Excerpt from "You're Fired"

Reason 5- They Never Learn

On Foreign Policy - Despite his claims, Obama is not this nation’s "First Pacific President." Yes, he did live in Hawaii for 14 years; but Richard Nixon ended the freeze between U.S. and China in 1972 and both Nixon and Reagan resided in California. Two other presidents, Kennedy and George H.W. Bush both had war experience in the Pacific. And least we not forget, William Taft, American’s 27th president, governed the country of the Philippines for 4 years (same amount of time Obama lived in Indonesia). And the list goes on. Harry Truman commanded over the Korean War; Ulysses S. Grant and Gerald Ford visited Japan. Grant was the first president to shake the hand of the Japanese Emperor (while our “first Pacific President” bowed to him, perhaps he was looking to make sure nothing was on his shoes?). President Theodore Roosevelt received the Nobel Peach Prize for helping end the Russian-Japanese War.

On Fiscal Policy - President Obama spoke early in his administration about Japan and her "lost decade." He believed that the Japanese government didn’t act in time to save their economy. After the 1987 stock market crash, President Reagan’s plan of action was to keep interest rates low and enact some bank regulation. A year later, the US economy was growing again. Japan, however, took a different path. Their plan included nationalizing some banks, pumping trillions into the markets and bailing out companies. They thought enacting an “emergency fiscal stimulus” package would rescue their economy (sound familiar?). Banks were no longer able to lend money and many were kept alive by the skin of their teeth. After almost two decades of failed fiscal policy, economist Heizo Takenaka was named the new Minister of Economy and Finance. Mr. Takenaka changed the failed policies of the past and said banks aren’t too big to fail.

Celebrating Freedom around the world, the fall of the Berlin Wall

It is despicable that the President of the Untied States is not at the 20th anniversary celebration of the fall of the Berlin Wall. It was after all President Reagan who stood at the wall some 22 year ago and told Mikhail Gorbachev to "tear down this wall." President Reagan saw America as exceptional and a leader. These of course run contrary to the view Obama has of America, one that is just another county and should be bow down to the United Nations. Even the late democratic president John F. Kennedy who flew to Berlin in 1963 denounced the wall as "an affront to history." Kennedy like Reagan saw the Cold War as the defining battle between freedom and totalitarianism. A war both men believed that the West, with America had the helm, had to win.

The White House is taking heat over their decision not to send the president and they should. The fall of the wall showed that democracy can triumph and he has chosen to ignore it. Instead, he has chosen to attend some 26 fundraisers, play multiple rounds of golf, make an impromptu visit to Copenhagen to try and win the Olympics for Chicago and will travel to Oslo in December to accept the Nobel Peach Prize which he doesn’t serve.

Basically, Obama told German President Angela Merkel that he was too busy to attend the celebration but yet other world leaders past and present managed to rearrange their schedule and attend. It’s just plan pathetic.

This president sees the Cold War as an irrelevant historical artifact, a time when Americans felt the way to resolve a conflict was with fear instead of warm/fuzzy speeches. It seems as long as this president sits in the Oval office, America is no longer a champion of freedom. This will make the next 3 years very dangers for those of us who live here.

What the 2009 election tells us about 2010

Let me quote the lyrics of a 1980s Dead or Alive song – "You spin me right round, baby right round like a record." The Democratic Party is trying so hard to spin the results of the 2009 election that it’s enough to make you dizzy.

The losses of two governorships are big, especially New Jersey, the bluest of blue states. In VA, there was a 26 point swing in favor of the GOP candidate over Obama’s win by 8 points (the GOP candidate won by 18). In New Jersey, there was a 19point swing over Obama’s win by 15 points (the GOP candidate won by 4).

Here are some numbers that should make Obama and the Democratic Party worry. In Virginia, Governor-elect Bob McDonnell carried the affluent and immigrant heavy Fairfax County by 21 percent (a county carried by Obama in 2008). Mr. McDonnell also carried nine out of Virginia’s eleven congressional districts, including three districts that went democrat in 2008 with votes of 62 percent, 61 percent, and 55 percent respectively. Exit polls showed that 46 percent of voters in Virginia said the economy was the main concern while only 25 percent said it was health care.

Over in New Jersey, Governor-elect Chris Christie, who was out spent by his opponent, managed to cut outgoing Governor Corzine’s margin in heavily democratic Bergen Country from 16 percent (which Corzine carried in 2005) down to 1 percent in 2009. He also took 7 counties that voted for Obama in 2008 turned them red in 2009.

Obama won’t be able to focus solely on one state in the 2010 elections as he’ll be criss-crossing the country trying to save blue politicians in red states. Blue politicians in red states must now think twice before voting for cap-and-trade and healthcare. In the House alone, there are 84 democrats that come from districts won by either President Bush in 2004 or John McCain in 2008. Election year 2008 was a snippet in time, a one-shot deal never to be repeated.

What the White House can’t overlook is the growing discontent that Americans have for they way they have governed. Americans have begun to pay attention to a government that doesn’t care about trillion dollar deficits, combined 50 percent tax rates in most states, sky rocketing unemployment which is now at 10.2 percent or a radical agenda that if passed will kill jobs.

If anything, the election of a Republican governor in NJ has given hope to Republicans in other blue states like Massachusetts, New York, or New Hampshire whose governors are up for re-election. Last Tuesday’s win lets the Republican Party live to conquer another day. It was just last year the pundits wrote off the GOP for the next election cycle, maybe even the next generation.

The president needs to face the realization that his left of center agenda doesn’t sit will with a right of center nation. By allowing the left coasts of the U.S. to write important legislation, he is exciting the left, enraging the right, and frightening the center. Come 2010, Obama may be the “right” answer to the GOP’s problems.

The White House will tell you that the election was not a referendum on the president and democratic loses had nothing to do with Obama. It now appears that the voters in at least these two states want nothing to do with him.

Promises made, Promises broken

In August of 2008 at a town hall meeting in Chester, VA, presidential candidate Barack Obama said the following on health care reform - "I'm going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We'll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies — they'll get a seat at the table… We'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies."

Fast forward to October of 2009 and in a small room in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s office, behind closed doors, a final Senate bill is being written. The only people around the so-called "big table" are Senator Reid, Senator Chris Dodd, Senator Chuck Schumer, Senator Max Baucus, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, and Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebeilus plus a few aides all looking to replace our current health care system, which makes up one-sixth of the economy. If they have their way, we will end up with something so destructive and that will raise premiums, create new taxes, ration medical care, and eventually put private insurance out of business. What happened to the doctors, nurses, insurance and drug companies, and most importantly, the bipartisanship the president campaigned on? Oh, I know he’s president know and doesn't have to follow through with his campaign promise.

For a president who campaigned on the issue of transparency, this is just another campaign promise broken. The American voter is becoming skeptical if he can keep any campaign promise. He promised to post bills for five (5) days on the web before signing. It’s a promise he keeps breaking bill after bill. So far 11 bills have been signed into law and not one of them has made it to the World Wide Web.

In regards to health care, the president made several promises. He said "we have to enlist the American people in this process" but when we tried to voice our opinion at town hall meetings we were called names. He said "I would welcome input" but hasn't invited the GOP to the White House since April. He said "if you have better ideas please present them" but every amendment proposed by the Republicans has been turned down or is stuck in committee. He said "the public will be part of the conversation" but then let his Sr. Advisor and leaders in Congress insult those who disagree with them. He said the Clinton's made one huge mistake and that was they took "all their experts into one room and then they closed the door. They tried to design the plan in isolation from the American people." Sound familiar?

Representatives Brian Baird (D-WA) and Greg Walden (R-OR) have been trying to get a petition signed by lawmakers that would "force a vote" on an amendment that would require a 72 hour viewing process. So far, nearly every Republican had signed the petition but the democratic leadership is discouraging its members doing the same.

Rep. Baird warns of the democrats desire to hide bills from the public. He says "Democrats know politically it's difficult to defend not doing this… The public gets this. They say we entrust you with the profound responsibility of making decisions that affect our lives, and we expect you to exercise due diligence in carrying out that responsibility."

Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY) offered a similar amendment in regards to the health care bill. This amendment required the actual legislative text sent to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office for a cost estimate and for the bill to be posted on the Senate Finance committee website. The amendment was defeated along party lines with the exception of Senator, Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), who sided with the Republicans.

Americans have become skeptical of the "need" this White House and Congress have to pass bills quickly with little time for debate. Michael Franc, president of the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation said “The American people are now suspicious of not only the lawmakers, but the process they hide behind to do their work."

This Congress has refused to give the proper legislation to the CBO so they can have the proper amount of time to analyze. They have rejected any and all measures that would save us from their president’s broken promises on health care. If common sense still existed, then Congress would start over allowing both sides to the bargaining table.

If health care reform doesn't constitute a need for transparency, then I don't know what does. This president promised to run the "most transparent White House in history." where’s the transparency, Mr. President?

