Clarity! That is what the Democrats are planning today in their vote on Obamacare. Those who believe in the Constitution will vote no. Those that do not believe in the Constitution of the United States will vote in favor. It is as simple as that.

The bill they are voting on is unconstitutional on so many levels that I cannot possibly do them justice in a short column. Also, I am not a good enough Constitutional scholar to adequately discuss the various issues involved in each individual clause. All I can go on are the words of the Constitution itself. I believe that the Founding Fathers put those words in exactly that order so that there would be clarity for all time. That we are having problems with the words is a symptom of a greater problem in our culture. We need to get back to look at what the words meant in 1781 and then make provisions for our greater technology. That does not mean change the meaning of the word. It just means that if it talks about freedom of the press, it means the electronic press as well as the print press. That kind of accommodation is perfectly acceptable. It does not change the meaning of the words, just allows that if they wrote it today they would have allowed for our greater technology.

That being said, I do not think that the “Commerce Clause” that the Democrats hang their hat on is something that was intended to be a major force in the Constitution. It is in the preamble to the section it is included in. If they intended it to be one of the main guiding principles, they would have included it in the body of the document, not the preamble. I believe that any law passed that uses the “Commerce Clause” as its basis is not necessarily unconstitutional, but most likely outside of the constitution. That, in effect, nullifies almost all of the Democrat introduced laws since 1932. They grabbed onto the “Commerce Clause” and are trying to run a truck through the hole.

Steny Hoyer is now trying to say that the “Commerce Clause” allows the government to require you to purchase health insurance. That is just nonsense. If the government can require you to purchase health insurance, what else will they require you to purchase. At that point, they can run your entire life. They can make you buy a car, a home and anything else they want. You would be required to purchase it because of the “General Welfare” part of the “Commerce Clause”. If you are still reading you can see how idiotic this position that Steny Hoyer is taking. But, he has to take that position in order to justify the passage of the Obamacare legislation.

The vote today will weed out the wheat from the chaff. The wheat will vote to kill the unconstitutional bill. The chaff will vote to pass the bill. Anyone who votes to pass the bill should be barred from holding public office again until they can pass a class in Constitutional Law taught by a “real” Constitutional lawyer like Hugh Hewitt or Neal Boortz. I am sure that there are plenty of real Constitutional lawyers in this country. We have an artificial Constitutional lawyer in the White House. He has no clue about the Constitution. I am not a Constitutional lawyer and I know more about the Constitution than our current occupant of the White House does.

Watch how your member of the House votes on the Obamacare legislation today. If he/she votes for the bill, never vote for that person again. If that person votes to kill the bill, the legislator is worthy of further votes in the future. You would have to evaluate them on other criteria to determine if they should be retained, but on the Constitution, they get a passing grade.

Last night on the way home, I was listening to the Mark Levin show. One of the callers talked about how they were excited about all the events that happened yesterday in Washington, D.C. After the event, they got to their car and heard about the shooting at Fort Hood in Texas. That was a letdown after the high of the event organized by Michelle Bachmann, Republican from Minnesota.

Having these two events at nearly the same time highlights the urgency of the problem. The positive event in Washington was to show our Congressional Representatives that we are serious about keeping the American way of life. The negative event in Texas showed us that we cannot be too careful when it comes to terrorists.

Officially, the Major that killed those soldiers was just trying to commit suicide. He had been upset for a long time about the role of the United States in this war against Islamo-Fascism. He converted to Islam only 5 years ago. During that time, he increasingly had problems with American involvement in the Middle East. He had been transferred to Fort Hood after a negative work report in his previous assignment. He may have been trying to commit suicide, but you do not do that and bring others to the event. This smells like a terrorist event. It looks like a terrorist event. It sounds like a terrorist event. The fact that the government is not calling it a terrorist event does not mean that it is not a terrorist event. We will probably never know the truth about what happened. We may learn a lot of the facts, but there will always be something left unsaid. The fact that he was a Muslim should figure prominently in the reports. The fact that he is a Muslim is hardly mentioned, except as background material.

This shooting at Fort Hood tells us that we have more to do when it comes to security in our Armed Forces. If a Major can commit murders like this, then there are probably other suspects out there. That this Major was a convert to Islam within the past 5 years sounds to me like something that should be looked into. I am not saying that every convert to Islam is a murderer or terrorist. I am saying that they should be checked to determine whether they are security risks. That is because another recent convert to Islam killed those soldiers at the beginning of the war to liberate Iraq by rolling a grenade into a tent. For these reasons, they should be checked for a potential security risk.

The two events yesterday should be a wake-up call for the Obama administration. Somehow I do not think that the Obama administration will wake up. I have a feeling that they are deliberately sleeping on the job when it comes to security. I cannot prove that last statement, but it just feels that way. The Obama administration does not support the troops like the Bush administration did. They use the troops as photo ops instead of bonding with the soldiers, marines and sailors they come in contact with. George W. Bush always made it a point to bond with the military units he visited. He would walk among them and shake hands. He gave them what they needed to do their jobs. I do not see any of that from the Obama administration.

Michelle Bachmann’s “Tea Party” was meant to drive home to our elected representatives that we are serious. The elections last Tuesday showed that the voters in blue states are serious about what is going on. That there were at least 10,000+ at the event yesterday showed that people across the country are serious. It is time for Congress to get serious. We will see if they get the message. Or we WILL see that they get the message next November.

