Since the Obama administration is like the, “Gang that Couldn’t Shoot Straight”, in foreign affairs as well as domestic affairs, doesn’t this give you pause when they now come to you and ask to run healthcare? I mean it is easy to see that terrorists are terrorists and want to kill us. It is easy to know that what they want more than anything is to have a forum to spout their terrorist drivel. The Obama administration has given some of the more important terrorists we have caught, a forum in New York City. How stupid is that? Then, they have the audacity to say that they can run healthcare efficiently. That is definitely the height of chutzpah.

Right now, there is not a single Democrat in or near to power that I trust to give me the truth at any time. That comes from many years of being told something is true by a Democrat and checking to find that the Democrat was 180 degrees out of phase in his/her comments. That means they were wrong 100% of the time. I do not mean they were a little bit wrong or that you could debate whether they were wrong, I mean the facts show they were wrong 100% of the time. The Republicans haven’t been much better, but at least they are right 50% of the time or more. Some Republicans are nearly 100% and others are much less. But I cannot think of any conservative Republican that even approaches the Democrat 0% accuracy rate.

Sarah Palin is one of the Republicans whose accuracy rate up near 100% in her comments. You may disagree with what she says, but you have to admit that she tells the truth. That is the same kind of thing people said about Ronald Reagan. And, just like Reagan, she is being vilified by the press for just breathing. The interesting thing is that the more the press and the Democrats demonize Sarah, the more the public likes her and her comments. People get interested when the Democrats and the media are so violently antagonistic against an individual. That only happens when the person is perceived as a real “threat” by the Democrats and their media lapdogs. Also, she does not care what the media and the Democrats say about her. That is a strength that goes a long way to add to her popularity. Anyone who wants the media to like them is doomed to failure from the start. They may win some elections, but if there is an important election that it is critical to win, they will lose. People like Sarah win those tough elections.

Back when Sarah Palin stepped down as Governor of Alaska, many people wrote her off as finished in public life. I was telling my friends that while I did not agree with her move, she will be back. I thought it would be for 2016, but it looks like she is on board for 2012. If she throws her hat into the ring, she would be the obvious Republican front runner. Mitt Romney would be in second place with Mike Huckabee in third place. Mike Huckabee would show his tender side and allow all his bigotry to come out against Mitt Romney again. That would destroy his candidacy with an important constituent group in the Republican Party. As a result, Sarah Palin would be the beneficiary of the internecine fight between Romney and Huckabee over religion.

No matter how many times Mike Huckabee says he is not a bigot, he is one and he is one in spades. Had he not been a bigot, Mitt Romney would most likely have been the nominee in 2008 instead of John McCain. Mitt Romney might still have lost, but it would have been a lot closer and the Democrats would not have a stranglehold on the House and Senate. I am a strong conservative, but I cannot stand bigots. I would actively work against a Huckabee nomination. I would also actively work against him to be President. We do not need bigots in the office of President of the United States.

You cannot trust government to do anything right. As President Reagan so eloquently said so long ago, “In our present crisis, the government is not the solution to our problem. The government is the problem.” Any candidate who advocates smaller government in 2010 or 2012 will get my vote and my support, unless than candidate is a bigot. I do not think that Mike Huckabee could get nominated or elected on a platform of smaller government. He believes in bigger government, just a smaller big government than Barack Obama. We need a TRUE smaller government person in the job who will get us back to what is written in the Constitution of the United States. That should be our guiding light, not what feels good.

On the Mike Broomhead show this morning, a caller mentioned one aspect of the Obamacare bill that should frighten everyone who has a bank account. The provision gives the government the authority to tap into your bank account if the bill becomes law. Democrats screamed bloody murder when the Bush Administration wanted to listen to terrorists from overseas call Americans. The liberals claimed that the tactic of listening to phone calls was essentially tyranny. They stomped their feet and screamed at the top of their lungs that they would never stand for this kind of interference with American privacy. Then, when they get in office they want to tap into your bank account. Talk about hypocrisy!

This just brings us to a larger question: What exactly IS in the bill? Democrats tell us that it will be business as usual. But, every time we check up on what they say we find that it is incorrect. So we cannot believe the Democrats story that it will be business as usual after the Obamacare bill is passed. The people that show up at the Townhall Meetings that question the Democrats seem to be accurate in what they say. They tell everyone exactly where to find the information they reference. What do they say about this issue? Well, those that have commented on this issue agree with the caller that passing the bill as originally passed in the House will give the federal government access to your bank account.