What are they smoking in Oslo?

Perhaps the committee felt sorry for Obama after his "hometown" of Chicago lost its 2016 Olympic bid to Rio or perhaps they are happy that he is on course to destroying the United States of America? Whatever the reason, if you're like me when you heard the news that the President had won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, you asked yourself - for what?

The nomination process ended just 12 days after the president was inaugurated. The committee said they decided to issue the citation to the president "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future." So???

The president is so determined to be liked around the world that he is forgetting that his real focus should be on his own country. Unemployment continues to rise, people continue to worry about losing their job, people aren't spending as much which hurts the private sector, nations around the world are thinking of replacing the US dollar as the international currency, he continues to want to spend money we don't have which will bankrupt us, and the list goes on and on. Let's just say if this road continues, he may very well not win the ultimate price from the citizens of the United States -reelection.

Awarding this prize to a man who had been in office for 12 days only makes the committee look even more ridiculous than before. Remember the Saturday Night Live skit where they made fun of the president for his record so far? Here's a recap - he's done NOTHING (except spend money)! He's fighting to wars and can't get a climate bill through Congress which is controlled by his own party.

The president should have turned down this award. Afterall, the Nobel Peace Prize should be awarded for what one has acomplished not what they promise. It appears that the committee chose to give the prize to Obama simply because he is not Bush. He could have said that while he is grateful for the award, he hasn't done the things he wants to accomplish and therefore can't accept the award. The award comes at an interesting time. The president is debating whether to follow through with General McCrystals' request for an additional 40,000 more troops for Afghanistan. The question is now that he is the winner and the committee is looking to him for "peace", will he send the troops needed to get the job done or will he make us retreat?

Reaction around the world is mixed but even the Times of London declared that the committee's choice makes a mockery out of the award. Lech Walesa, former Polish President who is also Nobel laureate, said the president hasn't made any contributions and that it was far to early to award such a prize.

I hope there is enough duct-tape to keep the president's head from growing any bigger.

America needs a stimulus bill that will create jobs

In 2008, Larry Summers, now chief economic advisor to President Obama, said that any fiscal stimulus bill should be "timely, targeted, and temporary." Mr. Summers wrote that to be timely a stimulus bill should be "based on changes in taxes and benefits that can be implemented almost immediately." The stimulus bill should be targeted to "those with low incomes and those whose incomes have recently fallen for whom spending is most urgent." Finally, the stimulus bill must be temporary and have no impact on the deficit after one year. Increased deficits, Mr. Summers wrote, will only lead to rises in interest rates and undermine long-term growth. However, since it was signed into law February 17, 2009, the economic stimulus bill hasn't been timely nor targeted and I doubt it will be temporary. Economist Milton Friedman once said "there is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program."

In the 224 days since the stimulus bill was signed into law, we have spent $98 billion or 12 percent of the $787 billion. At this rate, it will take the federal government around 1,800 days to spend the entire bill. Ironically, this will put us way past the 2012 presidential election.

President Obama told us that if we passed the stimulus bill we would not see unemployment go above 8 percent and that we would "save or create" 3 million jobs by putting "people back to work." However, since the bill was signed, the economy has lost an additional 2.2 million jobs and the unemployment rate is now at 9.8 percent.

America needs a real stimulus bill. A bill that doesn't pay back the unions and interest groups that helped President Obama get elected. The current stimulus bill simply increases the size and control of government by putting money into the hands of politicians, bureaucrats, and lobbyists at the expense of the private sector. We need a bill that will create long-term permanent jobs, not temporary "shovel-ready" projects and provide tax cuts for businesses.

So what would a successful stimulus bill look like? First, tax cuts must be at the heart of any new bill. Americans believe that tax cuts spur economic growth and create jobs. With a $12 trillion economy, any tax cut must be bold enough to actually work.

Second, a true stimulus bill must be rooted in economic freedom for the American people. An economy centralized in Washington only brings about corruption and political favoritism that we see today. In order to have sustainable, long-term economic growth, we must provide small businesses with pro-growth policies. We can't just simply cut taxes but we must also reign in government spending and fiscal responsibility. An amendment requiring the federal government to balance their budget would be a great start to achieving this.

Third, in order to help businesses, we should implement cuts in Social Security and Medicare taxes. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is proposing a 50 percent cut in these tax rates. Small businesses would have more money to hire people or invest and employees would see an immediate growth in their take home pay allowing them to spend more in the private sector.

Fourth, the United States has the second highest combined corporate tax rate in the world at 39.1 percent (Japan has the highest rate at 39.5 percent). In order to entice foreign companies to invest in the Untied States, we must lower this rate to a more competitive advantage. Currently, Ireland has the lowest corporate tax rate of 12.5 percent.

During the 1990's, President Clinton and the Republican-controlled House showed us that in order to have economic growth you must have both pro-job and pro-investment tax cuts. The more jobs the private sector creates, the fewer number of people receiving welfare payments or unemployment benefits. By controlling spending, they were able to balance the budget for the next four years.

This is one time when history should repeat itself.

In a struggle between Capitalism and Socialism, which will Americans choose?

Capitalism is "an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market." Socialism is "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods."

There’s a new war going on and unfortunately it began with the previous administration. Just five months shy of leaving office, President George W. Bush signed into law the TARP bill to bailout the banks. President Bush said at the time he "abandoned free market principles to save the free market system." That’s a "bushism" that not even many Republicans could stand behind.

Five days before the election, then Senator Obama warned us that we are "five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America" but we didn't listen. While America does have her flaws, she doesn't need transforming. People come to America to live in a society based on freedom, prosperity and peace.

Norman Thomas, U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate in 1940, 1944, and 1948 once said "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

At a Business Roundtable meeting in March, President Obama said "I am a strong believer in the ability of the free market to generate wealth and prosperity that’s shared across the board." Shared across the board? That’s interesting; the definition of free market doesn't include any use of the words "shared across the board." Yet this administration will try and convince you that trickle-down economics ("the theory that the entire country benefits as the nation’s richest amass and spend") is a fantasy. I don't remember a single job being created from someone at the bottom of the income ladder, do you?

The left, as exemplified by Obama, firmly believes all of life is a zero-sum game i.e. if someone is rich; it’s always at the expense of the poor. Socialists believe a person, business or country is only successful because they hijacked success from those less fortunate. Socialism leads to severely limited freedoms and to enormous, almost entire, state control. It leads to suppression of free speech, suppression of religion, and suppression of all things we hold dear. We need to stop these preliminary steps, if we are to avoid a very bleak future.

Since the beginning of the Obama administration, liberals have attacked Wall Street executives for making money, doctors for making money, and insurance companies for making money. Just an FYI, insurance companies have a 3.3 percent profit margin while the average business in this country has a 4.6 percent profit margin. Where is their outrage at the actors who make $20 to $30 million for one film or at former Vice President Al Gore who makes millions on the claim of "global warming"?

The administration needs to keep in mind that Americans still believe in Capitalism. A May, 2009 Rasmussen poll found that 77 percent of Americans believe that a free market system is better than socialism. Politicians need to remember that the majority of Americans still see America as a "special and unique country."

Political dissent doesn't equal racism

Civil rights attorney Keith Watters recently warned against playing the race card saying "We should not yell 'racism' unless there is direct evidence… Sane voices need to come on the media and say loud and clear that this is not about race." During the Bush administration, dissent equaled patriotism. According to some today, dissent under President Obama equals racism.

I know there are people out there who oppose President Obama simply because he is black. I, however, am not one of them and I take offense when Congressmen like Hank Johnson (D-GA) and James Clyburn (D-SC) use the race card in the debate over the president’s policies. A Fox News Poll dated September 15-19 found that 65 percent of those polled described their opposition toward President Obama as "honest disagreement" while 20 percent said their disagreement was based on race. Even the president isn't asserting racism into the debate. He recently told the host of ABC’s ‘This Week’ "there are some who are…more passionate about the idea of whether government can do anything right. And I think that that's probably the biggest driver of some of the vitriol."

What gets lost in the debate is just how far we've come. Are we done? No, but when 43percent of white voters vote a black man for president and the leaders of both national parties are black (Michael Steele for the GOP and President Obama for the Democrats), one has to admit "we've come along way, baby."

I was at the September 12 "March on Washington" and what I saw were a million plus Americans who love their country. I saw American flags, "Don't tread on me" flags, and state flags from Alaska to Florida and everywhere in between waving in the wind. Signs reflecting the mode of the country read "I'm not your ATM", "You work for us", "It’s time to party like its 1773", and "the US Constitution is not negotiable." Were some of the 20 percent who oppose the president because of the color of his skin there, yes but they were easily outnumbered.

