Politically Correct Psychosis

In the high profile trial of Brian David Mitchell, Elizabeth Smart gave startling testimony about how her abductor evaded capture in Salt Lake City, Utah. Apparently, a homicide detective happened across two veiled women outside a public restroom at a library. When the detective instructed Ms. Smart to drop her vale, Mitchell intervened rebuking the officer on the grounds of religious freedom.

 Mitchell had hidden his hostage’s identity behind a veil of cloth, which enabled him to parade her in plain sight. The officer, obviously intimidated by political correctness, let Mitchell and his accomplice leave unmolested with Elizabeth Smart their captive. It’s troubling how a dangerous criminal can evoke religious freedom and abscond from justice in this country. This example is particularly disturbing considering Mitchell’s convoluted idea that religion involves kidnapping, rape, and torture, basically the utter destruction of someone else’s individual rights. Mitchell’s perverse religious ideology shares a common theme predominant in all religion; that is mysticism is superior to reason.

 Like the police officer who abandoned reason and logic, subjugating his mind to the superiority of a criminal’s mysticism. The cultural elitist of our country have elevated mysticism over the superiority of mans mind. They bludgeon our intellect with the politically correct doctrine of tolerance. Tolerance we are instructed is the moral ideal of our time. Tolerance commands we abort reason for we dare not identify the evil amongst us. It commands we suspend all judgment and refrain from conceptualizing right from wrong, for a belief in mysticism, no matter how illogical, corrupt, or vile, takes precedence over mans rational mind.

 One should be reminded of the war of civilizations being waged against us and the world by the radical nation of Islam. Time and time again the politically correct remind us that denouncing a religion that enslaves women and children which negates mans rights while simultaneously putting all non-conformist to death is not in our best interest.

 Nowhere is this irrational mindset more prevalent than on the battle fields of the Middle East. The politically correct have perverted democracy to enhance Islamic totalitarianism. There the word freedom is used synonymously with jihad. Murder and oppression are elevated to a virtue in the name of religion, in the name of mysticism.

 Here in the free world people who harbor fugitives are brought to trial and punished. If you are cognizant of a murder and don’t report it, you may stand trial for conspiracy. Should you give a murderer safe harbor you are guilty of aiding and abetting. However, on the battle fields of Afghanistan aiding and abetting go unpunished. Civilians provide safe harbor for our enemies with impunity. Over there you can bear arms against American forces one minute, then drop your gun and walk away a civilian the next. And should one loose their life while aiding and abetting the enemy they are considered civilian casualties of war, victims in the eyes of the world. Over there the enemy is free use their mosques to stock pile weapons and perpetrate acts of terror with impunity, all in the name of religious zealotry, all in the name of mysticism.

 It should be noted that a benevolent religion doesn’t kill those opposed to their brand of mysticism. A benevolent religion is one that promotes the individual rights of man. A benevolent religion doesn’t enslave mans mind, or claim self sacrifice as a moral ideal.

 Whether it is a church of one, as is in Brain David Mitchell’s case or a congregation of millions. Any form of mysticism that negates mans rights, negates mans rational mind, and elevates the promise of sacrifice and death as virtuous is no religion. It is nothing more than a cult of death, and takes no precedence over man’s intellect.

Morally Hazardous Medicine

Medicine in American is fraught with moral hazard. People in this country have been conditioned to believe all medical care is free or can be bought for pennies on the dollar, and now, thanks to Obamacare, many think it’s their right. Part of this fallacy stems from a comprehensive medical insurance industry. Eye, dental, hearing, office visitations, marriage, and psychiatric counseling, the insurance industry is expected to be all encompassing providing every aspect of medical coverage. No other facet of the insurance industry even comes close. For example, when you take out a comprehensive automobile policy, that policy doesn’t cover oil changes, nor does it pay for a flat tire; everything from windshield wiper fluid to automotive diagnostics are out of pocket expenses.

 This pernicious, one size fits all, comprehensive entitlement mentality has been exacerbated by the government at both the state and federal level. For example, some states mandate insurance companies offer in-vitro fertilization. This expensive, seldom utilized option is just one example why health insurance is not portable on a state to state basis. It is one example why some states have so few insurance providers; most companies can’t afford the extraneous regulations imposed at the state level. At the federal level, Medicare and Medicaid hoists a constellation of regulations upon the health care industry crippling what should be a market driven industry. Obamacare doubles down on the mandated services insurance companies will have to provide to stay in business.

 Plastic surgery, Gastric bypass surgery, hair transplants, the sky is the limit, proof of citizenship be dammed. Here in lies the moral hazard; if everything is comprehensive, if everything is free or of little cost to the consumer, why not have two of everything?

This morally hazardous behavior manifests itself in hospitals across America every day. People with means and those with no means at all; walk into Emergency Rooms for a soar throat or a toothache. They call 911 dispatching an ambulance to take them to the hospital because they have “pain”. Then upon discharge they expect the ambulance to take them back home.

 The majority of patients seen in an acute care setting are there because off afflictions associated with risky behavior. Alcohol, tobacco, and drug, related illness is a common denominator. Many are there because they have eaten themselves to the brink of death and now are so morbidly obese they can no longer breathe and have co-morbidity system failures. And their layman solutions for their afflictions are frequently the same: “Gee, had I known I was going to live this long I would have taken better care of myself.” “Hey, can’t I just take a pill for this?” or “Why can’t Johnny just get a liver transplant like everyone else?” “Yes, I understand the meaning of the word malignant, but when can I have a cigarette?” Unfortunately, these individuals are viewed as victims of their own risky behaviors. Personal responsibility plays no role in this medical model (with one exception) the personally responsible are on the hook to pay for the morally hazardous behaviors of others.

 All moral hazard is the causation of government meddling in the market place. Make no mistake, under Obamacare this problem will only balloon exponentially, same as the burgeoning bureaucracy created to implement this massive comprehensive entitlement.