The news is reporting that the AARP is selling out Senior Citizens today. They are supposed to endorse one of the Obamacare bills that are floating around Washington. Since all of the Obamacare bills contain provisions to restrict care to Americans that are past 60 years of age and have an illness that will cost a lot of money. Each bill is slightly different in its treatment of these Americans, but the net result will be a similar removal of care for these patients. The AARP is supposed to represent Senior Citizens over the age of 55. They obviously are not concerned about the effects of these Obamacare bills on the Senior Citizens that make up the membership of the AARP.

There is a reason why the AARP is endorsing Obamacare. That is because the Obamacare bills are reducing Medicare. Medicare has a program called Medicare Advantage that is very popular with Senior Citizens. It covers them when Medicare does not. The Obamacare bills will effectively eliminate this program. It does not actually eliminate it, but guts it so much that it might as well put it out of its misery. AARP sells a competing Medicare gap coverage that is not as popular with Senior Citizens. With the Medicare Advantage program effectively eliminated, the AARP insurance program will be the only one selling Medicare gap insurance. That would be a windfall for AARP. That is why they are endorsing Obamacare. They are selling out Senior Citizens for the almighty dollar. The leadership of AARP is also composed of far leftist types. That also comes into play on the issue.

Another event is happening today that is far more important than AARP selling out Senior Citizens. That is the Tea Party rally at the Capitol Building at noon eastern time. This idea is the brainchild of Michelle Bachman, Republican from Minnesota. She has invited Mark Levin and Jon Voigt to come and give speeches. After the talks, the crowd is supposed to enter the office buildings and find members of Congress to talk to. The idea is that thousands of people coming to Washington and showing up to talk to Senators and Representatives in person will bring a powerful message. Nancy Pelosi is waiting with baited breath for this to occur, in her secret meeting.

If they get enough people to the event, it can be impressive. Members of Congress are already soaking up the idea that Obama does not have coat tails to rescue them if they vote against the wishes of the public. With large numbers of people on their doorstep, that reinforces the idea that the public is interested in this issue and they better watch what they do. Those that have Democrat Kool-aid in their veins will not be moved. Those that are the least part insecure will be moved by the demonstration. This is a great opportunity for Republicans to make the Tea Party protests part of the Republican platform. They just have to remember not to fumble the ball when it is served up on a silver platter.

As I got home last night, Michael Savage had a guest on who was talking about the impact of the votes in Virginia and New Jersey on Democrats. I did not get to hear everything he had to say, but I did understand that he felt that Democrats were shaken by the magnitude of the defeat in Virginia and that they lost in New Jersey at all. Barack Obama won both Virginia and New Jersey by hefty margins in 2008, just one year ago. To lose by 18% in Virginia after only one year, must cause Democrats to wonder what is going on. Also losing New Jersey had to shake them to their core. New Jersey is one of the very bluest of the blue states, so that it elected a conservative Republican must be troubling. Electing a moderate (liberal) Republican like Christie Todd Whitman was not so much of a stretch. Doug Christie is a conservative Republican. He has very few moderate or liberal tendencies at all. Christie must have been outspent by about 10-1. There is no way that Jon Corzine should have lost. Christie won because of the Obama factor. People are afraid of the way Obama is steering the country. This is a way they could voice their opinion and get Democrats to listen.

This next year will be very interesting. Will Obama, Reid and Pelosi remain tone deaf and try to lead us off of a cliff? Will the Republicans plug into the energy of the Tea Party movement and become the true conservative party that it should be? All this and more will play out over the next 12 months. Election Day 2010 should be every bit as interesting as Election Day 2009 has turned out to be. That would then set the table for 2012 and who will replace Barack Obama. I can hardly wait!

The elections yesterday showed that Democrats are in trouble everywhere. If they cannot win in one of the bluest states in the country with an incumbent, they will have trouble winning anywhere. In the big three races, two went for Republicans and one went for the Democrat. The win in Virginia for Republicans was particularly smashing as they won the top 3 spots. That is a political rarity in Virginia. In New Jersey, Jon Corzine should have won because the state is a sure victory for the Democrats every election. They have had Republican Governors from time to time, but they are rare. In the House race in New York, district 23, the Democrat narrowly won over the Conservative Party candidate. It is rare for a Democrat to hold this seat. The last one was in 1993.

What does all this mean? It means that as of November 4, 2009, people are upset with the Democrat agenda in Washington. Why do I say that? It is because of the amount of time that Barack Obama spent on the Governor’s races in Virginia and New Jersey. He visited each one so many times that he is now eligible to vote in both states. (I am joking.) Both Governors’ races effectively became referendums on Barack Obama because of his extensive involvement. That both races ended up as losses for the White House does not look good for what they are doing to America. The White House will spin it as local issues causing the Democrats to lose both races. That is partially true as it is partially true in any race. But the fact remains, Obama spent a lot of time in each state campaigning for both of the losing Democrat candidates. That both lost in states he carried easily in 2008 is significant.