Moms, dads, kids, grandparents, whites, blacks, and hispanics, all concerned with the direction this country is headed flocked to our nation’s capitol. It's not just the direction of the past 8 months but of the past 70 years that has us worried. Big government started in the 1930’s under FDR, slowed down under President Clinton and began a new rapid rate of growth under President George W. Bush. In the past few decades, we've seen out of control spending, a Congress that has become to powerful and unaccountable to the citizens who elect them, and a government that has become to close to Wall Street and the labor unions.

Simply put, Americans are fed up and they aren't going to take it anymore and the color of the president’s skin has nothing to do with it. Senior White House Advisor David Axelrod said the day after the march "I don't think it’s indicative of the nation’s mood . . . "You know, I don't think we ought to be distracted by that. My message to them is, they're wrong." With tea party protesters now numbering in the millions, the Obama administration is making a huge mistake. With remarks like this, the administration is showing us that they have their heads in the sand and this will hurt them in 2010.

Yes America, Republicans do have a health care plan

Despite the democrats attempt to tell you otherwise, the Republicans do have a health care plan (in fact they have several but I want to share two of them with you). For more information on all health care bills currently before the House and Senate, visit http://www.ifebp.org/Resources/News/TopicsInDepth/Health+Care+Reform+Discussion/congressionalproposals.htm#House%20Bills

Bill number one is called "The Patients' Choice Act of 2009" (S 1090/HR 2520) sponsored by Senators Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) and Richard Burr (RC) and Representatives Paul Ryan (RI) and Devin Nunes (RA). The bill addresses comprehensive health care reform by doing the following (quoting directly from the bill):

1. Shifts health care tax benefits to individuals and families in the form of a "Medi-Choice" tax rebate worth about $2,200 for individuals and $5,700 for families. Under this plan, if you like the health care you have, you can keep it – but you'll have more money in your pocket because you will still receive a tax rebate.

2. Lowers health care costs and insurance premiums by more sensibly caring for those with chronic illnesses and those deemed "uninsurable."

3. Utilizes risk adjustment mechanisms and other options at the State level – such as reinsurance and risk pools – to extend coverage to those with chronic medical conditions.

4. Markets can't solve all problems. This bill prevents cherry picking – when insurance companies choose to cover only healthy patients – by equalizing risk across insurance companies and reversing the perverse incentives that leave those most vulnerable with the fewest options.

5. Creates voluntary state-based solutions – state health exchanges – that will offer health insurance benefits using the same standard used for Members of Congress. Every American would have guaranteed access to coverage and care under this plan, regardless of patient age or health history.

6. Ensures that states get to design the solutions their patients need, states would have the freedom to form voluntary pooling arrangements with other state exchanges to diversify risk pools, ease administrative burdens and cover costs for insurance.

7. Provides simple new opportunities for automatic enrollment to help people who need coverage

8. Removes the stigma from Medicaid recipients and give them the ability to purchase the health coverage and care they need from any provider. It preserves Medicaid for the blind, aged, and disabled and eliminates widespread fraud in the programs.

On May 20, 2009, the bill was referred to the Senate Finance Committee and the following House committees - Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means "for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned." Translation, it’s waiting for review but since the bill is sponsored by the Republicans and the committees are controlled by the Democrats, it could be a very long wait.

Bill number two is called "The Empowering Patients First Act" (HR 3400) sponsored by The Republican Study Committee (chairman, Rep Tom Price, M.D. of GA). The bill is centered on four main principles. They are (again, quoting directly from the bill):

Principle 1: Access to Coverage for All Americans – Makes the purchase of health care financially feasible for all Americans, covers pre-existing conditions, protects employer-sponsored insurance, and shines light on existing health care plans.

Principle 2: Coverage is Truly Owned by the Patient – Grants greater choice and portability to the patient, and also gives employers more flexibility in the benefits offered. It also expands the individual market by creating several pooling mechanisms.

Principle 3: Improve the Health Care Delivery Structure – Establishes doctor-led quality measures, ensuring that you get the quality care you need. It also reimburses physicians to ensure the stability of your care, and encourages healthier lifestyles by allowing employers to offer discounts for healthy habits through wellness and prevention programs.

Principle 4: Rein in Out-of-Control Costs – Reforms the medical liability system. Also, the cost of the plan is completely offset through decreasing defensive medicine, savings from health care efficiencies, sifting out waste, fraud and abuse, plus an annual one-percent non defense discretionary spending step down.

On July 30, 2009, this bill was referred to the following House committees - Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, Education and Labor, Oversight and Government Reform, Judiciary, Rules, Budget and Appropriations “for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provision as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.” Again, democrats control all committees and will most likely sit on this bill.

Both bills continue the Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) that allow individuals to set aside tax free money for routine care. HSAs are now used by more than six million Americans and could reduce costs by allowing patients to shop for the coverage and services that suit their needs.

The majority of Americans believe we need some type of health care reform, but not the radical reform sponsored by the left. It is imperative as members return to Congress the week of September 8 that we get the word out that Republicans do have alternatives and that Congress should consider them instead of burying them in committee.

No matter how much lipstick you put on a pig, its still a pig

The Obama administration has a huge public relations problem. After months of trying to sell their health care reform, they have announced they are going to “redo” their strategy by bringing in the moral and emotional cards.

I was talking with a friend of mine in DC who works for a far left progressive member. We don’t see eye to eye on much and this topic is no exception. I told him the president lost the debate on health care before it got started. Remember when the Clinton’s wrote a health care bill in 1993 and then sent it up to the hill? Seeing that this strategy didn’t work, this president decided to do the opposite and by doing so has failed to get the country to support him. Of course, this could be because he doesn’t have a plan. President Obama let the left-wing, progressive liberals in both chambers write their “wish-list” bill which was a huge mistake. The message the administration wants to portray -- you can keep your existing insurance, health care will be made more affordable for the uninsured and everyone will have the option to join a government-run insurance – are being overshadowed by the information that is already out there. These statements aren’t included in the current House and Senate bills.

Now trying to regain control of the debate, the president goes on tv and hosts his own so-called “town hall meetings” and repeats the same mantra day after day. Every time he tries to discuss health care legislation, public support of any plan crumbles.

During the campaign, the president advocated for a public option and said he wouldn’t sign a bill without it. However, over the weekend, his Health and Human Secretary said that a “public option isn’t the essential element” of a final health care bill. This didn’t sit well with the far left progressives who are demanding that a public option be in the final bill. This issue is the center point of the liberal’s debate for health care reform. Mr. Obama now must ensure them that he has not abandoned the public option. However, it is clear that all republicans and some conservative democrats are opposed to the idea of a government-run option. The president now walks a fine line between satisfying his far left base and getting something passed. Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) stated the Senate doesn’t have the votes for a bill that includes a “public option” and are now going to try and sway some republicans that a co-op is the way to go. Just remember a co-op is another word for “government run.”

On the House side, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has an even bigger problem. About 80 progressive democrats have said they will not vote for a bill unless it contains a public option. Considering they have 256 seats in the House, if the progressives defect, there's no win for them. If they keep the progressives happy, they risk losing all or almost all of the Blue Dogs. They have already lost the 20 pro-life Democrats who want an amendment in the bill that taxpayer money will not fund abortions but all amendments in the House and Senate on this topic have been rejected.

The president says he wants to reach out to Republicans but then slams them for being opposed to his reform. He can’t have it both ways. You can’t want their help and then bash them because we have different ideas. Once again, because he can’t get his party to rally behind him, he turns to blaming the GOP despite the bipartisan meetings going on between some democrats and republicans in the Senate who are trying to reach a compromise. In a recent radio interview, the president had the audacity to say “early on a decision was made by the Republican leadership that said, 'Look, let's not give them a victory and maybe we can have a replay of 1993-94 when Clinton came in. He failed on health care, and then we won in the midterm elections, and we got the majority.” Republican leaders didn’t take kindly to his argument and said the president has no plans to engage in bipartisan talks. The last time the republicans were invited to the White Hose to talk about health care was April, 2009. When you hold large majorities in both chambers and control the White House, trying to “blame” to the opposition for not getting things passed isn’t going to fly with the American people.

After meeting with liberal clergy on Wednesday, the president is trying to tell us that this is “about right and wrong and honoring faith.” Telling religious organizations that “the one thing you all share is a moral conviction. You know this debate over health care goes to the heart of who we are in America.” Moral convictions, really? Then why do you Mr. President support the killing of the unborn? I guess your moral obligation is only to those that are already born.

It’s the economy, Mr. President!

Dear Mr. President,
I’ve had just about enough with your “I inherited a trillion dollar deficit” rhetoric. Just because you inherited a deficit doesn’t give you the green light to make it an $11 trillion deficit by 2019 and bankrupt the country. You told us that this was the worst economy since the great depression and yet your own Vice President stated ya’ll misread the economy. With an unemployment rate now at 9.4% (over 10% in some 15 states), Americans want the economy fixed first. Climate change and health care reform (both of which will kill jobs) can wait.