That is a really scary thought to me. I do not like people poking around in my bank account unless I know who they are and that I can trust them. One thing I know about the federal government, because I worked for them, if it is possible to screw it up, they will. That means that if it is possible to screw up your bank account, the federal government will manage to do just exactly that. The problem will be caused by them, but you will have to solve it. That thought just warms my heart and makes me want to jump up and support this bill, NOT.

The bigger question is what else is hidden in this bill? Glen Beck has a series of reports this week asking about who is advising the President. One of the reports highlighted the fact that ACORN and other fringe groups wrote the “stimulus” (Porkulus) bill. We can assume that these groups probably also had a hand in writing the Obamacare bill. We can say that because it obviously was not the Democrats in Congress. They have absolutely no idea what is in the bill. If they had any hand in writing the bill, they would get their stories a little closer to the truth. Because they are all over the place and are almost always 150% wrong, we can safely assume that they did not have any hand in writing the bill.

The fringe groups that Glen Beck is exposing on his show are almost all radical or communist or both. There is not one patriotic American group that is currently advising the President. That is a really scary thought. These groups are providing the “Czar’s” that are advising the President on different parts of the government. So far, each and every one has been a committed radical and/or communist. You have to wonder about the quality of the advice coming from a communist about how to improve capitalism. Communists hate capitalism and want it to disappear. Obama has been committing acts that harm capitalism and might cause it to disappear. There seems to be a pattern emerging. This pattern is not encouraging to any patriotic American.

We have people that are from groups that we cannot trust, writing the Obamacare bill that was passed by the House. We have Democrats telling us things that are easily disproved about what is in the Obamacare bill. We have a White House that cannot seem to get its numbers correct from day to day, saying it will only add $1 trillion over the next 10 years. If you look at how far they are off with their other numbers, this $1 trillion becomes $6-7 trillion real fast. We cannot afford $1 trillion. We really cannot afford $6-7 trillion. This Obamacare bill needs to die on the vine and we need to start over using supply and demand principles. When you apply capitalism to any problem, you get the solution for much less than you imagined. If you doubt me, just look at computers. Government basically stayed out of the computer revolution and they have gotten better and cheaper. If the government had been involved, the price would have gone up and the quality would have gone down.

Keep the government out of my bank account. Keep the government out of your bank account. We have a right to privacy, even Democrats agree. Let us exercise our right to privacy and keep the federal government out of our financial affairs.  

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.

That the Democrats “government option” is in trouble showed another sign. The White House website is asking for people to make comments to the White House if they hear or see any comments against the healthcare proposal. Basically, they are asking people in the United States to snitch on one another. When you stoop to that level of activity, you have lost the debate.

Democrats continue to be hammered when they hold Townhall meetings in their districts. They continue to complain that the people that are giving them trouble are paid by the insurance industry. They are wrong. These people are local people. They are motivated to do something because they see a loss of liberty and feel a need to act.

Last night, I had to move my car and heard Mark Levin talk about why people are turning out to these Townhall meetings. I wish I could repeat what he said because he put it so powerfully. Basically, Mark said that people are motivated by that same force that helped us win WWII and all the other wars. Americans are a forgiving people. We can take a lot of abuse without reacting. People continually mistake this lack of reaction as a lack of resolve. As Admiral Yamamoto put it after Pearl Harbor, “I fear we have awakened a sleeping Giant.” The reaction that the Democrats are getting at these Townhall meetings is the awakening of the sleeping Giant. We have taken all we are going to take. From now on, we will fight for every inch of ground. Anyone who opposes us will be defeated, just as the Germans and Japanese were defeated at the end of WWII.

The Democrats have not figured out what is happening. They look out at the landscape and see an America that will take a lot of abuse. They also believe that America will take this abuse because she has been conditioned to take it after 70 years of liberalism in our schools and courts. They cannot see what is happening because it is not happening to them or to their liberal allies. It is only happening to conservatives, independents and even liberals that believe in liberty. The Democrats are looking at the America they want to see, not the America as it is. That will be their undoing. They are acting defiant in the face of this opposition. That would be the correct action if this were isolated grass fires. This is not a situation where there are isolated grass fires. This is a situation where there is a truly mass movement.