The House race in district 23 in New York is a horse of a different color. This district almost always has a Republican to represent it. Democrats are claiming that this is the first in 117 years. But the truth is that the last Democrat that represented the district was in 1993. What makes this different than the Governor’s races is the way the Republican Party handled the race. They held some meetings to decide on a candidate and chose one more liberal than the Democrat she was running against or those in Washington. The national Republican Party leaders lined up behind her as the Republican candidate, regardless of her positions on the issues. Sarah Palin and the more conservative Republicans said that they would not support the Republican. They would support the Conservative Party candidate. This caused a furor. Then, the financial support for the Republican candidate evaporated. She resigned from the race and endorsed the Democrat. The Conservative Party candidate was an unknown one month ago. The Democrat was well known one month ago. The Democrat was well funded throughout the campaign. The Conservative Party candidate only started to receive funding near the end of the campaign. To sum this all up, the Republicans shot themselves in the foot on this one. Had they put forward a viable candidate from the start, things would most likely have turned out differently.

These elections will have little impact on the number of Republicans or Democrats in the House or Senate. The Democrats still have enough votes to do just about anything they want to do. What these votes will do is cause those candidates in vulnerable districts or states to reconsider their positions on controversial issues. That could have major impacts on whether we are saddled with a loss of our freedom in the Obamacare package or the “Cap and Tax” plan. If the Democrat has any desire to serve one more term, he/she may decide that it is better not to support a dismantling of the best healthcare system in the world or a dismantling of the best economy in the world. Had these votes gone for the Democrats, we would have both of these bills passed and signed by Thanksgiving. Now we may not even get any discussion on these bills until after the New Year. That puts them in an election year where the issues will be even more volatile.

The Democrats are now in a box. Do they go on and pass the rest of their agenda right now or do they go slower on their agenda? To move quickly means they might get the bills passed, but at the cost of losing the House and Senate in 2010. If they go slow, they might not get the rest of their agenda passed at all. The answer to that question is how much of a dedicated Democrat are you? If you are a fanatic, you will push for everything now and worry about tomorrow when it comes. If you are more pragmatic, you will go slow and might be around to fight again, but without your agenda passed? The fight will begin today for the heart and soul of the Democrat Party. Who will win? Will it be the fanatics or the pragmatists? We shall know all in the next six months. Fasten your seatbelts folks; it is going to be a bumpy ride ahead.

The more I learn about Nancy Pelosi’s version of Obamacare, the less I like it. The bill creates 111 new federal agencies. There is one rule about federal agencies, when you create one, it never dies. What we do not need is more federal agencies. We need fewer federal agencies. In fact, we need a smaller federal government overall. That would solve so many of the problems that we are having in this country that all except the federal employees impacted, we would all cheer the day they were eliminated.

The Wall Street Journal calls Nancy Pelosi’s version of Obamacare the worst bill ever written for Congress. That is saying some because there have been some truly dreadful bills come before Congress. To be labeled the worst, you really had to work to get that designation. It was not something that you got just for showing up.

Democrats that have consumed their gallon of Democrat Kool-Aid are saying that the Pelosi version of Obamacare is ready to be passed as written. I tried to read the bill, but the legal wording was too baffling and hard to understand. I will rely on the people that have the experience in reading this type of material to give me a summary of what is included. There are some like the Heritage Foundation and NCPA (National Center for Policy Analysis) that give excellent reviews of the monstrosity. Now, their analysis will have a conservative bias. But, I share their conservative principles so that fits exactly my take on the situation. I have not differed at all from the NCPA or Heritage Foundation on any item in the bill.

The elections that are being held today will impact this bill greatly. If the Democrats sweep the three major races (Governor in Virginia and New Jersey and the House in District 23 of New York), then this bill will get passed before we can say Jack Robinson. If the Republicans sweep the three major races, then the bill will face much tougher sledding. The reason is the “Blue Dog” Democrats. These are Democrats in the House and Senate that were elected from Republican leaning districts. They tend to be more conservative than the Democrat party generally. But, they cave if Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid even so much as blow in their direction. A sweep by the Republicans will give these Democrats a wake-up call to say that they better be watching what they do if they want to return in 2012. A sweep by the Democrats tells them that the Republicans are too weak to challenge them during their re-election campaigns.

From scattered news reports, there appears to be some voter fraud occurring in New Jersey. Now, that would be a shock. New Jersey is so corrupt that if the Republican wins, he probably actually got 75-80% of the vote. There are already reports of people that went to vote and found they already voted. That could only occur during one of ACORN’s famous voter fraud pushes. Look for areas where over 100% of the voters in a precinct voted. There have already been 3000 absentee votes that came in without matching signatures. The Democrats are trying to have those votes counted. You can guess which way those votes are expected to go. You can also guess where those votes actually came from. Expect more of this type of thing as the day progresses.

In Virginia, the Democrat is so far behind that even ACORN could not save him. In New York, ACORN could save the Democrat, but ACORN does not have a presence in this part of the state. It is a conservative rural area. ACORN only works in the more liberal areas and tends to stick to cities. Do not expect much voter fraud in these two states, unless Mr. Deeds in Virginia starts to get close. But, that is not expected to happen.

The country waits on the outcome of these votes to see which way things will go. Will the Republicans be energized by wins or will the Democrats. Whoever gets energized by the wins will have a big say in how this healthcare legislation goes from hereon out.

In response to some comments received from a previous blog, where I disparage Nancy Pelosi’s monstrosity, I am going to say what should be done to solve the healthcare problem in less words than Nancy Pelosi used pages. I thought this would be a great challenge.

The first thing that should be done to solve the healthcare problem is get the cost of health insurance down. That is easily done by repealing all of the required items that are now part of every policy. My wife and I are 60+ years old. We have no need of maternity coverage, yet we pay just the same. Removing the required items, people could choose what they want and need covered.