You circle the globe (you’ve traveled so much that your sky miles will actually circle the globe twice) and bash American but you don’t seem to care what we want. To you its more important to you to push through your socialist agenda and get passed in your first year. You know poll numbers indicate that your policies are losing support (slipping faster than syrup on a pancake) and thus you have a very good chance of losing your majority in 2010.

In regard to health care, you like to use your “favorite alarmist claim” that states “if we don’t act, 14,000 Americans will continue to lose their health insurance every single day.” Huh? So based on your numbers if we don’t pass socialized health care reform then the number of uninsured will double by 2018 and all health care insurance coverage will be gone by 2041? Remember, no one leaves America to get health care and no one is denied treatment because of no insurance. Presidents and Prime Ministers of other countries come here for medical care. Italy’s Prime Minister Berlusconi traveled to the Cleveland Clinic to have his heart surgery. If his socialized health care, which is free, is so great then why didn’t he stay home?

You say Mr. President that we can’t have an economic recovery without health care reform (70% of Americans disagree with you). Let’s remember last fall when the banks were in need of being bailed out. No one said “we have to fix health care in order to fix the economy.” So you use the economic recession to move your socialist agenda forward. Your Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel even said “never let a good crisis go to waste.” If you would just fix the economy, then we might not have to worry about millions of Americans losing their health insurance coverage due to layoffs or businesses closing.

As of July, 2009, the recession entered month 19 (the average recession usually last 10 months). Mr. President you told us that if we didn’t pass the stimulus bill we would see unemployment at 8% and that this bill would “create or save” 3 to 4 million jobs (I guess those are government jobs). It’s amazing that you were elected considering you have no history of economics or business. The fact that you recommended a “stimulus” bill that isn’t working and that is simply filling the pockets of your supports, will lead to inflation is mind-boggling. There is nothing in that bill that stimulates the economy or increases incentives for economic growth. The bill was signed into law six months ago and as many GOP lawmakers say “Where are the jobs?” Now you are backtracking and telling us that the stimulus bill was not intended to be “instant” but rather a two year program. Funny this is the first time we’ve heard about that.

You’re borrowing from foreign countries and taking money from the private sector in order to increase government spending and grow the federal government. Your Vice President told us that we have to spend money to keep from going bankrupt. Tell me how does that work? Why don’t we try a new approach? Let’s stop spending billions we don’t have, cut taxes and provide incentives to invest and that will get people back to work. Raising taxes on the rich and small businesses to pay for your deficit and your “health care reform” only kills jobs. Any sane individual (including the late President John F. Kennedy) knows that raising taxes only decreases tax revenue. Combined tax rates in 39 states have the potential to rise above 50% if your health surtax passes. When taxpayers can keep more of their own money, it gives them incentives for investments, perhaps start a small business or expand an existing business which will create jobs and so on and so on. President Reagan did this and we had 25 years of economic growth and job creation. But I guess you would rather just tax and spend. Take a look at a recent poll in which 84% of Americans see the economy as the top priority.

You campaigned to “transform America” and I guess destroying democracy is exactly what you want to do whether we like it or not. Despite your denials, you want to take over the health industry just like you took over the banks and the auto industries. Since you seem to be in denial that this type of action is socialism, here’s Webster’s definition - “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.”

We held tax day protests because the majority of Americans believe that we are taxed enough. You said no one making less than $250,000/year would see their taxes raised. Well if your health care plan goes through and if an individual doesn’t purchase the government required plan, then they will be taxed at 2.5% of adjusted gross income. You’ve already passed the cigarette tax which we know hits lower income Americans more often and now your liberal Congress is working on new taxes including health surtaxes, national sales tax, and soda taxes. Your plan will implement an excise tax on private health plans paid for by the taxpayer no matter what their income. Our tax rates are most certainly gaining the title as the highest in the world. Higher tax rates will leave America completely uncompetitive. When you increase taxes, you cause higher unemployment, fewer jobs, lower wages and slow economic growth. Just in case you don’t know, here’s some numbers on income taxes. Thirty-nine percent of federal income taxes are paid for by the top 1% of wage earners; sixty-one percent are paid for by the top 5%; seventy-three percent are paid for by the top 10%; and 43% of those earning wages pay no taxes. Your dislike of the rich and your “tax piracy policies” will only cause people to flee the US as they seek more friendly territory. Sad to say but even China offers more “pro-growth economic policies.” Your “cap-n-trade” bill will only result in higher energy costs, a competitive disadvantage for America; and the loss of jobs. Spain lost 2.2 private sector jobs for every 1”green” job created. When we are in a recession, any bill that will cause us to lose jobs must be defeated.

We will see some economic growth over the next year as Americans look to earn today what will be “taxed into oblivion tomorrow.” This growth won’t be enough to bring down unemployment which most see hovering over 10% by the 2010 elections. Interest rates will rise once growth collides with your trillion dollar deficits. If we continue on your path, we could very well be bankrupted by the end of the year. As of July 20, 2009, our fiscal spending for 2009 was at $3.997 trillion. We can not continue on this path of destruction. This is your economy now, deal with it and stop blaming others.

The Silent Majority will be silent no more

Since January 20, 2009, I've been wondering if I still live in America. You remember America, land of the free, home of the brave. We are granted by the U.S. Constitution the freedom to voice our opposition. Remember the protests on subjects like the Vietnam War and the War on Terror? You never heard liberals condemn these protesters and call them names. But things have changed and despite their opposition, all Americans have a right to protest…it’s as American as Apple Pie.

Just 3 months into his first term, Americans had had enough of President Obama’s spending orgy and began to let their voices be heard by organizing tea parties protests. The White House responded to these "tea parties" by saying these people were nothing but tea-baggers and the White House Press Secretary informed reporters that the president was unaware of the protest. Now fast forward to August and Americans are protesting the takeover of our health care system much to the shock of the democrats in Congress. Which brings the question - I didn't realize only democrats could protest?

On August 6, 2009, the president stated “I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them just to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess.” I'm sorry, but the last time I checked I had the right to voice my opinion. You would think that our community organizer president would be happy when communities organize? Apparently, he’s only happy when they organize to promote his views. I guess the rest of America isn't supposed to protest the “biggest power grab since FDR” so they simply call us names. If you disagree with the president’s socialist agenda, you are now part of a mob and are a “right-wing extremist.” Remember the impeachment of President Bill Clinton? Then First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton referred to anyone who supported the impeachment of her husband as a member of that “vast right-wing conspiracy.”

It appears that support for most of the president’s policies have now dipped below 50 percent. I grant that Americans wanted change back in November but not this kind of change. Americans are against the hijacking of our health care system, wary of government takeovers of industries, fed up with ballooning deficits, and our growing financial dependency on China. Despite these poll numbers, liberals want to ram their legislation through using the president’s charm to do so. And the American people have had enough!

Just like the tea party protests in April and July, the democrats are labeling today’s town hall meetings as “staged”, “manufactured”, and “phony.” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took the low road and said the Republicans were “acting like babies” simply because they are voicing their opinion. The senator went on to say “You've read about their Astroturf campaign…They want to convince people they're grassroots, and they're not.” Now that’s mature isn't it? Speaker Nancy Pelosi even accused the protesters of “carrying swastikas.” Columnist Peggy Noonan wrote in the Wall Street Journal that “these people aren't Nazis, they're Americans. Some of them looked like they'd actually spent some time fighting Nazis.”

The more Americans read the House bill on health care (something we would like the politicians to do) the more they disagree with its content. Americans are against any takeover that will result in higher taxes, increased deficits or interruption of their existing coverage. This issue, like so many others, affects each and every one of us. Wouldn't you rather live in a country where one can voice their opinion and question the actions of their government as opposed to one where the police take to the streets and beat anyone who disagree with their government?

Fighting within the Democratic Party

What’s the old saying – “give them enough rope and they’ll hang themselves.” Well, it appears the Democratic Party is doing just that. They hold majorities in both chambers so technically they shouldn't have any problem passing their socialized legislation. But they are and for that we are grateful.
The House seems to be having the most problems. They hold a 256 seat majority but are apparently divided into four groups.

The first group consists of 52 Conservative Democrats. They are nicknamed “Blue Dog Democrats” and tout themselves as fiscally conservative. They are fighting for small businesses and fiscal responsibility when it comes to the health care bill.

The second group consists of 57 Liberal Democrats. They are also known as progressive democrats. This is your far-left group who see socialized medicine as the only way.

The third group consists of 20 Pro-life Democrats. They are against using taxpayer money to fund abortions. All amendments regarding excluding funding have been voted down.

The fourth group is anyone that’s left.

On the eve of August recess, the Blue Dog democrats on the Energy and Commerce committee, who were hold outs for weeks on health care reform caved. The Blue Dogs were concerned about the cost of the health care plan which currently looks to run about $1.1 trillion as of this writing. The "deal" reached by the liberal committee members and four of the blue dogs included reducing costs (they managed to cut cost by $100 billion), not forcing anyone to go into a government run insurance program, and wait and vote on the bill in September. Rep. Walt Minnick (D-ID) said the “deal” doesn’t go far enough and won’t win support upon the remaining blue dogs.

