On the Mike Gallagher show, I heard a debate about endorsing candidates for office. The office in question is the 23^rd district in New York. There is a candidate that went through the nominating process for the party and has the Republican Party endorsement. She is very liberal on most issues. There is also a Conservative Party candidate that has values closer to those of most conservatives around the country. The debate is which should we get behind, the one that got the party nomination and is liberal or the conservative candidate who did not place high in the party nominating process.

Newt Gingrich has endorsed the Republican candidate for the office. He is catching a lot of flak for endorsing her because of her liberal views. His take on the issue is that you sometimes have to accept candidates that are not 100% with you on all the issues. He cited some examples when he was running for Speaker of the House and after he obtained Speaker. Lee Habib, the Mike Gallagher show political expert, seconded the endorsement by Newt. He cited the example of the Democrats recruiting conservative Democrats to run in Republican districts and winning.

Callers to the show were not necessarily so forgiving. Most were tired of having liberal RINO Republicans voting with the Democrats to destroy important legislation or pass Democrat legislation that is equally destructive. Their point is that it is better to have reliable conservative votes than having unreliable RINO votes.

My position is somewhere close to Newt’s position. It is most important to win and be in a position to direct the affairs of the House and Senate. Second is passing or defeating certain legislation. That said, it is also important that people in your party have certain “core values” that are important legislatively. That does not mean that the candidate has to have all Republican “core values”, just those that will enable the important legislation to get through.

Then we have to decide what are the most important “core values” that a candidate would have to have in order to get an endorsement. In my humble opinion, the candidate would have to be a fiscal conservative. That is that the person would only spend federal money when it was absolutely necessary to spend federal money. The person would necessarily need to desire to follow the Constitution. Now, I would not necessarily expect that the candidate have exactly the same view of what is Constitutional. But, a desire to follow the Constitution would solve most questions on whether to fund a particular federal program. That would be about all that I would require the candidate to have as “core values”.

Some of you are going to ask about social issues. Social issues are important to me. I am as pro-life as anyone in the country, but I also am realistic when it comes to politics. If we require all Republican candidates be strictly pro-life, we would deprive ourselves of some good legislative candidates. Notice I said legislative candidates, not Presidential candidates. A Presidential candidate would need to be pro-life to get my endorsement because the President directly impacts life issues. Legislatures only indirectly deal with life issues, so a pro-choice candidate is not necessarily a liability. But a candidate that is not with you on financial issues can destroy your legislative agenda very fast. That is why financial issues are the hard and fast “core values” that I require in a candidate.

If there are two equally good candidates and one only meets the financial values and the other adds the social values, of course I would endorse the candidate with the social values.

In the case being discussed in the 23^rd district of New York, you have two candidates to choose from. One has been selected by the Republican Party and the other by the Conservative Party. From what I know of New York politics, it is impossible for a Republican to win without the endorsement of the Conservative Party. The reverse would also be true. When you look at how the person would vote, both would follow the Republican line most of the time (using a generic Republican, not this liberal one). So in essence, the Republican Party is running two candidates in this election. Since that is the case, I would endorse the candidate that is closest to my position. That would be the Conservative Party candidate, not the Republican Party candidate. My reasoning is that the Conservative Party candidate would vote with my position almost all the time. The Republican Party candidate would vote with the Democrats more than the Republicans. That is not a Republican candidate that is worth endorsing in my opinion.

I am not saying that Newt Gingrich is wrong. He looked at the party label after the name and made his selection on that basis. He did that because he is a Republican first and a conservative second. I, on the other hand, am a conservative first and a Republican second. That is the main difference between us.

One time I was asked a question that made me think. The question was: “If Christianity was outlawed, would there be enough evidence to convict you?” I had to think long and hard to determine if the answer was yes or no. I came up that my answer had to be a yes, because I leave a very clear path to show that I am a Christian.

But, I would like to modify that question today just a little. If freedom was outlawed, would there be enough evidence to convict you of supporting freedom? Since I blog and write frequently about freedom in its many forms, the answer for me would be yes. But, do I always support freedom or just when it is convenient? Do I support freedom for those that I disagree with or do I only support freedom for my side? Now, I have made the question much tougher to answer in the affirmative.