Second, people should be allowed to purchase their health insurance from any authorized provider in the United States, even across state lines. This will introduce market forces on insurance. The insurance companies will compete for everyone’s business and the costs will come down.

Third, there needs to be tort reform. There are too many people that are trying to get rich by suing doctors. Putting limits on how much attorneys can receive as well as how much the aggrieved person can recover would reduce the malpractice insurance for doctors. This would enable the doctors to charge lower fees to their patients. This would also reduce costs to the public and help reduce insurance costs.

Also, as the cost of insurance and doctor visits are reduced, the quality of care will go up. That is because market forces have been re-introduced to the system. For those who doubt that this would happen, just look at what has happened with Lasik eye surgery. It used to cost three to four times what it does today and was of a much poorer quality. This all happened because it was to the doctors benefit to reduce their price and increase their quality. The same thing would happen with healthcare.

Government would have a limited role to licensing doctors and other healthcare professionals. This will insure that those that treat us are competent. The government should also be involved in licensing the people that sell health care insurance. This will insure that people are paying for a product that will deliver what it is supposed to do. Other than that, government should stay out of the health care business. I know that we have the VA system for veterans that should continue. Medicare should be targeted for elimination as it would not be needed after all the reforms kicked in. But, people have used it for years and so it will take some time for them to get off of the system.

There, I used less than 500 words to describe exactly what should happen to reduce healthcare costs in the country. If these reforms are enacted, healthcare would be affordable for everyone. It will never happen because of the reduced role for government.

I am not an expert in economics or medicine, so this is quite an experiment for me. I do know a little about medicine as my students generally end up as nurses. That means I have to know what the requirements are to be a nurse and also the prospects for employment. So, that does give me a little insight into the world of medicine. But it is no more than a peek. I do have some friends that are doctors, but we do not talk about medicine as a general rule. Translating that into English, I know little more than the average person. I hope that this plan is good. It is probably not unique. I gleaned it from the many sources I get my information from.  

Last night on the Glenn Beck Show, Glenn had on Lord Moncton and John Bolton to talk about the climate change treaty that Barack Obama might sign in December. That climate change bill sets up a government that has the power to tax every financial transaction at a rate of 2%. It can force countries that have a carbon debt to pay that debt in the form of money to countries that have a positive carbon footprint. According to Lord Moncton, the government set up is the beginnings of a world government. Each country that signs the treaty would have to give up some of its sovereignty so the government could operate without regard to local laws. The possibilities are truly scary.

But, then Lord Moncton said that he could prove that Global Warming was not happening because of carbon dioxide. That immediately got my attention as I am interested in that topic. In the discussion that followed, Lord Moncton showed a chart with 11 graphs from leading scientists around the world (primarily in the US) that believe in global warming. The graphs are depicting what the scientists say is happening to the upper atmosphere. In the upper atmosphere, if global warming is occurring the temperature would have to go down. Each graph by the leading scientists did show that the temperature of the upper atmosphere was going down. But, Lord Moncton said that those graphs were computer projections of what the scientists were expecting to happen, not actual data. Lord Moncton was dismissive of the efforts of the scientists and said they were using Xboxes.

Then, came the moment I have been waiting for since the idea of global warming became a political football. Lord Moncton unveiled a graph that used actual upper atmosphere data over the last 20 years. The data was collected by Richard Lindzen, head of the Climatology Department at MIT, among other scientists. This graph showed that the upper atmosphere was releasing temperature, just like it has always done. The greenhouse gases had no effect on the upper atmosphere. The upper atmosphere was not trapping the heat in. In other words, carbon dioxide and the other greenhouse gases do not cause global warming. If the earth is warming, it is not because of greenhouse gases.

Since we are facing draconian taxes because of global warming in the “Cap and Tax” bill, this information should make those that support the bill look like fools. They would be supporting a tax to stop something that is not happening. Of course everyone knew that all along, but now we have scientific evidence from a leading scientist at a leading university. All the global warming crowd has are computer models that are subject to the bias of the person or people entering the information. Actual data trumps projections any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

This information should mean that any scientist that expects to be taken seriously will have to become a skeptic of global warming. Those scientists that cling to global warming will be doing so out of political loyalty, not scientific evidence. There is no evidence to support global warming and there never has been any evidence. All they have ever had are those computer models. Those computer models have been shown to be wildly inaccurate by this evidence. That would mean that they would have to incorporate this new data into their computer models. If they incorporate this new data into the computer models, it will show that the world is not warming up.

It will take a while for this evidence to make the rounds of scientific communities. As it does so, the call for controls to stop global warming will necessarily cease. That will make some politicians look real bad because they have staked their lives on global warming being true. It will just point out the politicians that are out for personal reasons. Al Gore will be the chief loser in this whole episode. He has staked his entire post-VP career on global warming being true. He even starred in his own movie and won a Nobel Prize for his efforts. Now, everyone will see the truth and maybe someone will have pity on the poor man. He still has his car companies that are raking in the dough, but that is another column.

Last night, I watched the Glenn Beck program at the Fox News website. I was shocked by what I heard. Not so much by the information that he provided. That was information that I either knew or sensed. The shocking thing was the conclusion that Glenn drew from the data available. The other shocking thing about the conclusion was that it made perfect sense.