This mass movement is not a Republican movement or a movement by any other group. Whoever gets out in front of this movement and grabs the reins will have a platform to truly make major changes in 2010 and 2012. That would take a politician with vision and one that is willing to take risks. Right now this movement is still in its infancy. Getting in front of it now will reap great rewards down the line. Waiting until it is fully formed might yield big results, but much less than getting on board in the beginning. The risk is also there if you get in front in the beginning. You have to read the American people clearly. You have to articulate what they want. If you get it wrong, you will crash and burn and never be heard from again. It is much safer to wait until the movement has taken form. You also take the chance that someone else might take the lead. This is a great opportunity for someone to show us his/her mettle. Who will be that person?

I hope that the Democrats continue to misread the movement up through the 2010 elections. If they continue to misread the movement for that long, conservatives will be elected to erase much of the terrible things done in 2009 and 2010. Notice that I said conservatives, not Republicans. It remains to be seen if the Republicans can harness the energy this movement is generating. If they can, then Republicans will be transcendent. If not, some other party will take over for the Republicans.

Democrats are finding out that people do not like their planned takeover of the healthcare system. From coast to coast and border to border, Americans are turning out to let their Senators and Representatives know how they feel. Some of these meetings have become rather heated, but the tone has remained the same in all that we do not like what you propose.

What is the Democrat response to an almost unanimous rejection of their ideas? They say that it is all paid for by the insurance companies. They want to try to let “real” Americans show up at these meetings, instead of those bussed in by the insurance companies. They are also cancelling many meetings for fear that this reaction will happen in their district. In other words, the Democrat response to the rejection of their healthcare proposal is to bury their head in the sand.

Many Democrats have come out with statements that the nearly unanimous rejection of their ideas at these Townhall meetings has made them more resolved to pass the legislation approving the plan. What do these Democrats not understand? Don’t they see the handwriting on the wall? If they pass this bill they are writing their defeat in 2010. We may take some time undoing the damage that these Democrats will do, but it will start with a sound rejection of Democrat politicians in 2010.

What happens at the meeting is that people listen to the politician go on about the health care proposal. Then when the time is open for questions, the politician is asked about specific parts of the proposed legislation. The politician does not know the answer, as they have not read the bill, so they get defensive. Question after question comes in and then it becomes a near riot as people express their frustration at the fact that the Democrat at the podium (their legislator) is not listening to them. After the meeting, the Democrat blames the insurance companies over what happened. Also, there is the Democrat version over what happened at these meetings and there is the version that the participants at the meeting remember. Far more people remember the participation version. Only the Democrat politician remembers the Democrat version. I am not sure which is right, but I will take the participants version over the Democrat politician version. There are more people that remember it one way than the other. That is usually a good rule to follow when trying to find out which is the truth.

Democrats who are not up for election in 2010 are urging passage of this monstrosity of a health insurance bill as soon as possible. Those that are up for re-election are now having second thoughts. They will undoubtedly be brought to the Democrat position, as Democrats do not have independent thoughts. But, just like Bill Clinton in 1994, Barack Obama may see the Congress change hands in 2010. That is why he is pushing hard to get is far left agenda passed as soon as he possibly can. He knows that in 2010 the window of opportunity will have closed. That gives him about 5 more months to pass far left agenda items. The problem is that people have been stirred to action on this health care bill. That will mean more action in legislative districts in the 2010 election. The new Congress might be an almost 100% Republican victory, if they play their cards right over the next 12 months. That is not necessarily a given as Republicans have a tendency to fumble the ball on a regular basis.

There is a petition being championed by Hugh Hewitt and Mike Gallagher, among others. This petition has over 1 million signatures as of yesterday morning. If you have not signed the petition, please click on the link I shamefully stole from Hugh Hewitt’s website. And well over a million of our listeners signed the "Stop Obamacare" petition (you can still add you signature.)

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?

The Democrats unveiled their healthcare plan to the world yesterday. It has a price tag of $1.3 trillion. Everyone knows that the price tag is about 5-10 times below the real cost of the plan, but it is the official cost that everyone will use in the debate to come. The plan takes every bad idea that has been floated over the past 6 months and makes it worse. About the only good thing I can say about the plan is that they printed it on American paper and the printing is clear and correct.

Officially the plan only taxes the “rich” to pay for the huge cost. The problem is that if you took all of the income of the so-called “rich” you would not pay for the plan at all. So, the plan has escalators built into the plan to make sure it does get paid for, and that it includes everyone, not just the “rich”. But, the Democrats will claim that the plan only taxes the rich, which is partially true if you buy their rich argument.