All of us support freedom for those we agree with. That position is easy because if you agree with someone, that person is not a threat of any kind. The hard question is whether I support freedom for those that I disagree with. As a kid I learned a statement that I used frequently. It was: “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” I have always tried to live by that ideal. When I see someone obviously trying to do harm to the country I love, it is sometimes hard not to want their freedom of speech or assembly curtailed.

An example of wanting someone’s speech curtailed is when I hear Barack Obama tell lies about what is in the subprime healthcare bill. I want someone to come up to him and say that he cannot tell lies about the bill in the House or Senate. But, he has the right to tell lies about what he believes if that is the only way he can sell it to the public. It is the job of the public to find out the truth. They should not just rely on the words of politicians that will often distort the truth to fit certain groups. Wanting his speech curtailed would be a restriction on freedom of speech and is beneath me. Therefore, I allow and even encourage others to speak in opposition to what I believe.

In watching and listening to the news and blogs, it is clear that one side in this debate believes in freedom and one side does not. One side speaks about what they believe and tries to bring out arguments to rebut the arguments of the other side. The other side generally cannot win in any debating situation, so they generally try to curtail the free speech of the person or group that is giving them trouble. The people arguing from the right are the ones that provide arguments and allow the other side to have their say. The people on the left are the ones that generally call for a law or some other infringement on the right of the opposition to speak.

Another example of this playing out is the response to the subprime healthcare bill. With all the opposition to the bill, the Democrats are saying that the people protesting do not have the right to protest or that they are using Nazi tactics. When Democrats were doing far worse in protesting against everything George W. Bush was doing, that was just fine. Republicans generally did not appreciate the protests against George W. Bush, but accepted them as part of the price of freedom. Republicans did not call for restrictions on the right of the protesters to protest. Look at the contrast with the Democrats and the subprime healthcare debate.

We, as Americans, should celebrate freedom in its many forms. That some Americans object to other
Americans voicing their opinions, it is wrong. That is the problem with many of the bills coming out of this Democrat led Congress, they generally try to curtail one freedom or another. This subprime healthcare debacle is trying to restrict an entire bunch of freedoms at one time. That is why people are protesting. When Democrats were cutting them off one at a time, people did not always notice. By doing it a bunch at a time, people are noticing and objecting. It also takes the mask off of the Democrats at the same time. That is why it is so great to see it finally come to pass. Democrats are being shown for what they are instead of what they pretend to be. They pretend to be the friend of the people and are the friend of the powerful. We can hope that this continues and the unmasking continues.

The “Blue Dog” Democrats rolled over and played dead yesterday on the health care bill. They are portraying it as a great victory, but if you look at the details you will see they caved for nothing. All they got for their stance was some good press and some promises that are not worth the paper they are printed on. Democrats are well known for promising to talk about all sorts of reforms, then not implementing those reforms when the time comes. So, in essence the Blue Dog Democrats caved from their position and got absolutely nothing for their efforts. They did get some positive press, which might help them get re-elected if their opponent is not smart enough to realize that a promise is not the same thing as having it actually happen.

It is rumored that there are 3 Republican Senators that are negotiating with Democrats in the Senate. This is undoubtedly the bill that stands the greatest chance at passing. It will be the one that will have the fewest problems. The current House bill is a major disaster. The current Democrat bill in the Senate is an improvement over the House bill, but not by much. The 3 sellout Republicans bill will probably get the greatest amount of support. We can only hope that the “public” option has been taken off of the table. I doubt that very much.

The good thing that has come from the delaying by the Blue Dog Democrats is that the bill will not be considered by the House before the August recess. That gives people at home a chance to chew on their Senators and Congressmen to tell them that we do not want socialized healthcare in the United States of America.

Right now, we do not have a crisis of health care. Anyone who needs to see a doctor can see a doctor. They can see a doctor at the time they need to see the doctor. Everyone will be treated, whether they have insurance or not. The quality of care may be different if you have insurance or not, but you will receive care. Under socialized medicine, if it is not convenient for the doctors you do not receive treatment, even if it is an emergency. In Canada, they close the Urgent Care clinics on Sundays. Where are the Canadians going to come for health care if we are being forced to wait for months for care we used to get immediately?