The conclusion from last night’s show was that we are headed for big trouble. We had a spike in the money supply under Jimmy Carter and had to have 20% interest rates to get rid of that spike. That spike was only a 13% spike. We now have a 120% spike in the money supply. What kind of interest rate would be required to reduce that spike I do not know? What I do know is that whatever interest rate it is, it will shut down the US economy. The 20% interest rates under Carter almost shut down the economy. Anything higher would surely shut down the economy.

What was startling was that this kind of spike has happened in the past. The Weimar Republic of Germany had this same problem. After the huge spike which allowed them to pay the debt, they issued a new currency. This new currency was based on German land, not precious metals such as gold. That meant that the German government owned all the land in Germany at that point. Germans were outraged and rebelled. That helped to propel Hitler into power. Glenn’s conclusion is that this is what is intended for America. That Obama and the Democrats intend to inflate the dollar into a worthless piece of paper. Then, they will issue a new type of money based on American land. That would mean that the American government would have to own all the land at that point. Given America’s love of owning land, there will be a big fight over losing our ownership of land to the government.

Glenn then speculated that with the unrest that would follow such a move, that the government could call in help from governments that have an interest in America. The largest country that meets that qualification is China. If one Chinese soldier so much as touches the ground with his foot, it would mean instant war with the American public. American citizens will not be subjugated by a foreign power, even one invited by our own government. We would fight the Chinese tooth and nail, just like in the movie, “Red Dawn”. I believe that the American Armed Forces would fight a foreign invader, even one invited by our own government.

The other unsaid thing that would have to happen to make Glenn’s scenario work would be for Obama and his cronies to take our guns away. If they tried to take them away directly, there would be heck to pay and it would not happen. They would have to use a stealth method. The stealth method that might work is to tax guns out of the hands of law abiding Americans. Just place a “Gun Safety Tax” on guns, because everyone knows that guns are dangerous. That would make the cost of owning a gun too much for most citizens. Most would be forced to give up their guns or break the law.

Glenn’s time frame for all this to happen is also scary. He suggested a 5-8 year window for all this to take place. That is too close for comfort. My oldest grandchild would be getting to the age where the fighting would take place. I am much too old to be of use in any real fighting situation.

When I became a practicing Christian, I heard stories about the Constitution hanging by a thread and the Christians having to save it. At the time, I dismissed those stories as pure fantasy. I thought that it was impossible for that scenario to happen in my lifetime. Now, I see where this scenario is playing out right in front of my eyes. I am hoping and praying that the members of the Church stand up and take their rightful place as saviors for the Constitution and this country. The problem I see is that I do not see any actions being initiated to thwart the enemies of the Constitution. I just hear talk. Talk is cheap. Action takes real guts and commitment. Do we have the same guts and commitment that our forefathers had in 1776? I hope that we do. I pray that we do. I want to help, but my age and health are going to make it difficult for me to be much help at all. People my children’s age are going to have to be the leaders of this movement. Do they have it in them? Only time will tell if that is the case. I pray for a rebirth of freedom in this country. It is sorely needed. We have too much government interference in our lives. Let’s get back to the ideals of our Founding Fathers. They got it right in 1787. Let’s get it right in 2009 and beyond.

The Democrats rolled out the “Elect Republicans in 2010 Bill”. They called it a different name, but that is what it is. They called it their version of the Obamacare legislation. Nancy Pelosi praised the bill saying that it would cover 96% of all working families and that it would make health insurance cheaper and more affordable for all. Steny Hoyer said that the process of developing this bill has been the most open and transparent in the 29 years he has been in Congress. Count me as an unbeliever because those comments do not ring true.

First let’s look at Madame Pelosi’s comments. She said the bill would cover 96% of all working families. I may have my figures wrong, but that percentage is essentially the same as under the current private insurance system. That does not seem to be much of an increase in any case, even if it is an increase.

Madame Pelosi’s second statement is even further from the truth. I was looking at the costs for families under this plan last night. I then compared that estimate to what I am paying for my insurance today. After deciding that my calculator was not telling me the truth, I determined that I would pay almost 50% more to get worse coverage under Obamacare. That does not sound like much of an appealing proposition.

Steny Hoyer’s comments were chilling. If he is telling the truth, that these were the most open and transparent meetings to develop this bill, we are in big trouble my friends. These meetings were held in secret for the most part. What came out of the meetings were trial balloons to see what would or would not fly. There was nothing open about the debates. Transparent is a complete joke if you think these were transparent. They were a closely guarded secret for the most part. The Republicans had almost no input into the debate, so the meetings were definitely not open. The Republicans were locked out of the final drafting of the bill.

If those meetings were the most open, then what about the other bills that come through Congress? Barack Obama promised us the most open and transparent administration in history. Of course, every President since John Adams has promised a more open administration than the ones that came before. Nobody lines up for secrecy.

Well, the first bill is actually written. The “bill” that came out of the Senate the other day was not even written on paper. It was just the idea that a bill might be written to possibly include these probable things. Notice all the weasel words in the last statement. That is the “bill” the Senate committee voted on. At least the House of Representatives came up with a bill that was written on paper for people to read. That is if they allow anyone near the actual bill. These Democrats have a problem with people reading anything. It is probably because if you read what they wrote, you would figure out what they intended to do to you. Then, you would rise up with pitchforks to storm the Congress to take back what is ours. The Democrats do not want us to know anything about what they intend to do, until they have actually accomplished their task. Then it will be too late. You will be stuck with that mess forever, just like all the other failed Democrat programs like Social Security, Medicare and the war on poverty.