Now let’s look at the Progressive Democrats. Furious that the House reached a deal with the Blue Dogs, Rep. Lynn Woolsey said "We have compromised and we can compromise no more…We do not support this…I think they have no idea how many people are against this. They can't possibly be taking us seriously if they're going to bring this forward." Rep. Jerry Nadler said “[Rep. Henry] Waxman made a deal that is unacceptable…We signed a pledge to reject any plan that doesn't include a robust public option, and this plan doesn't have a robust public option". In fact they have sent a letter to the Speaker warning her that they will vote against any bill that includes deals with the Blue Dogs.

And now for the smallest of the groups, the pro-life democrats. As of now, there is no provision in the bill that state taxpayer money will not go to fund abortions. In a letter to the Speaker dated June 25, the pro-life democrats expressed their concern stating “we cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan…By ensuring that any health care package will not fund or require funding for abortions, we will take this controversial issue off the table so that Congress can focus on crafting a broadly supported reform package."

Anyone who is opposed to a government run public option will now be a target in the 2010 election. As the left wing liberals will try and get rid of the conservative democrats in favor of the more far left democrats. Rep. Maxine Waters, who criticized Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel for recruiting conservative democrats in the past two elections, is now using a phrase by President Obama’s former pastor, “the chickens are coming home to roost.” This same group is also upset with the Senate democrats on the Finance committee who have dropped plans for an employer mandate and public option.

So let’s look at the numbers. The House has 256 democrats. So far they have alienated the 20 pro-life democrats leaving them 236 (still enough to pass a bill). However, since making a “deal” with the blue dogs they have now alienated the 57 progressive democrats. Now they are left with 179 democrats and that’s only if all 52blue dogs agree to the changes and that doesn’t look like it will happen. So if these 77 pro-life and progressive democrats vote with the republicans who will not vote for a government take over of health care then we have a yea vote of 179 and a no vote 255.

Thank goodness for division in the Democratic Party.

When did being a senior citizen become an inconvenience?

If you listen to the Democrats, being old in American is now an inconvenience to the rest of us. We know the majority of Democrats are pro-choice and they don’t mind killing the unborn but now they are turning their attention to the elderly. I can’t believe that we as a society have to come to say to our senior citizens, you are now a menace to society and it’s time for you to go.

The President and Congress think we can cover up to 50 million more people and bring health care costs down. How is that going to work? Well, they will cut Medicare costs by denying medical care to the elderly. The President said in his news conference last week that the elderly will save thousands in prescription drug costs. Sure they will because the newly created “government rationing board” will deny them the drugs they need to stay alive. Remember we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights one of them being LIFE.

Medicare was established in 1965 to allow older Americans access to affordable health care. According to the Medicare Trustees report, this program will be bankrupt by 2018. If the President and liberals are really concerned about Medicare’s rising costs, then let’s address the fraud, waste and abuse that exists today. Unfortunately, they are about as interested in addressing that issue as they are in addressing the numerous bogus malpractice suits brought forth daily. America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, H.R. 3200, will cut cost to Medicare by denying care to the elderly, require them to attend “counseling sessions” every five years regarding “alternatives for end-of-life care”, and perhaps pressure them to end their lives earlier than God intended.

I'm not going to say that health care in America is cheap, it isn't but it is the best health care in the world. No one leaves this country for medical care and Presidents, Prime Ministers, Kings, Queens and everyday citizens come here for treatment. Let me give you a few statistics that will make you cringe. The death rate in Canada from cancer is 16% higher than in the US and the death rate from heart disease is 6% higher. If you live in Canada, you are 42% more likely to die from colon cancer than in the U.S.

The White House wants to create a new “government body” run from the Executive Branch. Peter Orszag, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, wants this new body to “circumvent the democratic process and avoid accountability to the public for cuts in benefits.” The President sees the best way to deal with the chronically ill and the elderly, who account for up to 80% of the total health care bill, is to have an independent group make their medical decisions.

Translated, “faceless bureaucrats” will decide your future. I can't emphasis this enough, the government will decide what treatments our parents, grandparents, and anyone else who becomes ill will receive. I'm sorry but that’s not their responsibility and I won't stand for it, will you? The government can't run the Department of Motor Vehicles, for heaven’s sake I don't want them deciding if my grandmother can have her pacemaker replaced.

The President and liberals seem to think that we spend more on health care as we get older but data shows this is not true. According to Dr. Herbert Pardes, CEO of New York Presbyterian Medical Center, a patient who dies at 67 “spends three times as much on health care at the end of life” than a patient who lives to age 90. If we are going to start deciding how much medical care we can spend on an individual, we are all in trouble. There are some individuals younger than 65 who require more medical care than someone over 65. Do we deny them treatment too because of cost?

For all its faults, Medicare has allowed people to live to a ripe old age and have the spirit to boot. If President Obama has his way, this will all be undone. In every election cycle, Democrats try to scare the elderly and convince them that the evil Republicans are going to take away their Medicare and Social Security. They say they care about “society’s most vulnerable”. I guess those days are gone. Wonder what they will say in the next election cycle? Stay tuned to find out.

ATTENTION President Obama and the Democrats, STOP LYING TO US

As Congress and the President continue to discuss healthcare on the air, it’s become obvious they haven’t read the bill recently released by the House. They keep telling the American people that “if you like your health plan, you can keep it” but that is false. On page 16 of the House bill, it states that “a new government bureaucracy will select the health plan that it considers in YOUR best interest, and you will HAVE to enroll in one of these qualified plans. If you now get your plan through work, your employer has a five-year grace period to switch you into a qualified plan. If you buy your own insurance, you'll have less time. And as soon as anything changes in your contract -- such as a change in co pays or deductibles, which many insurers change every year -- you'll have to move into a qualified plan instead.” You will also have to prove that you are in one of these so called plans or face fines by the IRS which could run into thousands of dollars (House bill, p 167-168). These aren’t my words, but the words of the bill. Now how does that translate into if I like my current coverage I can keep it?

The one issue they keep side stepping is cost. We know, according to the Congressional Budget Office, it will add trillions to the national debt over the next ten years but just how much will it cost YOU? The median household income in America is $46,735. There are 8 million people who make between $50,000 and $74,999 and another 8 million who make over $75,000 and for whatever reason the folks have chosen not to get health insurance. Yet the government is going to provide for these same people who can afford it (House bill, p.137). It just doesn’t make sense.

We know this bill will hurt seniors those most. The Democrats plan on getting half the trillion dollar cost paid for by tax hikes on the “rich” (anyone making more than $280,000). The remaining $500 billion will come through cuts in Medicare payments to doctors and cutting medical services to seniors enrolled in Medicare. We know there is fraud and waste in Medicare and we need to address that but cutting services to those that have worked all their life and paid into the system is just plain WRONG. This bill will also require seniors to attend a “counseling session” every five years regarding “alternatives for end-of-life care” (House bill, p. 425-430). The sessions will cover “highly sensitive matters such as whether to receive antibiotics and "the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration." Seniors could be forced into care or alternatives they don’t want or even refused care.

According to the Lewin Group, if this bill passes anywhere from 119 to 130 Million Americans will be forced off their private insurance onto a government plan. Rasmussen Reports that cost is a big concern to Americans by a margin of 3 to 1 and 54% of Americans don’t want reform is it means losing their current coverage and only 32% say they would support reform even if it meant switching insurance. In a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, 83% of Americans are very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the quality of their health care and 81% are similarly satisfied with their health insurance. America has a good reason to like their current coverage. The World Health Organization ranked the United States number 1 (out of 191 countries) for “being responsive to patients’ needs, including providing timely treatment and a choice of doctors.”

Buried in this disastrous bill, is an exemption for Members of Congress. If you’re like me, you’re asking why? If this plan is good enough for us, then why isn’t it good enough for them and their families? Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) has a resolution in front of the House that requires any member who votes for this bill must sign up for a government plan. Let’s have them put their money (or in this case, their LIFE) where their mouth is. As of this writing, no democratic member has signed up. I am pleased to say that Georgia Representatives Lynn Westmoreland, Tom Price, and Phil Gingrey, have all signed onto the resolution. In the President’s famous “infomercial”, he stated he only wants the best health care for his family but doesn’t care about the rest of us. We don’t have stand for this. The government can’t run the Post Office, Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid; do we really want them involved in the most personal of all issues in our life? I say NO!

The President and the Liberals in Congress know if this bill doesn’t get passed by recess, then lawmakers will find out just what their constituents think of Obamacare. Even President Obama knows his numbers are slipping and instead of putting the American people first, he is putting his socialist agenda first. Wouldn’t we rather have a bill that is right than to rush into a bill that will bankrupt America?