I read a post on Hugh Hewitt’s blog this morning from a person with bladder cancer. He went over his treatment from initial diagnosis to now. In the letter, he tells how one doctor tells him that in socialized medicine countries his care is radiation treatment, instead of surgery and chemotherapy that he received. That made him question whether his treatment program was right. He was told that the reason that radiation is used in socialized medicine countries is that it is cheaper. The best way to treat the cancer this person has is by surgery and chemotherapy. The problem is that the treatment is also more expensive. The letter writer’s insurance company never questioned any treatment that he received.

The problem is supposed to be 47 million people that are uninsured. That may be a true number, I am not sure. Some people claim the number is high and others claim it is low. For the point to be made, it does not really matter. About 1/3 of that number are people who are not here legally. Any nationalized health care system would not cover these people anyway. About 1/3 are people that are young and unmarried. This is the indestructible period. They do not buy health insurance because they do not feel that they need health insurance. The remaining 1/3 contains two groups of people. One group makes enough money that they feel they can pay for their health care by themselves, without insurance. Rush Limbaugh falls into this category. The other part of the group are people that either have a pre-existing condition that makes it difficult or impossible to get health insurance or they cannot afford health insurance. It is this last group that is the problem and where all the efforts should be placed.

Instead of changing the entire system to cover a small number of people, just tweak a part of the system to get those covered who really need the insurance and cannot get it. This group numbers less than 10 million people. Develop some program for these people.

The other problem people are missing is the fact that Medicare and Medicaid are breaking us financially. If the government cannot run those two health programs properly, how could they run a massive new program with any degree of efficiency? If you want to know what socialized medicine will be like, spend a day at the DMV. In a report I saw from Canada, many of their clinics offices looked like DMV offices. It gave me the chills to think that I might have to endure that kind of horror in the near future.

The time to stop Obamacare is during this Congressional Recess. If we show up at the Townhall meetings that the Senators and Congressmen hold over the break, we might get it through to them. If we fail at this time, then the United States will fail to last as a country. The experiment in self-government will be called a failure and it will be our generation that lost the dream. I do not want that on my head. What about you?

First, a little background before I get to my point, it is a bit long but will help to understand how I got to that point and why.

For a while I had been playing games on iwon.com. Then, about a year ago they decided to let people form challenge teams to raise funds for different charities. I looked around for a cause that fit me and what I believed in. I settled on the Wounded Warriors Project Challenge group. For the first few months, we were first place every month. Then, we started taking second place. We were the largest group in our category, so I could not understand what was going on. About this time, I was contacted by Ron Kohn who was forming an iwonwoundedwarriors.com group. This group was for the most dedicated players and was to help us increase our scores to the maximum.

I joined the group and after a short time, my score reached the maximum level. That is not important, except that it shows I am committed to supporting the cause I selected. Then last Monday, Ron contacted me and invited me to join an online game over Facebook, called Mafia Wars. I joined his team thinking I would be helping him and would be spending an hour or so a day. Boy was I wrong.

At first, I did my usual thing. I played the game and generally did not involve others. I found that others attacked me and I always lost. So, I decided to do something about it. I decided to grow my team to the 500 member level that you need to be really successful. You can have larger teams, but only 500 members count when you fight other teams. I have team mates from all over the world. It really is impressive to me how international this game really is. It was during this rapid expansion phase that I came across a person that had his priorities straight. He had his political leanings listed as: 1. American, 2. Conservative, 3. Republican. I sent him a message that I echoed his opinions. This is my point.

As a conservative, I too have the priority listing of American, conservative, and then Republican. It is that way because there are way too many liberals in powerful positions within the Republican Party. That means that the Republicans frequently do not take the conservative position or even support the conservative candidate in a race. Liberal Republicans gave us this new drug benefit for Medicare during George W. Bush’s term in office. Any conservative could see that it was a bad idea, but Republicans could not see it because it was proposed by a liberal Republican and there was a moderate Republican in the White House. Liberal Republicans love to hear the cheer from the liberal establishment in Washington. Conservatives know they will not receive love from the liberals in Washington, so they do not care to encourage the entanglement with them.