The battle is joined. Madame Pelosi said she wanted to vote on this bill in six weeks. That means we have six weeks to stop the Democrats from destroying the heart of America. They already have a good start on the bone and muscle. They should not get the heart. We have to stop them by letting our Congressional delegation know the consequences of voting against America on this bill.

The fringe press has been boosting and supporting Obama so much that they cannot see what is happening in this country. They continually report polls inaccurately so that they give the impression that the majority of the American people want socialized healthcare. When you look at the polls in question, it is obvious that the poll was more of a “push poll” than a real poll. A real poll asks real questions to get real answers. A push poll asks leading questions to get pre-determined answers. Real polls are valid. Push polls are not worth the cost of a match to burn them up.

That the Obamacare socialized medicine plan is in trouble is obvious. They are trying trick after trick to get the people to support their socialized medicine. None of their tricks have had any lasting effect. The public is too locked in on the issue and too informed. The latest trick is to rename the original government option, then public option and now consumer option or competition option. The hard core leftists are grasping at straws if they think that changing the name of a stupid idea will make it a good idea.

If Democrats were serious about reforming healthcare, they could do it in a couple of days. That is allowing for the slow legislative process. It would take me about 15 minutes to write it up and then they could have their debates and pass it.

My plan is very simple. It is to remove government from health care as much as is possible. Removing it entirely is not a good idea as it is a good idea to have doctors and other healthcare workers that are certified. Having an agency check on minimum standards of cleanliness and such is also a good idea. But other than that, government should get out of the way. Government should be out of the health insurance business except to license those that sell the insurance. People should be able to select plans from any state and tailor a plan that suits them. For example, right now my wife and I are paying for maternity care. We are both past age 60. The odds on our ever needing maternity care are zero. Therefore, if we could choose a plan without maternity care it would be cheaper. I could go down the list, but I think you get my point. Tailoring a plan to suit every individual would reduce costs, even with the current government involvement.

Once the costs were reduced and true market forces were at work in the health industry, you would see costs go down and the quality would go up. A perfect example of what I am talking about is Lasik eye surgery. When it was first introduced it cost about $1000 per eye and the surgery was very risky. Now it costs about $300 per eye and the risk is very low. The quality of the surgery has increased by a tremendous amount and the cost has gone down at the same time. How has that happened? The answer is very simple, competition drove those costs down. As doctors got into the business, they realized that if they lowered their costs, they would get more patients. As they got more patients their income went up. But, to get those patients they had to have the latest technology available.

Under Obamacare, none of that will happen. Quality will be something that people will hear about and wonder what it was. The costs will continually go up as nobody has any interest in controlling them. As the costs go up, rationing will occur because the government will only have so much money. The patients with the highest need will not get the services because they would cost the most money. Those that had the lowest cost services would get first choice of services. If there was anything left, those with high cost services would be taken care of. The rationing would be the “Death Panels” that Sarah Palin talked about and the left said would not happen.

We have to stop this monstrosity called Obamacare. There is still a chance to defeat it. I heard an expert this morning say that it had a 50-50 chance of passing. That is much too high for me. Until that number is zero, I will not be happy. Also on Glenn Beck, he said that as the age goes up, the support for socialized medicine goes down. If politicians remember, older voters vote in a higher percentage than younger ones. Voting for this unconstitutional bill would mean a massive turnover in Congress. There probably will be a massive turnover even if it does not pass, just because of all the other terrible things that Obama is making Congress pass. But, passing this one would mean certain political death for a huge number of people who voted for the bill. Since it had not been implemented, it might still be dismantled before implementation. At least that is what I hope for.

This morning on the Mike Gallagher show, he was talking about a situation where a business owner asked an employee to anglicize their name when talking to customers. This happened because the employee was at a switchboard. The incident that brought it to everyone’s attention happened in Taos, New Mexico. Since I did not hear the first part of the discussion, I did not hear which news organization handled the report. The woman reporter was upset that the employee was asked to anglicize their name. Another news anchor at the station brought it up later and said that is exactly what he had done. His reasoning was that it is more important that the public be able to understand his name, than it was what he was called. Then he gave his full Hispanic name, which I could not understand. I did understand the name he uses at the station, Rick Sanchez.

The business owner did not ask all Hispanic employees to anglicize their names. He only asked the ones that deal with the public on a first call basis to anglicize their name. The other Hispanic employees are not asked about their names at all.

This only seems fair to me. This is America and the dominant language is English. So, it stands to reason that names are anglicized. That happened to my mother’s father when he came from Sweden. They could not understand him, so they got a close approximation. It was supposed to be Svenson, but he ended up with Swahn. The spelling was also originated by the agents at the intake center. I know of numerous occasions when that has happened to families as they came to America. Their last name was changed because of the intake agent misunderstanding the immigrant or because of the intake agent misspelling the name. Many friends of mine have discovered this as they have done their genealogy.

The situation could become a matter of discrimination if the employer asked all employees to modify their names. That would be discriminatory. Just asking the employees that deal most directly with the public to modify their names is reasonable. They are not asking them to pick some name that is not theirs, they are just asking them to use the anglicized version of their name. What that usually amounts to is changing how their name is pronounced, not actually changing the name itself. That is really nothing at all.