Barack Obama has made a big point of saying that nobody will be forced out of their health insurance plan into the government health insurance. This plan of the Democrats puts 119 million Americans into the government health insurance plan and out of their insurance. Either they will have to change their plan or Barack Obama has been feeding us a pack of lies during this initial debate on health insurance. Of course, Barack Obama feeding us a pack of lies is nothing new, but still it is not something the Democrats should want to highlight like this.

The premise built into the plan is that people are “evil”. Why I say this is that there are multiple penalties throughout the plan for people who will not follow the plan. If this plan is so great, everyone should want to participate and these penalties will not be needed. These penalties are built in as part of the way to pay for the government health insurance. Whatever happened to the American principle of freedom? This forced compliance with a law that is supposed to be for our own good is just not the type of thing that is in line with traditional American values. This is more the kind of thing you saw in communist countries, not in freedom loving countries like America.

There are boards set up to control every aspect of health care. These boards are responsible for their portion of the health care system. They are not responsible to the people. Their job is to control costs as their first priority. Their second priority is to see that people get the best care available. In the case of a conflict, cost wins over quality every time. At least that is how it works in every other country that has this type of system. That is why the health care in countries with single-payer systems and multiple boards have health care that is second class at best. People wait for months or even years for treatment. The hope is that the person will die or get better before treatment is provided. That way the government can reduce the cost by not providing the service. It is much cheaper to bury someone than it is to keep them alive in the last stages of life. The government position in ALL single-payer system countries is to let the person die, thereby saving a lot of money that can then be used elsewhere. My experience with the health care system in England in the early 1970’s was eye opening to say the least. The clinics looked like the kind of clinic that I saw in movies about doctors in the 1930’s and 40’s. At that time, the health care was not to the point where people had to wait a long time for treatment, but the quality was definitely below what I was used to in the United States.

Why anyone in the United States would want to follow England or Canada into the morass that is the single-payer system is beyond my understanding. There is no medical reason for it to occur. The only reason to go to a single-payer system is so the government will have more control over our lives. We have too much government control over our lives at this time; we do not need more control. We need to get rid of some government control and get back to the freedoms that our Founding Fathers fought for.

I listened to a You-Tube video of a Mike Wallace interview with Ayn Rand. In the interview, she predicted the time we are living in right now. That was really scary to hear her basically tell Mike Wallace what a future America would be like if we did not correct the error of our ways. Her solution was to have a separation of commerce and state, just like there is a separation of church and state. If we followed that principle, we would be the strongest country in the world and nobody would ever want to mess with us in any way. Terrorists would pick other targets. Dictators would make peace with us and try to live with the regulations we put on them. The world would be much better off if we just separated commerce and state. That was a great idea when she said it. It is an even better idea right now, especially with Barack Obama dropping the ball every time he gets the chance.

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.

This morning, I was reading the various websites and I came across an article by Roger Hedgecock from San Diego. He was talking about the legacy of the Democrat party and its relation to slavery. I wrote an article on this some months ago, but it is a good time to revisit the issue as reparations are being discussed.

Blacks have the feeling that this is as good a time as any for them to start receiving money from the rest of America in the form of reparations. Their argument is that they were held as slaves against their will for over a hundred years, they should be paid for their pain and suffering. It does not matter to them that there is not one current slaveholder in the United States and there is not one person who was a slave in the United States. They just see it as free money from Uncle Sam.

Since this is an issue, we need to look at the history of the United States and the history of the two current political parties. The Democrat Party was formed from the old Democrat-Republican party of Thomas Jefferson. That party believed in holding slaves and was strongest in the Southern states. The new Democrat party was also strongest in the Southern states and adopted a plank that specifically endorsed slavery as an institution in their first convention to nominate a President. This plank was officially part of their political platform up to and including 1860.

In the 1860 election, the Democrat Party split into two factions. One faction wanted slavery officially adopted as public policy. The second faction was less strident about the issue. The first faction was in the South and the second in the North. After Abraham Lincoln was elected, the first faction took the South out of the Union and started the Civil War. The second faction became the appeasement party. This appeasement sentiment became part of the lexicon of the party for the next 150+ years.