As an American and a conservative, I am appalled by the path that the country is headed. Where we should be going and how to get there is clear. The muddle-headedness of the Republicans is more evidence that the Republican leadership is not conservative. The Republican leadership is basically a liberal group or they would have figured out how to get out of the messes that Obama has put us in. That they have not figured out how to get out of the mess is all the evidence you need that they are really liberals.

The liberal Republicans still hold the policies of the past as sacred. What we need to do is plow a new path. Any conservative could get us out of this mess pretty quick. Liberals cannot do it because they secretly like the way things are going. That is why I am an American and a conservative, who happens to be a Republican. That is probably the best way to put it.

This month, Congress is debating the Health Care bill also known as Obamacare. The Democrats are trying as hard as they can to get the total cost below $1 trillion, but are finding that task extremely difficult. No matter what they do, the total cost remains firmly above $1 trillion. We all know that the true cost will be several times more than the estimated cost, but they have to get the estimated cost below the $1 trillion mark to sell it to the public. So far, that has been impossible. As a result, the public polling indicates that support for Obamacare is now about 50-50. That is hardly enough support to destroy our medical system.

On the way to work, I heard Stuart Varney from Fox News interviewed by Mike Gallagher. He said that there was little reason to tax our health insurance and other benefits to insure the uninsured. The approximately 30 million uninsured include about 10 million illegal aliens, 10 million people earning over $75,000 who want to self insure and 10 million people between 18 and 24 who are invincible and don’t want health insurance. At no point in that equation are there people that truly need our help. There are people included in the uninsured group that are between jobs, but they generally get another job within a very short period of time. Again, that is not a reason to change our health insurance system to include these. There is just not a good reason to justify changing our health insurance system to include people who do not want, do not need or should not receive health insurance. As a whole, Americans are happy with the health insurance they currently have. Any health insurance system designed by the Democrats will force everyone out of the health insurance they currently have into government insurance, which will not be as good.

Making everyone have insurance is one thing. It creates a problem in that if everyone has insurance, they will be tempted to use it more often. If they use it more often, it will tax the ability of our medical community to give us the level of care that we have traditionally received. Government insurance will mean that the waiting rooms will be packed. That will ultimately lead to rationing of care by the government. The government would have to decide who gets priority to the doctor and who does not. The older and sicker you are the less ability to use the medical system will be available. We will be starting a form of medicine like the movie, “Logan’s Run”. In that movie, you received medical care until you reached a certain age. Once you reached that age, you were killed. I am not saying this will be that bad, but I am sure that there will be restrictions on what health care will be available to those over a certain age.

I cannot think of a single advantage, except for the hospital administrator. They will know that the person being treated has health insurance and what coverage is included. Other than to hospital and doctor billing offices, there are really no benefits to the public at large. There is the liberal benefit of being able to say that you were able to get everyone covered with medical insurance. I suppose that is a noble goal, but at least two-thirds of those that are uninsured do not want to be insured. You are forcing them to do something they do not want to do. That is taking freedom away from them. We cannot go around taking freedom away from people. Sooner or later we run out of freedoms and nobody is free. That time is fast approaching. People are too willing to give up freedom for security. As Winston Churchill is supposed to have said, “Those who would give up freedom for security soon find themselves neither free nor secure.” There is a lot of truth to that statement, whether Churchill said it or not.

This month will determine whether there will be an America in 2010. If the Democrats succeed in passing Obamacare, America will cease to exist as an idea. It will still exist as a country, but no longer as the free country it had been for 233 years. It would forever be a socialist country from now on and never again hold the truths of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as true. For those reasons, if for no other reason we have to stop Obamacare. We cannot put forth Obamacare lite. That would just do the same thing only with a Republican twist. We need to stop the Obamacare as proposed and any other government option for healthcare. That is the true AMERICAN way.

Yesterday, there was a shooting at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. It was done by an 88 year old man who was filled with hate. He was a white supremacist. That makes a number of hate killings in the past few weeks. In the ones that were supposedly done by conservatives or conservative leaning killers, the left has demanded that the right state that they detest such killings. Those statements are forthcoming from the leaders of all conservative groups. When the killings were done by those with supposed liberal leaning ideologies there has been universal silence from liberal groups. Why is that?