I can see where a person would want their name pronounced correctly. My last name is regularly mispronounced when people see it written. If they just hear it, they have no problem with it. It is only when they see it written they have a problem. The problem also occurs when they try and take the verbal name and translate it to written form. It is really a simple name, but it gives people the fits just the same. So, I understand where the Hispanic employees are coming from. I want my name pronounced correctly all the time. But, over the years, I have come to understand that people mispronounce it with good intentions. So, it has become less of an issue as I have gotten older.

If some employer asked me to change the pronunciation of my name to fit with the language of the country I was living in, I would have no problem. I would probably grumble at first, that would be human, but I would get over it in the long run. Customer service comes first, not my comfort. If it helps my business to get even one more customer because of my changing how my name is pronounced, I would do it in a heartbeat. That is the nature of the cut-throat world of business. Personal pride should come second to helping the business succeed.

I think that the first female news anchor was all wet. She was creating a tempest in a teapot. Rick Sanchez has the right attitude. It has helped him in his career to anglicize his name. It would help other Hispanic individuals to do the same in the English speaking world of the United States. If they want to work on Spanish language stations, then they would not have to worry about the problem. But that would mean a potentially smaller income. The choice should be theirs. Personal pride or customer service are the two competing arguments. In my mind, customer service comes before pride.

Over the weekend, I heard about numerous plans Democrats have to modify the existing 5 plans to make them more palatable to the American People. The reason they are willing to modify their plans to say almost anything, is that after enacted they can change it to fit what they want. At that point they will have breached the wall and it is all over.

Democrats with their grandiose plans are like a disease or an invading army. They are like a disease in that as long as you keep them out, they are basically harmless. You can identify them as dangerous, but outside your body, they do no harm to you. Once one bacteria or virus gets inside your body, then the infection can occur and you get sick. That is just like a Democrat plan to “fix” something. Once it is enacted, they will keep adding to it until it bankrupts us.

The Democrats are like an invading army, much like a disease. As long as the army is outside your city they are contained. Once they create a breach in the walls, it enables their army to invade and destroy your city.

A saying that I remember from some source is, “Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.” We could modify that saying to be, “Beware of Democrats with a plan to ‘fix’ a problem.” Every time the Democrats “fix” a problem, their fix is around forever. We have federal programs that were put in place in the 1930’s to combat the depression that are still there. Every Democrat plan to “fix” something should have a very short shelf life before it is reviewed to determine if it is good. I would suggest a maximum shelf life of 5 years. If the Democrat plan does not solve the problem in 5 years, it is not going to solve the problem. At least that has been the track record of all Democrat programs put on the books since 1791. I realize that is a short span of time, but it is all that were available at the time of this writing. Also, records from United States sources are unreliable before 1791 and the inauguration of President George Washington.

My point is that we have to beware of people like Harry Reid coming out with a “public option” that an individual state can decide not to participate in. This sounds like a great compromise on whether a public option should be present at all. The problem is that all that would have to happen to destroy this seemingly wonderful idea is for the Congress to pass legislation requiring that all states have the “public option” available to their citizens. Also, the Congress will make sure that the public option will be so cheap that people will be asking for it over traditional plans that are burdened with regulations.

I am sure that there are other reasonable sounding plans out there. They are all Trojan Horses. They are designed to get you to lower your defenses and allow the Democrat Universal Healthcare plan (Obamacare) to pass. Once it has passed and is firmly in place, the Democrats would begin tinkering with it until it resembled the worst of the plans already submitted. Also, the cost figures are wildly lower than would actually occur. An example of government misjudging cost is Medicare. When Medicare was passed, it was estimated that it would cost $12 billion after 10 years. After 10 years, Medicate was costing taxpayers over 10 times that amount. We can expect similar results with all these Obamacare bills being adopted by the Democrats.

The best way to handle the situation is to take a step back. First we should kill all the current plans that are out there. Second, we should identify exactly what the problem is in the first place. Third, we should devise a plan that will solve the problem or problems identified in step two. Also, Congress should be required to live under any plan that they pass for the country. That would mean giving up on their Congressional perks, but that would be the price they should pay to pass the bill on healthcare. The things that are not problems should be left alone because they work well. The doctor/patient relationship is one of the items that is working well.

We are in danger of losing what made this country great. There may be a country that has the name, United States of America, but its heart will have been ripped out. I am talking about all of the assaults on American values by the Obama administration. Part of this is shown by the fact that it appears that it is a requirement that you love “Chairman Mao” in order to be selected as one of the Czar’s. As Glenn Beck said on his show this past week, he always thought that Chairman Mao was one of the worst people that had ever lived.

The worst assault on our values has to be the attack on Fox News. I say it is the worst because it is attacking the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. That first amendment gives us protection from government doing anything to inhibit the free press in this country. The Obama administration is trying to say that Fox News is not part of the free press and is therefore not entitled to protection under the first amendment. That is the crux of their argument that Fox News is not really a news organization. This assault on Fox News has to stop. We, the people, have to demand that the government keep its hands off of the free exercise of the free press. The other news organizations have decided to go into the tank and not be a “free press”. That is no excuse for now attacking any member of the free press to get them to change or shut down.