After the Civil War, the three amendments that officially recognized slaves as citizens, gave them the vote and made discrimination illegal were adopted over the objection of the Democrat party. The Democrat party made up rules and poll taxes to keep blacks from voting. Members of the Democrat Party formed the KKK to kill Republicans. At the time in the South, killing Republicans meant that you were killing blacks for the most part. At no time was there ever a Republican in the KKK. The KKK was exclusively reserved for Democrats. That is why the South was solidly in the Democrat column up until the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was written by President Eisenhower near the end of his term of office. It was killed by the Democrat Congress while President Eisenhower was President. After President Kennedy, then President Johnson took office the bill was revived with a few minor changes. When the bill was finally adopted, there were not enough Democrat votes to pass the bill. It took an almost 100% vote from the Republicans to get the bill passed into law. Since then, blacks have seldom held leadership positions within the Democrat party.

Republicans on the other hand have always been abolitionist. They were formed in 1856 to stop slavery. In 1860, Abraham Lincoln was elected as the first Republican President and he ended slavery by the end of the Civil War. Then, the Republicans worked tirelessly to end discrimination against blacks by passing Constitutional amendments and laws. Finally, the Democrats saw the handwriting on the wall and embraced anti-discrimination. They were the majority party by then and they hijacked the media’s perception of who led the fight. As a result, most people believe that the Republican Martin Luther King was a Democrat.

The Democrats fought long and hard to keep blacks as second class citizens. First they wanted them as slaves, and then they wanted to make them citizens without the protection of the law. They should be rewarded for all that hard work. If reparations are ever part of the American scene, heaven forbid, Democrats should be the ones to pay. Republicans should not have to pay. Also, how are they going to determine those who should pay reparations?

My mother’s family immigrated here in the 1910’s so they did not own slaves. They lived in California so they were not members of the KKK or any other discriminatory group. My father’s family has been here since the Mayflower. They lived mainly in Massachusetts, Ohio and California. None of them ever owned slaves. Some of them fought for the North in the Civil War. How can they claim that my family owes anyone reparations? We paid in blood for the freedom of the slaves. My ancestors were either in Sweden, Norway or the North. Those in the North were in the heart of abolitionist territory. I have a black son and a daughter that is probably half black. Do I have to pay them reparations?

Democrats on the other hand have an unbroken line back to the beginning of discrimination against blacks and other people of color that includes Hispanics and Asians. If reparations need to be paid, it should be paid by those that have a history of discrimination, Democrats. They should take the money from Democrats and give it to whoever the Congress says has been discriminated against. That would be the only fair way of doing it. My family paid in blood. Other Northern Republican families have paid in blood. Democrats stood on the sidelines and tried to keep blacks as slaves. The question is clear. The problem is that those that want reparations are Democrats. They would never vote to tax Democrats to pay to Democrats. They would want to tax Republicans to give to Democrats. They would consider that fair, even though that would be the most unfair tax of all.

Barack Obama is trying to force his health care plan down the throats of Americans with as little discussion about it as possible. He wants no information about the plan to get out. He is going around the country telling everyone that they will not notice any changes to their current health care plan if his plan is adopted. If that is the case, why do we even need his health care plan? He will say to cover everyone, but the plan being discussed in the Senate covers the same amount of people as the current system. In other words, there are 37 million uninsured under Obama’s plan and supposedly 46 million currently uninsured. That is hardly enough of a difference to make any radical changes in coverage.

The plan being discussed in the Senate has a big hidden problem. That problem is the “public option”. That is a government sponsored health insurance plan. If that is adopted, all employers will quickly drop their current health insurance coverage and adopt the “public option”. That would eventually put everyone under the “public option” and give America the single-payer system that Democrats covet. They covet the single-payer system because it gives the government a great deal of control over the citizens of the country.

The Democrats love to talk about the wonderful health plans of England, Canada and Australia. All of them have single-payer systems that are similar. All of them are now starting to allow private health care options because the single-payer systems they have cannot meet the demand. We do not need to follow after the plans that are failing. We should continue the plan that the single-payer systems are starting to emulate.

I spent two years in England between 1970 and 1972. England adopted the single-payer system shortly after World War II. At that time, England and America had health care that was roughly equivalent. By the time I was there in the early 1970’s, England had not progressed very much beyond the health care of the early 1960’s. I had a couple of opportunities to visit English doctors while I was there and was appalled at the shabby conditions that existed. The rooms the doctors used were larger than American doctors, but they were not stocked with enough medical equipment to supply the doctor. When I was there, the doctors were still all English. Now, the doctors are almost exclusively foreign born. That also goes for Canada and Australia.