Here in the Phoenix area, the Mayor of Phoenix had to step into the controversy by denouncing the killing. That is just fine as far as it goes. I abhor this killing and any other killing. But, the mayor had to add something to his statement that was completely uncalled for. He called on the Sheriff of Maricopa County, Joe Arpaio, to denounce the killing. Again, that is just fine as far as it goes. But again, the mayor had to add something to his statement. He went on to say that Joe Arpaio had been consorting with white supremacists in the past and had his picture taken with them, thereby implying that Joe Arpaio supports the white supremacist movement. Joe Arpaio does not support the white supremacists. He has arrested them on numerous times in the past. Joe has denounced their philosophy and their tactics on numerous occasions in the past. Evidently Phil Gordon (Mayor of Phoenix) does not have a memory that goes back that far. What Phil Gordon is trying to do with the statement is paint Joe Arpaio with the brush of the white supremacist movement. If he can do that, he might be able to stop Joe Arpaio from rounding up illegal aliens and prosecuting them for breaking the laws of Arizona. That is a disgusting display of idiocy from a politician. Unfortunately, it is par for the course for a Democrat these days.

Killings by supposed right wing nut jobs have been on the abortion doctor and the Holocaust Museum. All Right-to-Life organizations have denounced the killing of the abortion doctor. All prominent conservatives have denounced the killing of the abortion doctor. The killing of the guard at the Holocaust Museum was only yesterday, so denunciation of the killing will take time.

Killings by supposed left wing nut jobs include the Muslim killings of the soldiers outside the recruiting station in Arkansas. If anyone, other than conservatives, has denounced these killings I am not aware of that statement. Of course, there is a caveat to this killing. If you denounce a killing by a Muslim, you might be subject to a killing yourself as defaming Islam. That might be true, even if the denunciation is justified. So, most people will keep quiet about killings by Muslims. They will also keep silent about other atrocities by Muslims for the same reason. In that way, Muslims gain power over large portions of the population. You have to stand up to radical Muslims if you ever expect to keep the country.

This uneven outrage is common in every situation. Conservatives will express outrage over any incident that requires it. Liberals will shout that conservatives need to show outrage when then perceive that conservatives need to show outrage. Liberals never show outrage in any situation, except when a perceived conservative does something. Then their outrage is not with the act, it is with the conservatives. It shows what their agenda is. Their agenda does not care what someone does, they just want everyone to think and act alike. Anyone who does not is dangerous.

You can examine any situation and see this uneven response. If a prominent conservative does something wrong, conservatives will take responsibility and remove that person. If a prominent liberal does something wrong, liberals rally around that person and demand that conservatives retract their defamatory statements against this liberal. They then put this liberal that did something wrong into a place of power and authority. The more you do wrong, the higher you go in the new Democrat party. There was a time when Democrats had standards of behavior like conservatives. Now, the situation has changed. Democrats only have standards of behavior for Republicans and conservatives. They have no standards of behavior for themselves. That is one major reason our country is in the fix it is currently in.

The revolt against the Obama administration may be starting. There are rumblings coming from all parts of the country in newspaper articles on people that are upset that the Obama administration is rewarding people that are irresponsible and punishing the responsible people. Yesterday on CNBC one of their financial analysts basically declared a “Tea Party” on this new mortgage bill that Obama came to Arizona to promote.

For those of you who are not well versed in American History, the American Revolution basically started when a group of Americans got fed up with British taxation and dumped tea into the Boston Harbor. The British responded with more taxes and more controls. This resulted in more Americans getting upset with the British. Finally it all came to a head in Lexington, MA with the shot “heard round the world”. This call for a tea party may be the start of the revolt against the higher taxes and profligate spending of the Obama administration.

That there would be a revolt against higher taxes and overspending is not a surprise. What is a surprise is that it happened so fast. We are just one month into the Obama administration and already people are calling for a revolt. That has to be some kind of record. Obama came into Washington with sky high approval numbers and anticipation of great things to come. One month later, we all realize that Obama is in this way over his head and we are all in great trouble. There are still some that have consumed the Democrat kool-aid that will not see the truth, but they are becoming fewer. Even the main stream media is starting to see the truth and they were 110% behind Obama in the campaign. They were so much behind Obama in the campaign that they would make up good things for him or make up bad things about McCain/Palin. Now, some of these same reporters are starting to realize that we made a huge mistake on November 4. We cannot erase that mistake, but we can erase the problem as much as possible in 2010.