We have too much at stake to let President Obama and the Democrats get away with this. Literally our lives depend on it. Remember our Creator endowed us with certain alienable rights one of them being LIFE. It’s time to take a stand and block this bill from going forward. The President says that Americans will lose their health insurance if we don’t act. Well then why don’t you, Mr. President, try fixing the economy first and then Americans who are currently insured by their employer will have a greater chance of keeping their current coverage.

Is Justice really blind?

"I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God." This is the oath given to a newly appointed Supreme Court Justice.

This week the Senate Judiciary Committee takes up the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for an appointment to the Supreme Court. During the campaign, then Senator Obama promised to nominate judges who showed empathy. This brings up the question “is justice really blind?” As she sits over the courthouses across our great country, Lady Justice is blindfolded and for a reason. She is to judge “without bias or favoritism of any kind.” An appointment to the Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment, no term limits, no elections.

I believe it is a threat to the Constitution of the United States when a President decides that a nominee should have “empathy" and understand "how the world works, and how ordinary people live" ruling on cases before the high court. Our new president and his nominee believe that a Supreme Court justice should bring into account their own feelings, be it political or personal. Instead of focusing on what is, the President thinks that the “critical ingredient for judges is the depth and breadth of one’s empathy” and their “broader vision of what America should be.” What happened to just interpreting the law of the land as it stands now?

Judge Sotomayor considers her ethnicity and gender as defining factors in who she is and how she reaches her decisions, a fact that pleased Obama. In a 2002 lecture, she said, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." A comment made not only once but on several occasions is no longer a “few words taken out of context” as Sen. Feingold (D-WI) would have you believe. Had a white male said this his nomination would have never seen the light of day. We can see here that skin color and ethnicity trump all. Yes, she is our first Latino nominee and she is a woman, but the novelty should have been worn off by now and we should look at the content of their character. I would have hoped that at this point in our nation’s history, the color of one’s skin and gender would longer be viewed as a reason to elect or nominate them. We need to be looking at what they can bring to the court in the form of impartiality. I wouldn’t want to be appointed to a position simply based on race or gender.

A recent Supreme Court decision affecting Sotomayor couldn’t have come at a worse time. In late 2003, eighteen New Haven firefighters (17 white and 1 Hispanic) were denied promotions because “examination to determine their eligibility to move up yielded no successful black candidates” so the city throw out the exam results. In essence, the city used reverse discrimination in making their decision that the appropriate racial quota was not meet. So the firefighters sued and the case went before the 2nd Court of Appeals which included Judge Sotomayor. The three judges dismissed the case along the lines of reverse discrimination. The firefighters appealed and took the case to the Supreme Court and in June, 2009, the Supreme Court reversed the decision by the 2nd Court of Appeals.

In 2005, while speaking at a Duke Law School Panel, Judge Sotomayor said “the court of appeals is where legislation is made” but then confessed that she know this is on tape and shouldn’t have said it but the cat was out of the bag. She wants to turn the Supreme Court into a legislative making body, clearly going against the role of the Supreme Court as written in the Constitution.

Judge Sotomayor stated that “impartiality may not be possible in all or even most cases," and that a judge’s personal experience affects the facts. She continued by saying that judges "must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt ... continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate." Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) poses the question “but if you or I step into a courtroom, shouldn't we be able to do so with confidence that we will get a fair day in court no matter our background, experience, or politics - and no matter the background, experience, or politics of the judge?”

I don't think we are asking too much

Okay, now I think I've heard it all. Recently the House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D.-Md.) had the audacity to say that if members of Congress acutally read the health care bill, it wouldn't pass.

I know that Members have lots on their plates, I used to work for one and that they have staff to read bills. However, it should be in their job description to read what it is they are voting on. The House Majority leader even laughed when asked about a pledge that would require members to read bills in their entirity before voting on them and to make them transparent (you know what the President kept pledging during the election - he would have the most transparent government in our time).

This pledge is being proposed by Let Freedom Ring, a Delaware-based conservative organization. Colin Hanna, president of Let Freedom Ring, said Hoyer’s comment is evidence that lawmakers in Congress are “off-track.” “It tells the American people how off-track our legislative process has become,” Hanna said. “I think if the framers of our Constitution ever saw an entire legislative body vote on a 1,500-page bill that no one had read, they would shudder--if not go into fits of apoplexy.” Just a piece of trivia here but do you know how long the transportation and highway bill was back in the early part of th 19th century which was designed to builds roads and bridges across this great country? It was less than 60 pages. Perhaps our legislators are throwing more hot air than substance in their bills and need to cut it out. Compare that bill to the 1,550 page American Clean Energy and Ssecurity Act of 2009 and the 1, 071 page American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

The Democrats in Congress and the president are so keen on getting as much legislation passed befofe the next election when they know they will lose their majorities that they are not representing their constituents. In fact, when the GOP tried to slow down a vote on the "cap-n-tax" energy bill, the democrats hired speed readers to get through the 1000 pages. We don't send members to DC so they can hire speed readers and vote on bills they don't undertadn. It's time to clean House (and Senate) and get new blood in to represent us.

To many czars in the kitchen

Is it me or is the US beginning to look like Russia? Never in our nation’s history have we had this many “czars”. We’ve had them in the past starting with the Drug Czar appointed by President Reagan and our last president had 4 czars. However, with this new administration, there are now more czars than cabinet secretaries. As of June 10, 2009 there were 21 czars and 15 cabinet secretaries. You know the Romanovs ruled Russia for three centuries and they didn’t have this many czars. Let’s remember that these czars answer to no one but the president.

Here’s what we have so far: a drug czar to combat the war on illegal drugs that continue to enter our country daily through our border with Mexico; an energy and environment czar to combat so-called “global warming” (I guess the Environment Protection Agency can’t do this); a homeland security czar (wait, didn’t we just create a new department a few years ago); an Urban czar to control the dispense of stimulus money (I thought Vice President Biden was in charge of that); instead of letting our Secretary of State handle foreign affairs with Iran, we now have an Iran czar; an economic czar (and how different is this from an economic advisor?); a car czar (who doesn’t know how to run a company) in charge of the then bailed out now bankrupt auto industry; a compensation czar to rail in the compensation of those greedy you know what’s on Wall Street; a climate and energy czar to battle so-called “global warming”; an Efficiency czar to reign in spending (yeah like that's going to happen in this administration); a Great Lakes czar to watch over the Great Lakes (cause the Interior secretary can’t do that); a cyber czar (to combat cyber terrorism); a border czar (guess border patrol can’t handle it); a health insurance czar (we already have insurance commissioners for each state to oversee this industry); a regulatory czar, a technology czar, government performance czar, WMD Policy czar, and the list goes on and on. Now the administration will tell you that the idea behind the czars is to have “one person ultimately responsible for an issue and avoid problems of overlapping bureaucracies” but isn't that what we cabinet secretaries for?

It's all a power grab by this president to take control away from individuals and states and put it in the hands of the federal government. First of all, the president does not have the authority to make such appointments as this oversteps the boundaries of the United States Constitution. All these czar appointments are frowned upon by Congress particularly Senator Robert Byrd (D-VA) who wrote a letter to the president stating "the rapid and easy accumulation of power by White House staff can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances." These czars have access to billions of dollars not to mention being paid salaries by the taxpayer and increasing the size of government. Norman Ornstein, political expert at the American Enterprise Institute said "you can imagine from the perspective of the Senate that you're dealing with people who do not have confirmation to go through and so are not accountable in the same way. I think that's what rankles some people in the Senate."

To all the president's czars – may you pan out better than the last real czar of Russia, Nicholas II. They killed him.

Standing up for what's right - Governor Palin's announcement

I think a lesson can be learned from the recent announcement that Governor Sarah Palin will leave her post as governor at the end of July. By stepping down, she is telling the world that she is not going to stand for vicious personal attacks against her and her family. Whether you agree with her political views or not, this woman has been attacked more times in the past 11 months than any other politician (male or female) in recent memory. If she brings her kids out on the campaign trail, she is attacked by male commentators. She’s a Republican woman who chose to have both a career and a family, so she is attacked by female commentators. Late-night pundits attack her looks calling her “sluty” (try calling Michelle Obama or any liberal woman that and see where it gets you). During the election, the National Organization for Women (NOW) was nowhere to be found while she was viciously attacked by the mainstream media. We now know that the so-called National Organization for Women only support liberal women, conservative women are on your own.

Eight months after the election, former McCain staffers who can’t see the horrible campaign they ran as they gear up for the next election, seem to want to instead blame her for their loss. I’m appalled at the former McCain staffers who have come out since the election attacking her. You want someone to blame for McCain’s loss then look at the top of the ticket. Sen. McCain, whose family is truly dedicated to their country, was not the Conservative Republicans needed in 2008. The Governor fought back and said “it’s mean-spirited, it’s immature and it’s unprofessional.” If the McCain staffers can’t accept the fact that they lost because the top of the ticket wasn’t what we (Conservative Republicans wanted), that’s fine, but to attack a woman who was asked by the top seed to serve is going beyond petty. I would like to remind these same staffers that most people who voted Republican were voting for Governor Palin.