The medical care is being rationed in England, Canada and Australia. Over Thanksgiving 2008, I visited Spokane, WA. While there, I read the local paper. It was reporting that Canadians were having babies in Washington because the hospitals in Canada had met their quota for the year and would not admit the women. I also have read about patients that have had to come to the United States from Canada to get medical care when needed. They were put on lists and would have died before they could have seen a doctor. In Australia hospitals limit specialists to a small number of surgeries per quarter. It does not matter how many patients need surgery, only that number of surgeries can be performed. That is the kind of thing we can look forward to under a single-payer system.

We have the best medical system in the world. There are problems that exist with our current system. Almost all of them are either directly or indirectly caused by government interference. The best way to reform the current system is to get government out of making requirements for medical insurance. That is just a scam to help their buddies in the health care delivery system. If everyone was allowed to choose their options, insurance would be cheaper. If we could take our policies from state to state, insurance would be cheaper. We could learn a lot from the car insurance system. If we modeled the health insurance system after the car insurance system, insurance would be cheaper and more people would be covered. There are other options that may be better. The one thing we cannot do is allow the government to compete with insurance companies or get into offering health insurance at all. That is a recipe for disaster.

We do need to make some reforms in our health care system. What we do not need to do is throw the baby out with the bath water. Tweaking the current system will deliver more good than any new system could possibly deliver. Changing our system to something else is not about delivering health care. It is about control over you, the citizen of this country. A “public option” is really a recipe for the government to step into your life and tell you how to live.

I prefer to live my life the way I choose. I am an American and was born to freedom. I was not born to be a slave. I will not be a slave to anyone. If you want to be a slave, support the “public option” and kiss your freedom good-bye. If you value your freedom at all, call your congressman and both Senators and tell them you want no part of the “public option”. Then, make sure they follow your lead. If they do not, work to defeat them in the next election. That is the only thing politicians understand. Make sure they know you are serious and they will listen to you.

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.

I have been reading about the treatment of Carrie Prejean by the media and her sponsors from the Miss California contest. They are not trying to show that her ideas are wrong. They are trying to destroy her reputation forever. This is getting out of hand. She said nothing offensive to anyone. Anyone who took offense from what she said needs to get a life.

The first step in destroying Carrie Prejean was Perez Hilton creating a video and calling her lots of names and saying her answer was the worst in pageant history. Perez wanted controversy. The only way Carrie could have answered that question to Perez Hilton’s satisfaction was if she wholeheartedly endorsed gay marriage and completely rejected straight marriage. That was never going to happen, given Carrie’s background. So, she was set up for this one.

The second step was for her Miss California leaders to say that her answer was her own and not the answer of the Miss California Pageant. They made a big point to insure that she was on her own. Her answer was almost exactly the same as Barack Obama made during the campaign for the Presidency. Her answer was entirely within the main stream of American thought. Her answer was entirely within the main stream of California thought. They voted in November and 53% supported Carrie’s position. I am not sure what the organizers expected her to say, but what she said was what more than half of any group of Americans would have said, anywhere.

After the first salvo did not work, they resorted to releasing some photos of Carrie when she was a teenager. She does not have a top on, but she has her arm over her breasts and they are turned away from the camera. As I heard one commentator say, she probably showed more skin in the swimsuit competition than in the photo. The people out to destroy Carrie are calling the photos topless and nude. Some of them even say they are pornographic. There is nothing to see in the photos that you cannot see on any beach or swimming pool deck in America.

Now, they say that she may have broken some Pageant rules and may be stripped of the Miss California crown. They are just looking for something to hang their hat on. They knew of these photos before the contest, because they released them shortly thereafter. The Miss California Pageant organizers will find some reason to strip her of the crown. The reason is that they want to strip her of the crown to show her and anyone like her that you cannot win a beauty pageant without toeing the gay agenda party line. If you so much as think thoughts that do not conform to the gay agenda, you have no chance to win a beauty pageant in the United States today. This is chilling stuff.

Have we sunk so far that we cannot speak freely any longer? What has happened to free speech? Is free speech now defined as only speech you agree with and all other speech is banned? That seems to be the rule for the people pushing the gay agenda. According to them, if you want the right of free speech, you have to conform to their position. Then, you can say anything you want as long as it conforms. If it strays from the gay agenda, then your right to free speech ends.