I am starting to hear predictions of a Democrat debacle in 2010. Talk show hosts with their ear to the ground are hearing rumbles of people upset with Obama and the rubber stamp Congress. The only way to fix the problem is to rid ourselves of the rubber stamp Congress. If I was a Republican with thoughts of running for the House or Senate in 2010, I would seriously consider starting my campaign today. The Democrats are setting the issues up on a silver platter and serving them up to be hit out of the park. This could be an easy election to run as the Democrats have grossly overplayed their hand and do not see the problem. I doubt that they will even see this landslide coming until 2010 hits them between the eyes. This overplaying of their hand by the Democrats is just pent up emotion at finally having all their ducks in a line to finally do everything they want to the country. They cannot help themselves. When they finally wake up, it will be way too late for them to recover politically from the messes they will have created.

What does this mean for the country? In the short run, nothing can be done other than barraging the offices of your Congressman and Senators with calls and letters. That will have no effect on Democrats as they all take orders from party leaders, not you the public. So, for the next two years we will have to grin and bear it as the Democrats try to systematically destroy our country. We get to take our fury out on the Democrats in 2010. The best way to handle this is to not let them know much about it until just before the Day of Judgment comes. We do not want them to actually try and be Republicans for a few months before the election to fool everyone into thinking that they are really Republicans. That is their usual trick. I plan on telling pollsters that I love Democrats up until I drop the hammer in 2010. That way they will not understand what hit them.

Future generations are going to ask the question, “Did they know what they were doing?” For a large portion of our country, the answer would be, “No”. For a minority of our country the answer would be, “Yes”. Unfortunately, there are far more no’s than yes’s. The Democrats have sold this spending bill as a “stimulus bill”. Those that believe that Democrat politicians tell the truth took that story hook, line and sinker. For those who do not follow politics or government, they believed what the media said and the media is the propaganda arm of the Democrat party. So, a very large percentage of the country believes that the Congress actually did something to combat the recession. They were sold a pig in a poke.

As people finally learn what is in the bill, they turn against the bill. This was happening to the Democrats during the short time the bill was before Congress. That is why they had to rush it through without debate or allowing anyone the time to read it. The Democrats that voted for the bill have admitted that they did not read the bill. They had no real idea what was in the bill. They voted for the bill because their leadership said that they should vote for the bill. Now, I do not know about you, but that is not why I sent my Senators or Congressman to Congress. I sent them there to make the best decisions for the United States of America in my absence. I expect them to read every bill and make informed decisions on what is best. I may not agree with them on all their choices, but if that is the process they follow I have little to object to. I have a big objection when one of my Senators or my Congressman votes on a bill because someone tells them to do so. That is not their job. If I wanted a rubber stamp in Congress, I would have purchased a rubber stamp and sent that to Congress instead of a Congressman. It would have been a lot cheaper to maintain.

I do not know how the Democrat Senators and Congressmen will be able to face the voters in 2010 and tell them why they did not do their job on this massive spending bill. If all the bill did was spend wildly on all the Democrat pet projects, it would still be a terrible bill, but one I could live with. What this bill does is impose socialism on our medical system and some other systems as well. We are still finding out all of the socialistic dreams that the Democrats have had for the last 40 years that are contained in the bill. The reason we are still finding them out is that they were hidden deep within the bill to make them difficult to find. If they were easy to find, they would have been taken out by Republicans. By hiding them they were able to slip them by the unsuspecting dunces, Specter, Collins and Snowe.

When the voters elected Barack Hussein Obama on November 4, they voted for change. They are getting change in this bill. They are getting more change than any American ever dreamed possible even three months ago. They are getting so much changes that the country that we have come to know as the United States might even cease to exist as the United States. It might still have the name, United States, but it would not have the soul of the United States. The United States has a soul of individualism and adventure. Those have been taken out by this bill and replaced by the nanny state of socialism. Socialism will take the soul right out of the country and make us a second rate backwater just like France or Italy. If we become a second rate backwater, we likely will have someone take us over. Second rate backwaters do not have enough gumption to fight back and win.

