The word’s etymology has much to teach us.  It goes all the way back to ancient Greece, where a hypocrites was an actor in a play–a person who spent his time pretending to be someone he wasn’t, all for show, and all for the pleasure of his audience.  Sound familiar?  Look how hard most politicians work to prevent us from knowing what they really believe.  Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have one thing in common with that regard:  they both start stuttering and tripping over their words when they get on the topics of turbulent political issues.  It’s one thing to speak carefully and with consideration for the meaning of one’s words–but speaking with the objective of hiding one’s honest opinion is exactly the opposite of what we need in the political arena.

Here’s a really bodacious idea:  politicians should tell us what they really believe.  They should tell us their core values and explain how those values inspire them not only in their political lives but in their personal lives as well.  Rather than crafting a speech differently for every different audience, and rather than telling constituents the things that are most popular, tell us what truly motivates you.  Explain how your opinions as an elected leader will be influenced by your primary values.  Practice the politics of honesty.  It would be wildly popular.  Sure, people will disagree.  But I’m willing to bet that they’d be so surprised and delighted with a politician of genuine integrity that it would earn that man or woman a powerful voice in the political system.  And the really neat thing is that if a person loses an election because of honesty, that person will still have integrity to take home at the end of the day.

I offer the following analysis for consideration.  Many self-professed liberals are delighted by increasing governmental control over what we eat and where we can purchase those items.  In 201o President Obama signed into law new powers allowing the USDA to regulate what items are sold in vending machines on school campuses.  That same year Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his fellow liberals took aim at salt and trans fats, and now he and his merry band of health enforcers want to forbid the sale of sugary soft drinks in containers that hold more than 16 ounces.  In 2011 the City of San Francisco enacted a law forbidding the inclusion of free toys with certain types of meals in an effort to regulate what children eat, though McDonald’s found a way around the law by introducing a charge for the toys.

Controlling the citizenry is a very popular idea among many on the Left in this country–even to the point of federal agencies monitoring vending machines, and city health officials checking on our intake of salt and sugar.  And let’s be honest about the fact that it’s force that is being used.  Mayor Bloomberg himself stated it this week.  “We’re simply forcing you to understand that you have to make the conscious decision to go from one cup to another,” he said, referring to the ban on larger cups containing soft drinks made with sugar.  Will beverage sellers comply?  Yes, I assure you that they will.  And this will be because of the threat of force.  It can be terribly expensive and even dangerous to tell the government to go to hell.

With all of this liberal willingness to tell us how to live our lives and control what we’re putting into our mouths for the sake of our health, isn’t it odd that most of those same liberals don’t have the same approach to sexual conduct?  Too much sugar and too much salt will kill you, they say, but when it comes to sex they give you a free condom and demand that private insurance provide other forms of free birth control.

Their excuse?  “We can’t stop people from having sex,” they insist.  Right.  I agree.  So leave that issue to them, along with the question of birth control.  And while you’re at it, leave the question of sugar and salt consumption to them as well.  Do we as a society have problems with sugar, salt, trans fats, and obesity?  Yes, we do.  The cure for the problem resides at the same level as the problem itself:  personal responsibility.

In the abortion debate we hear the cry from liberals that the government has no right to tell a woman what to do with her body, yet many of those same liberals support the notion of controlling our bodies when it comes to what we’re eating.  Can you see the hypocrisy and inconsistency?  It’s so blatant and obvious that I leads me to the conclusion that their actions aren’t based upon any true concern for our health–they are simply a way to pander to supporters, amass power, build egos, and justify excessive bureaucracy.

Perhaps a fitting end to this blog post would be a timely bit of insight from none other than Thomas Jefferson.  “I predict future happiness for Americans,” he insisted, “if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”  In that quotation I put the italicized emphasis on the word “if.”

It’s a mighty big “if.”

The “mainstream” media is touting the fact that Barack Obama has compromised on the birth control mandate.  Compromise?  I didn’t see any compromise.  All he did was to supposedly shift the cost, a shell game played all the time by the politicians in Washington.  When it comes to making one group pay for things to be given to another, however, Democrats are kings.  As Michael Brendan Dougherty wrote yesterday over at Business Insider, Obama won’t make his liberal allies pay for their own reproductive coverage, and Catholics are refusing to pay for the parts of it their church leaders condemn as wrong, so he pulled out his magic elixir and decreed that no one will have to pay for it.