The next two assaults are on the economy. One is the Obamacare bill that is still in the House and Senate. The other is the Cap and Tax bill that is being debated. The worst of these two is the Obamacare bill. That bill would socialize our healthcare system in this country. Once the medical system is socialized, it would be extremely difficult for us to change it back to a privatized health care system. There would be a window of opportunity between now and 2013, but Obama is President during that entire time. He would veto any bill trying to repeal his crown jewel in the destruction of the US. The fact that the Obamacare bill would destroy the economy is bad enough. The fact that it is unconstitutional is also bad enough. The worst part of Obamacare is that it would destroy the American spirit. That is something that other countries do not have. If we lose that, we are just another country. With the American Sprit, we can do anything. Without it, we become like Europe today, weak and unwilling to fight for our lives. Obamacare would end up being the cause of our destruction by weakening our ability to defend ourselves.

The Cap and Tax bill is trying to solve a hoax. Since the problem it is trying to solve is a hoax, the problem is already solved. The real reason that the Democrats want to pass this bill is the massive tax increase on the country. They look at the increased revenue stream and think of all the social programs they can start (even though they would all be unconstitutional). This Cap and Tax bill would just destroy the economy of the US. It is easily solved by passing a bill repealing all of its provisions. It is not like the Obamacare bill where it would be almost impossible to end the disaster.

As side notes, Moody’s Bond Service has estimated that our bonds will need to be devalued within the next 3-6 years. That is much shorter than the last estimate under George Bush of 10-12 years. That is because Barack Obama and the Democrats are spending like drunken sailors on steroids. If we cut spending and eliminated the programs started under Obama, we could get our spending under control. That would lengthen the time period once again. Then, we could start eliminating programs that were unconstitutional and get to the point where we could actually pay off our debt. As it is today, paying off the debt is impossible and becoming more impossible as each day goes by.

One thing that bothers me is the constant redefinition of words by the left. Words have meanings and that should stay relatively constant throughout a 50-100 year period. When the left is involved, word meanings can change on a dime, if they perceive that their old meaning can help the left.

I was reading the book “The Forgotten Man” and in the 1940 Presidential race, Wendell Willkie was complaining that the word “liberal” had lost its meaning. The left had changed it to mean someone who supports big government. That had not been the previous meaning. So, Willkie tried to restore the meaning of the word liberal during the campaign. As we all know, he failed in that bid. Democrats were too strong to overturn their word changes, even in the 1940’s.

The word “Progressive” used to mean that the person was looking forward to making progress of some type. The left has confiscated the word and now “Progressive” means that you want to return to the big government that was around for thousands of years before anyone thought of a Republican form of government. That is not progressive, that is regressive.

A friend of mine got an email with a video on it. The video was for kids to show them about our form of government. We watched it to make sure that it was appropriate for our kids. It was appropriate for our kids, but I learned from it as well. The video put things into perspective that I had been gathering and pondering on for some time.

In the video, it said that there were 5 possible forms of government. The video then went through the 5 forms until it was left with only 2. The 5 were: Power vested in a single individual, power concentrated in a select few (Oligarchy), a democracy, a republic and anarchy. Anarchy is a temporary condition because everyone in a situation where anarchy is being practiced wants a government to step in and restore order. Power in a single individual is temporary as a group usually gets involved quickly making it an Oligarchy. A democracy is more permanent than either of the others. It has lasted for long periods when it has been tried, but it always ends up in violence and bloodshed leading to an Oligarchy. That leaves just two permanent types of government, the Oligarchy and the Republic.

We live in a Republic. The Founding Fathers set it up that way. They did not want a democracy because it always ends up in a disaster. They did not want a King as that always ends up in tyranny. They put us on the path of a Republic. Those who want to keep us on that path should be supported and promoted. Those who would change our system to something else should be thrown out of office on their ear.

Democrats never want people to know what they are really doing. That is why they always co-opt a word with a good meaning to describe their bad intentions. Abraham Lincoln is frequently quoted as saying that you can fool some of the people all of the time. And you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. That is the game the Democrats like to play. The Democrats are constantly trying to fool you into believing that they want a limited, smaller government with a strong military. So, they use language that would make people believe that their intentions are in that direction. Then, when they get into office, they go in exactly the opposite direction. They still use soothing words that say they are not doing what you see them doing.

Well, most of the people got fooled in the last election. Barack Obama told us what he was going to do. He just did it in such a way that people did not believe it. That way he fooled most of the people into voting for him. What did he do when he got into office? He did exactly the opposite of what he said he believed in during the election season. Some of them have realized that they made a mistake. Some are still enthralled with the soothing words coming from Mr. Obama’s mouth. They fail to see the actions that Mr. Obama has taken to destroy the greatest nation the world has ever seen.

We need someone who will tell us the truth, whether good or bad. I am reading a book about Ronald Reagan and how he caused the Soviet Union to disappear. One thing that friend and foe alike said about Ronald Reagan is that you can believe what he says. If he says he will do it, he will. If he said he will not do it, he won’t. Even my parents, who were die hard left wingers, always said that you can believe what Ronald Reagan said he will do. They did not like the things Mr. Reagan said he would do, so they voted against him. I thought that it was refreshing to have a politician that says what he means, so I voted for him. That is the type of politician that we need today. We do not need one that will try and pander to this group or that group. We need one that is true to his/her convictions no matter what group is in front of him/her. In my humble opinion, that would mean a return of a Ronald Reagan. That is someone I could support completely.

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.