If I sound pessimistic I am sorry. I am usually always optimistic. But, having a Democrat in the White House and huge Democrat majorities in the House and Senate leaves me cold. There is not a lot to be optimistic about when thinking about what those people could do to my beloved country in the next two years. Then, I would only be able to re-elect my Republican Congressman. That is not much help in regaining the country.

Recently, the Democrat Congress passed legislation to expand the SCHIP program. The program is supposed to provide health care to low income children. The program was expanded to include children up to 30 years of age and incomes up to, I believe around $80,000. Now, I am not sure about your children, but mine were full grown long before they ever hit 30. Mine were mentally adults by the time they hit 21 at the latest. Having “children” covered until 30 is nothing more than an attempt to get them to accept government health care.

We have a President who wants socialized health care. We have Democrats in Congress who have large majorities who want socialized health care. The only obstacle that stands in their way is the 41 or 42 votes in the Senate. They can filibuster any attempt by the Democrats to impose socialized health care. They cannot stop it if it ever comes to a vote, so the only hope is that all Republicans hold true to Republican ideals and stop the Democrats. If even two Republicans vote with the Democrats, all is lost. The country would never be the same again and we would never really have the country that was envisioned by our Founding Fathers. There are many that would say we do not have that country right now.

Republicans in the House and Senate need to decide right now that they are going to stand for fiscal responsibility. If they do that, they can win the Congress back in 2010 and the Presidency in 2012. If they decide to go along with the Democrats because the Democrats hold all the cards, they will be in even worse shape in 2010 and might not even be around in 2012.

The Democrats know that nothing they are proposing will get the economy going. They also know that sooner or later the economy will rebound. Their hope is that they can get Republicans to vote with them on these ideas that will help nobody except for Democrat contributors. If they get Republicans to defect and sign on, they will have effectively emasculated the Republicans for the next four years. If the Democrat non-stimulus package gets passed with only Democrat votes, then when it fails it will be entirely on the Democrats. They do not want that to happen. They also know it will happen. That is why Obama is going to Capitol Hill today to visit with the Republicans. He needs some of them to defect to give the Democrats the cover they need.

Of the $825 billion on the table right now, there has to be something that would be worthwhile just by accident. But, the vast majority is all pork. Nancy Pelosi was asked about the $100+ million to fund contraception. She replied that it would help the governments get by with less. All the other projects funded in this bloated Democrat payoff bill are just the same. They pay off one Democrat group or another and do not make any real impact on the economy. It is only called a stimulus bill because a stimulus bill is less likely to be looked at critically. If it was called what it really is, there is no way it could pass at all. The American public needs to understand that the stimulus bill proposed by the Democrats is not a stimulus bill; it is a payoff to constituents that provided the money and votes to Democrat Congressional candidates and to the Democrat Presidential candidate. It is not really intended to stimulate anything.

The Democrats unveiled their “stimulus” plan to the public this week. At the moment it is $825 billion. On the surface, you can say that the amount is too large or that we need a stimulus to get the economy going. Both comments could be considered valid on the surface. As they say, the devil is in the details.

This $825 billion “stimulus” package is nothing more than payback to the people that elected Democrats in the 2008 election. There is no attempt to stimulate anything. Most of the projects have no stimulus effect at all. Most of the projects are totally worthless when it comes to stimulating the economy. Most of the remaining projects have some effect, but usually less than the typical stimulus project. The net effect of this almost $1 trillion will be to pay off Democrats and that is about it. The economy will still be exactly where it was before the stimulus. But, the Democrats could claim that they tried to stimulate the economy and it just did not work. Then, they can craft a new stimulus plan even bigger and better than the last to stimulate the economy even more. Heaven help us from the Democrat stimulus plans.

I suppose the world absolutely needs a museum on organized crime involvement in Nevada. But, the federal government has no business paying for it. If the world needs the museum, let a private group fund the project. This project is designed to re-elect Harry Reid. Harry Reid is set to have a very tough re-election campaign in 2010. In fact, there are a lot of people that do not expect Harry Reid to win his campaign. That would be just awful. The Democrats would have to find some new rummy to get as their minority leader in 2010.