We are seeing some of that coming from the government in the push to regulate talk radio. First, they were talking about putting the Fairness Doctrine back in place. After talk radio worked on that one for a while, the idea of putting the Fairness Doctrine back in place is gone. But, the idea of regulating talk radio is not gone. The left is just trying to figure out a different way of doing it. There are a lot of options. They could make the radio license be renewed more often. That would give them a chance to work on the owners. This idea is not real good, unless mixed with another idea. They could make local review boards to decide if a radio station is putting on enough local issues. This would do it, especially if mixed with a more frequent license renewal. It would be difficult to sneak this one by the talk radio personalities without some reaction from them and their fans.

If the left succeeds in regulating talk radio and the internet, then they will insure that only left leaning candidates will be elected. Conservatives need not apply for office in that America. We would have succeeded in becoming a Fascist State. Whether we were a Fascist Republic or a Fascist Dictatorship would not matter very much as the Fascist part is the dominant part. The earmarks are there that says we are on the path to become a Fascist State. The left tolerates no speech except for their own is the biggest sign. The left is in control in Washington at a level I have never seen in my lifetime. They could push through the laws that make us a Fascist State, if they so choose. There wouldn’t be anyone to stop them. The problem would be if the military would support them in this effort. If the military said they would not support a Fascist America, then the entire house of cards, built by the Democrats, would crumble.

Barack Obama had a press conference yesterday and to understand what he said would require an interpreter. The left has so changed the meaning of words that it is impossible to understand what they say using common definitions. You have to use convoluted left wing definitions that only the left wing understands to understand what was said at the press conference.

For example: At no time in the press conference about the budget did Barack Obama ever say that the government was going to spend money. He only said that the government was going to invest money. Now, as a conservative invest means to put money into some kind of program that will yield big benefits without losing my principal or initial amount. To a Democrat, invest means spending by the government. When Democrats are in charge of the government, the government invests its money into programs that waste billions of dollars. When Republicans are in charge of the government, the government spends its money into programs that waste billions of dollars. That way the Republicans look like they are doing something bad and the Democrats look like they are doing something good. It is all in the way the Democrats use the words invest and spend.

The Democrats do this with everything. You cannot take anything that a Democrat says at face value. You have to figure out what he/she really means. It gets frustrating at times because most people do not understand that Democrats have changed the meaning of almost all words. There was another group that changed the meaning of words so they meant something entirely different from their original meaning. That was the communists in Russia and China. They had a saying in Russia that the future was known. Only the past was changing. That was because the Communist Party changed the meaning of words and some people fell out of popularity at various times. So, what you knew is not what was currently known. We are getting that way in the United States.

For example: Most people believe that FDR ended the Great Depression by installing the New Deal. It has come to light that FDR actually prolonged the Depression by installing the New Deal. What ended the Depression was World War II. The liberals that run the educational system adore FDR so they teach the falsehood that FDR ended the Great Depression when he actually prolonged it.

Other examples are rampant in our educational system. Most of us hate the Nazi regime in Germany with just cause. But, most do not know that the communists in Russia and China killed many times more people than did the Germans and they do not get bad press in our educational system. In fact, the communist regimes are actually put forward as models for us to emulate.

Che Guevara was a revolutionary in Cuba and South America. His picture is on many T-shirts in the US. Those people do not know that he was actually a sadistic killer, not a heroic revolutionary. But, he is taught as a heroic revolutionary by our educational system.

George Washington and Abraham Lincoln are being written out of textbooks because they do not fit the ideal that liberals want. Since liberals dominate our educational system in almost every aspect, it is not hard to understand. The Founding Fathers sacrificed their lives and honor for freedom in America. But, since some of them owned slaves, they are being taught as people to hate. This is nuts.

We need to get control of our language. We need to stop having an interpreter every time a Democrat speaks. We think he is speaking English when he is really speaking Democrat. We should have someone stand up and give the real meaning to the words the Democrat just spoke. Maybe then they would start using the real words instead of their made up words. Of course, their real words would turn off people. Their made up words fool people into voting and supporting the Democrats until they see the damage. Then it is too late to stop them. Republicans should insist on an interpreter every time they debate the Democrat so that there is an even playing field. At first, people would think it strange. But, when people find out that the interpreter is saying the truth and the Democrat is trying to fool them, then some action might result.

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.