Since returning home, the Governor has been plagued with repeated ethics inquires causing her to run up $500,000 in legal fees. She even stated that “I cannot stand here as your governor and allow the millions of dollars and all that time to go to waste just so I can hold the title of governor.” A clear shot to those who have made a new career out of investigating her. It is clear that she loves her country and her state and will put the best interest of Alaska ahead of her own. Her enemies have and will continue to look for anything that might help prevent her from running for office in the future.

Even now, 8 months after the election, former McCain staffers are at it again. McCain “campaign enforcer” Steve Schmidt spent time with Todd Purdum of Vanity Fair discussing how ill-suited Sarah Palin was for VP. Other sources decided to remain unnamed but accused the governor of suffering “post-partum depression” and that she wouldn’t listen to her advisors. What remains to be seen is are these same staffers gearing up for a position with one of the remaining 2012 candidates such as former Gov. Mitt Romney (MA), Gov. Tim Pawlenty (MN), or Gov. Haley Barbour (MS). They know Governor Palin remains extremely popular with the Conservative base and want to take her down. On a side note, all this sniping within the GOP has got to stop.

I choose to take from this announcement that she like many Republican women have had enough of the attacks on her administration, her character, her looks and her family. Will she run for higher office, I don’t know. Deciding not to run for a second term is understandable since it would leave her less than 2 years to run for president. To step down now does give her enemies more fuel for the fire. For instance, the Democratic National Committee, who said this on the day of her announcement “Either Sarah Palin is leaving the people of Alaska high and dry to pursue her long shot national political ambitions or she simply can’t handle the job now that her popularity has dimmed and oil revenues are down. Either way - her decision to abandon her post and the people of Alaska who elected her continues a pattern of bizarre behavior that more than anything else may explain the decision she made today.”

It is sad to see a well loved, successful politician fall to the pressure of the media who hate her so much. What mother wouldn’t be appalled at the attacks on her children? From her 18 year old daughter who had a baby out of wedlock to her 14 month old son with Down syndrome who was recently “mocked and ridiculed by some mean-spirited adults” would leave anyone with a bad taste in their mouth.

For those of us who despise our new president and what he is doing to this great country, 2012 is too far away (40 months to be exact). Only time will tell if she is stepping down to run in 2012.

It's the Democratic Comedy Show!

I'm going to give you a quote and then tell you who said it:
"Tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the tax rates. An economy constrained by high tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balanace the budget, just as it will never create enough jobs or enough profits." - President John F. Kennedy, 1963

He is the only democratic president who "gets it" - increases in tax rates will do nothing more than lower tax revenue. Now, guarnateed the tax rates in the 1960's were much higher than they are today but the philosphy is the same. By raising tax rates, you diminish people's desire to work harder and invest thus decreasing incomes and tax revenues. It's never been so simple but then most members of Congress don't have business backgrounds and there in lies a problem. Perhaps we should add to their list of requirements to be a Member first you must have at least met a payroll.

The House has passed the largest tax increase in our nation's history, the infamous "cap-n-trade" plan. Depending on whose numbers you look at, the energy bill, if passed, will tact on an additional $200 to $2000 per year in energy bills. While it's survival in the Senate is still uncertain, the one thing that is certain is it's another broken promise by this president who stated he would not raise taxes on "anyone making less than $250,000/year." Right and I'm the tooth fairy. Anyone who smokes cigarettes has already seen this broken promise with a cigarette tax and statistics show that this hits low income people the hardest (you know those making less than $250,000/year).

Liberal Democrats just don't get it. Raising taxes during a recession is an automatic job killer. Take the proposed tax hikes on the "rich" to pay for their socialized health care plan. This means more than a million small business owners will be affected by the plan. To raise taxes on small busineess which are the backbone of our economy, will only cause them to cut jobs. If passed, combined tax rates in 39 states will exceed 55%. I can give you 14.7 million reasons to cut taxes but they won't listen.

It's time to take back this country. We need to elect politicians who get it - lower taxes means more revenue, higher productivity, economy propersity, and increased investments.

ObamaCare informercial

So, ABC aired its ObamaCare informercial Wednesday night. The talk was supposed to be about the president's government-run (but we aren't going to call it that) health plan. The President came across as a professor, not a president. He refused to commit to any specifics of the plan, apparently just wants us to "trust" him and Congress on this one to which I say no thanks. According to one report, he's a leader with no direction and managed to sell a plan without actually having a plan.

Dr. Orrin Devinsky, a neurologist and researcher at the New York University Langone Medical Center, said that "elites often propose health care solutions that limit options for the general public, secure in the knowledge that if they or their loves ones get sick, they will be able to afford the best care available, even if it’s not provided by insurance." Devinsky asked the president pointedly if he would be willing to promise that he wouldn’t seek such extraordinary help for his wife or daughters if they became sick and the public plan he’s proposing limited the tests or treatment they can get. The answer the president gave will make blood shoot out of your eyes. The President said "if it’s my family member, if it’s my wife, if it’s my children, if it’s my grandmother, I always want them to get the very best care." Our hypocrite-in-chief made it clear that he would seek extraordinary care for his own family but thinks "other people’s families should hurry up and die already."

One audience member, Jane Sturm told the story of her nearly 100-year-old mother, who was originally denied a pacemaker because of her age. Thankfully she eventually got one after seeking another doctor. Here is here discussion with the president - Ms. Sturm states “Outside the medical criteria, is there a consideration that can be given for a certain spirit … and quality of life?” The president's response - “I don’t think that we can make judgments based on peoples’ spirit.” Don't tell my 87 year old grandmother that she wont' be able to get her pacemaker replaced in 2 years. She's quite an asset to our family and I think she plans on outliving all of us :)

The president should be focusing on better care for all Americans, less red tape and boosting the private sector instead of critizing them. The President and Congress need to listen to the American people. Upwards of 75% are "satisfied" with their current coverage (although I think most agree we do need some kind of reform, just not their reform) and that if this public option is implemented, an estimated 119 million will be forced off their private insurance onto a government run plan. That's great, so make life miserable for 119 milion just to cover some 16 million. The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll shows that support for a public plan plummets to 37 percent if it would crowd out private insurers.

The town hall was billed as a “Prescription for America,” but this is one pill that will be hard to swallow. If ObamaCare isn't good enough for the first family, then its definetely not good enough the American people.

Health Care Reform in America

So the Congress is moving forward with their "health care reform." This is going to ruin our medical services. No longer will we be able to say that we have the best care in the world (and yes we have the most expensive health care in the world but the best come with a price). Let's remember that kings and leaders from other countries come here for treatment. The liberals are saying that we can't afford to wait on reform and that the economy can't recover without reform. Well, I would just like to say that back in the fall when the economy was showing signs of a recession, no one , I mean NO ONE mentioned that health care needed to be fixed in order to fix the economy. However, now that the liberals have control (God help us) they are moving forward. In a recent Rasmussen poll, 49% of Americans think that health care reform should wait until the economy has recovered and 43% of American believe that the quality of health care will get worse with a government run plan. But the president is not going to listen and will continue to say that "health care reform can't wait."

However we simply can not afford reform right now. The government is already trillions in debt and taxing the rich is not going to be enough to cover the expected $1.5 trillion or more it will cost to cover the 47 million Americans insured. In my book, "You're Fired", I gave a breakdown of the 47 million "uninsured". According to the 2005 United States Census report, there are about 10 million illegal immigrants (who in my opinion should NOT be covered at all); leaving the number of uninsured Americans at roughly 37 million; however there are about 8.3 million who make between $50,000 and $74,999 per year and 8.74 million who make more than $75,000 a year. That’s roughly 17 million people who ought to be able to “afford” health insurance because they make substantially more than the median household income of $46,326 thus leaving us with 19 million; of those about 8 million fall under the age of 18 and some 4 million of those qualify for either the SCHIP or Medicaid programs and the remaining 11 million are between the ages of 18-34 and opt out of insurance. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Kennedy-Dodd plan will only cover about 16 million and forcing about 15 million who have insurance off thier current plans.

Just as we are required by government to have auto insurance, I do believe everyone should be required to have health insurance. I don't believe that I should have to pay for someone else's lack of personal responsbility. Being an adult (someone over the age of 18) means being responsible. I would like to see an individual mandate where individuals can choose their own insurance and take it with them no matter where they go. We should not have health care tied to our employer.

We all know that the liberals have their way they will use the single payer system to ration off American lives. Don't be fooled by their "medical review board", it is code for "medical rationing board" and the government will sacrifice the lives of many Americans simply to control cost. We are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights one of them being life. It is not the government's role to decide when we die but that is where we are headed.