I suppose the national parks and national forests need new trails. The stimulus bill is not the place to put this type of project. It will have little to no stimulating effect on the economy in the areas to be constructed or elsewhere.

You run down the bill and you find this kind of project everywhere. You find projects to help fund mortgages. You find other projects to do things that have no lasting impact on the country. What this bill should have is projects that will make a lasting impact on the country.

The bill should be building nuclear power plants and the power grid or some similar type of big idea. What is in the bill are a collection of small ideas. Democrats cannot think in big ideas because they have to cater to their interest groups and that necessarily lowers their focus. If you want a lot of small things done, elect a Democrat. If you want big things done, elect a Republican. Republicans can think big because Republicans are not a collection of small groups. Republicans are three big ideas that motivate people. That allows Republicans to think big and that is why Democrats always think small.

Democrats always think big when it comes to money. There is never enough money to fund their small ideas. They always want to put more money into funding their small ideas, even after those small ideas are proven not to work. To Democrats, their small ideas do not work because we have not given them enough money. They never acknowledge that their small ideas do not work because they are bad ideas. Republicans on the other hand have big ideas and when they do not work will go on to another big idea without looking back. That is one reason I am a Republican.

The news is out that Janet Napolitano will be the new head of Homeland Security in the Obama administration. That is good for Arizona. We will be rid of a bad Governor. The Department of Homeland Security will get the benefit of her lack of ability, but someone has to suffer her inadequacies.

For Arizona that is a real plus. We get rid of a Governor that does not understand anything about running a state. Jan Brewer gets to step up from Secretary of State to Governor. Jan Brewer will make an excellent Governor. She will be able to work with the legislature and solve the problems caused by Napolitano’s lack of ability. Janet Napolitano was never able to effectively work with the legislature on anything. The legislature had to fight her every step of the way. So, the problems of Arizona got worse and Napolitano tried to make us into California East. We are not as liberal as California, nor do I believe we will ever be as liberal as California. The urban population in California is so much greater in relation to their rural population than we have here in Arizona. The rural population will always be more conservative than the more liberal urban areas. This is true, even though Arizona has more people living within city limits than any other state in the country.

That changes the politics of Arizona in 2010 in a big way. We will now have an incumbent Governor. The incumbent usually wins in Arizona. That means the Republican Party will most likely control the Governor’s office after the 2010 election. It also bodes well for the other races in the state. Having an incumbent Governor heading the ticket will bring out Republican voters and that will mean Republicans will continue to control the State House and Senate. It will also mean problems for the Democrats running for re-election in Republican leaning districts like Harry Mitchell. The Democrats in those districts will have a hard time holding onto their seats if the Republicans come out to support Jan Brewer for Governor. John McCain will also be on the ballot. Right now, he is planning on running again. He has always been popular in the state and should also make it difficult on Democrats in House seats.

The job of the Republican Party here in Arizona is to recruit good, no the best, candidate they can find to run in each seat that has a Democrat or will be an open seat. If they do find excellent candidates, the chance of increasing the Republican presence in Phoenix and in Washington is great. If they fumble around and have just anyone run for these offices, Democrats will hold onto them.

I live in an area that is strongly Republican. The only Democrat that even dared to run in the past 8 years decided that he had had enough. That means that the Republican primary is the vote to determine who will sit in the seats in Phoenix and Washington in my area. We have had good to excellent candidates in my district. In a neighboring State House district, the Republican candidate did get in a dust-up over a campaign sign. That will most likely go to court.

I do see signs of a Republican resurgence in 2010 in Arizona. I am not as sure about the rest of the country, as I am not in the rest of the country. But, here in Arizona, things are looking good for Republicans in 2010 and 2012. That is good enough for me, right now. I can hope for more, but I can only do what I can locally. I will have to let the national chips fall where they may. Locally, I can have an impact on whether the party grows or dies. If I have my way, the Republican Party will get all the votes in my district in 2010 and 2012. That is unrealistic, but a goal to shoot for.