Let’s let the Welfare, uh, White House statement speak for itself:  “Religious organizations will not have to provide contraceptive coverage or refer their employees to organizations that provide contraception.”  Instead,  “insurance companies will be required to provide contraception coverage to these women free of charge.”  That’s a fantasy, but those last three words still represent the great doxology of Democrat policies.  They cure all ills.  They fix all problems.  And they are meant to guarantee Democrat victories in national politics for ever and ever, world without end.  To this prayer there are many who are willing to chant, “Amen.”

When owners and investors take the risks of opening a business or establishing a company, it is they who should decide what benefits to offer employees.  It should be the potential employees who decide whether or not to take the jobs offered, based upon those benefits.  To those who have a preference for socialist models, we call this the “free market.”  (Salaries used to be decided by the free market, too, but that’s a topic for another post.) 

Employers should decide whether to offer insurance, or no insurance, and whether or not to cover co-pays and deductibles or any other costs they wish to consider.  Except for preventing fraud and dishonesty in the negotiation and sale of such coverage, government should stay out of the affairs of private persons.  Benefits and employment arrangements, for the most part, are private affairs between private persons.  But that’s not how it works when you have a Godzilla-sized camel named Government that insists on putting its nose into every tent in the country.  “I’m Government,” grins the camel, “and I’m here to help.”  The story is worthy of Dr. Seuss himself.

We all know what the real agenda is for the so-called “progressives” in our nation’s capital:  a single-payer system.  Mark my words, dear reader, when I promise you that they will never rest until they get this.  And at some point they will get it unless we reclaim our constitutional republic.  One can almost feel the disdain with which CBS reported on the fact that “conservatives who believe religious freedom always trumps gender equity in the public arena are outraged.” 

Dear CBS, let’s get it right for a change.  The religious people you criticize in this particular matter haven’t taken anything from anyone.  All they have asked is that they not be forced to pay for or provide coverage for services they believe to be immoral.  Is that so hard to get?  Is that request so unreasonable?  Bluntly, many progressives will reply that it is unreasonable.  Tyranny is always predicated upon some notion of what’s good, even when it has to be a good that is falsified and presented in the shadows.  Nothing matters here but the end game, my friends:  universal, single-payer healthcare coverage.

Why not?  It will be free.  “Free of charge.”  It has a nice ring to it. 

The Left is forever whining about the fact that Americans supposedly pay more for healthcare than anyone else on the planet.  We also spend more on our pets than anywhere else.  Do we need a federal mandate on that, too?

Wait until healthcare is ”free.”  As they say down here in the Deep South, “you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.”

There was surpringly little outcry or protest, presumably because most of our nation’s citizens, sadly, are used to the meddling hands of government bureaucrats being where they ought not be.  The federal government commands us in so many ways–it even gets its “own” share of our paychecks before we do.  Well, it looks like leaders of the Catholic Church aren’t going to roll over so easily. 

All around the country yesterday, letters were to be read in the pulpits of Catholic churches.  The individual letters came from local bishops and show evidence of minor differences, but their overall similarities show them to be the product of a nationwide response by the Catholic bishops as a whole.  They rightfully point out that forcing Catholic institutions to provide insurance coverage for procedures and drugs that violate authoritative Catholic teaching amounts to a denial of religious liberty.

The letters are strongly worded, and several examples can be seen on the website of Business Insider.  The sentence that I find most inspiring is straightforward and clear.  How refreshing it is to see the bishops taking a stand:  “We cannnot–we will not–comply with this unjust law.”  I stand with the bishops in support of their complaint and I thank them heartily for their courage and outspoken protest. 

Remember all the things we were promised by President Obama and the Democrats?  We’ll keep our own insurance if we wish, private insurance will remain private, costs will go down instead of up, and so many of our nation’s healthcare woes will come to an end.  Those were the promises but the realities are quite different.

Well, let me be blunt:  We told you so.  You were warned.  Political absolutists with absolute ideologies will stop at nothing to gain their way.