t pay for certain things is because they are NOT obligated to, socialized (single payer) healthcare does an interesting thing – it passes that obligation on to you, me, and other taxpayers. it comes to your house and says, “hey Calen – this man needs care he can’t afford – so you’re going to pay for it. that’s right, cough up the money! what’s that? you don’t want to pay for him? how’s prison sound! what’s that? you don’t want to go to prison? BANG. YOU’RE DEAD.”

of course that sounds dramatic, but in a nutshell, that’s how it actually works. my point is this: accountability and responsibility should be on the individual needing care (or their family if need be, or charities, or the Church), but not on The State, which is really just the rest of the taxpaying People. one citizen should never feel entitled to another citizen’s property, and when you look at socialized healthcare (and Medicare/Medicaid) in a cut and dry sense, that’s exactly what you have.

a lot of people argue that hey, many people have a pre-existing condition and can’t get health insurance now. we can equate this to buying a car and driving it around uninsured for a few years. finally you get in an accident, and you’re stuck with the bill. you could try to get insurance on the car at this point, but good luck finding a company to take you up on that! insurance is not supposed to be this thing that people run to when they need healthcare and it magically hands out medicine to them. it is a hedge against your odds of eventually needing it – you pay in when you’re healthy and it pays out when you’re sick.

now, the only logical way to afford socialized healthcare is to tax the People (or borrow and increase the debt, or print money, both of which are hidden taxes). neither of these is desired, or, at this point, affordable. the solution is to keep The State’s hands totally off of the healthcare industry (other than to enforce contracts, as stated above). when this happens, the People who are for using their taxes to help the poor can instead donate the couple hundred dollars to a charity (or individual) of their choice, if they so choose. in this way, we put accountability and responsibility on the People (where it belongs), we preserve choice, and we endorse freedom of contract, the strongest base of a free Republic.

If you protect a man from folly, you will soon have a nation of fools.

– William Penn

July 16

lessons on eugenics, part 2 (kill your children [so we don’t have to])

in 1974, the eugenicist Henry Kissinger (National Security Advisor at the time) published National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests (NSSM200). this study was adopted as official U.S. policy in 1975. as the title implies, the report discusses the need for population control in developing countries. the main form of “population control” endorsed is, of course, abortion.

Kissinger supported an interesting method of encouraging countries to engage in abortion, as seen in part 2 of the study:

Since population growth is a major determinant of increases in food demand, allocation of scarce PL 480 resources should take account of what steps a country is taking in population control as well as food production. In these sensitive relationships, however, it is important in style as well as substance to avoid the appearance of coercion.

in case you missed it, let me spell that out for you: we should give preferential treatment with regards to food and aid to countries which are committed to using abortion as a method of population control. but, we should be sneaky about it!

it is important to note that the US refuses to rescind this policy, even after being called upon to do so ever since the report was made public in the early 90s. if something seems familiar about this, it’s probably because one of Obama’s first moves in office was to reinforce this policy of providing aid to abortion-happy African countries.

and if you still think this is all in the past, I refer you to a chilling statement made by our current National Security Advisor, James Jones to the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations): “As the most recent National Security Advisor of the United States, I take my daily orders from Dr. Kissinger”.

hopefully this also gives some insight into why violent wars are perpetuated by the US. they are not meant to be won, only sustained, for the optimal amount of death and financial gain.