Here's another problem, the president does not have a plan. Dennis Smith of The Heritage Foundation stated "there are a number of concerns with Obama's healthcare plan. No one knows what the plan is...nobody knows where the money is going to come from." The president is so eager to push this legislation through with little or no debate because he knows his "mandate" is slipping. This will affect every American despite in major ways and the president is giving Americans very little time to review what damage he will do.

This president has done nothing but lie to the American people. He says he's not for a single payer system but back in 2003, he said “I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody... A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”

Let's hope that the Blue Dog Democrats will stand strong and oppose any government run health care reform.

so let me get this straight...

At a time when ordinary Americans, you know the ones that the president said would have to tighten their belts during this economic recession, are cutting family vacations and living month to month because they don't know whether they will have jobs, the Preisdent and his family decided to take a family vacation across the pond. Not only did the president and first lady travel in separate planes (I'm sure the environmentalists loved that) but the First Lady and daughters flew to London after a three day jaunt in Paris for some sightseeing while the president flew back to D.C. Again, seperate planes, not good for whole global warming thing. Of course this comes on the heels of the President keeping a "campaign promise" by taking his wife to New York for dinner and a play. I, along with millions other Americans can't find a job, but the president and his family get to have dates and family vacations on our dime, great, just great.

Etiquette lessons

Can someone please get our new president some etiquette lessons? Here are just a few of his etiquette gaffes.
1) Returns a statue of Winston Churchill given to President Bush by our closest ally, Great Britain. Why? We don't know but it doesn't say much for his view of Britain as an ally;
2) Gives Great Britain's Prime Minster and his family some sorry gifts probably picked up from a local tourist shop in D.C., next, time put a little thought into will ya?
3) Seems our new president can't get off his lazy butt and hold a proper news conference (just check out video from any press conference held overseas with say Britain, Germany, France and see that they hold proper news conference);
4) He bows to the King of Saudi Arabia (the United States President doesn't bow to ANYONE);
5) He gives the Queen of England an IPOD with speeches by the president (how conceded is that?);
6) Turns down an invitation for dinner from the French President and his wife. Now, who does that????

It seems our new president doesn't only need history lessons but etiquette ones as well. God help us!

Justice is blind?

So, President Obama has nominated his first Supreme Court justice, oh whoopee! She is according to the White House the most qualified person to be on the Supreme Court in over a 100 years (that’s a slap in the face to the current sitting Justices). Just like her boss, Justice Sonia Sotomayor will violate the oath of office the minute she lays her hand on the Bible. The oath states “I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (title) under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

Once again, the administration doesn’t care about the oath the swear to uphold. Obama believes that the “quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles is the key qualification for a Supreme Court justice.”

Let me just say, I don’t care where she is from, I don’t care that she grew up in the Bronx, I don’t care that she was raised by a single mother, I don’t care that she went to Harvard,Yale, Princeton, wherever. What I do care about is that she holds no regard for the law and the she believes the Court of Appeals is the place where policy is made. The White House will have you believe that her background prepares her for a seat on the high court because “it shows she understands that upholding the rule of law means going beyond legal theory to ensure consistent, fair, common-sense application of the law to real-world facts."

President Obama believes that empathy should be precedent in 5% of the cases before the court. Justices should no longer by the court of law but by their heart. Mr. Obama’s nominee should face the same scrutiny that Bush’s nominees faced. In fact, Mr. Obama was in the Senate when Chief Justice Roberts was nominated. He voted against Mr. Roberts all because and I quote “we need somebody who's got the heart -- the empathy -- to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old -- and that's the criteria by which I'll be selecting my judges."

Based on statements that have been made so far we can conclude that Sotomayor is downright discriminatory. Back in 2001, she said that a “wise Latina woman…would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male” raises some eyebrows. Her record going in front of the Supreme Court is not great. While she has only had 6 cases come before the court, 60% of them have ended in reversals.

Senate Republicans to take issue with her stance on the issues. The media have already tried to begin the story that Republicans are against a Hispanic, woman sitting on the court, this is WRONG! We are against anyone who does not uphold the rule of law and the Constitution, whether they are White, Black, Hispanic, male or female.

Memorial Day

This weekend is Memorial Day, symbolizing the start of summer!!! But it is also a time to remember those that served this still great country. Through their service, we are free. My little cousin (well he's not so little anymore) will be making his third tour of Iraq in the coming months and God Bless him.

So this weekend, go have fun in the sun and with the family but remember the servicemen and women who are right now working on capturing the bad guys in places far away and are unable to be with their families. If you see a man or woman in uniform, stop and thank them for their service.

Happy Memorial Day and God Bless America!

Health Care Reform

With all the talk the H1N1 virus, the issue of health care reform has popped up again. I agree we do need to reform the health care costs but a single-payer, government run health care plan is not the answer.

Let’s review what a nationalized, government run health care system will look like. Let’s say you have back problems. Currently you arrange an appointment with your doctor and after discussion, your doctor says you need surgery so you schedule it within a 4-6 week period. With nationalized health care, you may have to wait up to 2 years before you can get that same surgery. Let’s say your 90 year-old grandma needs her pacemaker replaced. Under the current system, she would have no problem going to the hospital and getting the pacemaker replaced. Under a nationalized health care system, the government would tell her “I’m sorry but you’re too old and this procedure is a waste of time and money so enjoy the time you have left” (Nice uh). Let’s say you were recently diagnosed with breast cancer. In our current system, the doctor would throw everything including the kitchen sink to treat your cancer. In Britain (where they have nationalized health care), they recently refused medication to some women, why? Because the cancer was to far gone and they had little chance of surviving. Is this what we want?

In researching this topic, I went to one of my favorite websites and came across an article about health care policies. We always seem to bring up Canada and Britain as examples of nationalized health care systems that don’t work. This article discusses a health care system that works and is not nationalized. The country where this system is enacted is Singapore. While we spend a robust 15.4% of our GDP goes to healthcare (the highest in the world), Singapore spends a tiny 3.7% of their GDP. The article written by Robert Herbold, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, states that it is stupid for the liberals to throw $634 billion plus for health care when we don’t know whether it will work or not. He argues that we should get spending under control before borrowing more money from the Chinese or taxing the rich. Here’s how it works: “Singapore has a very unique system that requires the individual to be responsible for his or her own health; even more importantly, it makes people responsible for managing the spending associated with their medical care. Singaporeans participate in a mandatory savings program that sets up a "Medisave" account for each individual. The individual is required to pay a small percentage of his or her income each month into that account, and employers also make a contribution. For individuals who are unemployed, there is a government subsidy. Singaporeans also engage in a "Medishield" program, which is a national catastrophic illness insurance plan. Premiums for the Medishield program are small, because it is government subsidized; as a result, the premiums are paid for out of an individual's Medisave account…When individuals in Singapore feel the need to go to a physician, they select the doctor based on the quality of the care they believe they will get and the cost associated with going to that physician…Individuals select carefully since it's their Medisave account money that's used to pay for the chosen physician…These accounts grow steadily over time because the government invests these funds for the individual in a safe and modestly performing investment fund…the money is not the government's. It's the individual's money and, at retirement age, people actually have access to these funds. That's why individuals use the funds wisely. As Congress takes up healthcare reform…it's essential that members of the House and Senate go slow and hold back on writing another big check for a bloated and ineffective government program that probably won't improve the quality of life for our citizens.”

In contrast, the Obama administration is doing everything possible to not only save money but control your doctor’s decisions. The doctor’s Hippocratic Oath states that they are “to use their power to help the patient to the best of their ability and judgment as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost of effects on others.” This is of course what we want doctors to do but if the Obama administration has its way, forget it. Ezekile Emanuel, policy advisor in the Office of Management and Budget (and brother of Rahm Emanuel) thanks that the use of the hippocratic oath is a factor driving “overuse” of medical care. Included in the stimulus bill which no one read, was a goal that “every individual’s treatments will be recorded by computer, and your doctor will be guided by electronically delivered protocols on appropriate and cost-effective care.” Yikes! The national coordinator of health information technology, Dr. David Blumenthal, actually favors limits on how much health care we can receive. He states that “government controls are a proven strategy for controlling health care expenditures.” The disadvantage he contends is “longer waits for elective procedures and reduced availability of new and expensive treatments and devices.” You think! Blumenthal does admit that there are problems ahead. “If electronic health records are to save money, doctors will have to take advantage of embedded clinical decision support (a euphemism for computers instructions doctors what to do). If requirements are set too high, many physicians and hospitals will rebel – petitioning Congress to change the law or just resigning themselves to accept penalties.”

While the use of electronic records might be save time and money, many people did not foresee that it would also be putting bureaucrats in charge of their health care.

Let's hope that those supporters of a “single-payer, government run health care system” who try and get medical care for themselves or family members will change their minds.