The Stock Market Surge Proves Wall Street Trusts Obama...Oh Really?

I was recently taking a long drive home from a business trip and enjoying a rare opportunity to listen to Rush and then Hannity on the radio. One of Hannity's liberal callers (I love that he is so willing to take calls from libs) tried to make Hannity admit that Wall Street is happy with Obama's economic policy. The caller's reason: the stock market is up 4000 points since he took office.

Sean did a reasonable job of explaining to the man that the stock market is only one indicator, but, frankly, he failed to sufficiently address the man's mistaken conclusion.

There is a very reasonable explanation as to why the stock market is going up these past several months.

Where else were investors going to put their money? When trying to predict the market, you have to always remember that investors are investors. They make their living INVESTING. They will look for the best place to INVEST their money and they will INVEST it. Where else are there profits to be made but in the stock market?

Banks? Failing at record rates and paying little more than a couple of percentage points in yields.

Bonds? Perhaps, but again, unless they are planning on taking that junk bond ride again (that's what led to the '87 crash), there isn't much by way of a good yield there either.

Real Estate? only if they want to wait a good long time to make money, or are willing to do some serious speculating.

Gold, already being done and no one is dumb enough to put ALL their money into a commodity of any kind.

All other investments, currency trading, commodity trading and so on are merely too risky for more than a small percentage of a person's portfolio.

This leaves us with stocks. Look at what the investors were seeing a year ago after the crash. Stocks at relative all time lows. Where can they possibly go from there, but up. Could they have gone down? Of course. But the relative risk of that happening was far less strenuous for investors to bear in light of the fact that there was literally no other option with even close the potential upside.

So, why are stocks up? Because that's what happens when the market loses 50% of its value in a matter of weeks. It leaves investors with very positive opportunities to make money. And once they start buying, the train is rolling.

Will it last? That's the big question.

When markets hit a big down turn or a big upswing, it is generally fueled with emotion. When that happens, the pendulum swings in the market will be large at first, up and down and up again and down again. The nice thing about market economics is that eventually the emotion gives way to serious analytical evaluation of the economics of each stock, each industry, each market, and each economy.

When that happens, in this case, the reality of our current economic situation will settle in. Huge deficits, staggering unemployment, the virtual (and soon to be literal) collapse of the dollar, bludgeoning taxes with more to come, inevitable hyper-inflation, increasing numbers of failed banks and companies across the country and no prospects for change will drive the markets to all time lows sooner or later (most likely sooner).

Call me a doomsayer if you will. But, unlike my liberal friends and enemies, I am not all too confident in what our President and his friends in Congress are doing to fix things. And, in fact, I am not too far from believing that they are orchestrating it. But that's a topic for another day.

This President Has No Honor

We saw things coming down this road over the first several months of his presidency, but in the past few days, the obvious lack of anything resembling honor in this man has become plain as day.

While most of the country is mourning and in shock at the atrocities of Fort Hood, this president is more concerned about making shouts out to his supporters. While former president, George Bush is quietly and unobtrusively visiting the families of those who lost oves ones in Fort Hood, this president is busy setting up a photo op at Dover Air Base to give us the impression that he give a rip about the dying soldiers in Afghanistan.

While any other president would put the business of legislation on hold for a few days to LEAD the nation in a time of mourning over the deaths of 13 in Fort Hood, this president is busy strong arming fence sitting legislators over his health care reform bill.

While throngs of people are being touched by the symbolism of the launch of the USS New York with its 15 tons of Trade Center steel in its hull, this president is visiting Capital Hill to rally the troops so he can have utter control over our country's health care system.

While troops are dying nearly daily in Afghanistan this president makes sure he doesn't miss his weekly game of golf.

While this Muslim extremist is lying in a coma after killing 13 in the name of Allah this president is busy making sure he's not called a terrorist or misunderstood for this act of "human disaster".

While growing numbers of people on both sides of the political spectrum are calling for this president to unite the country, he is more concerned about spending millions on lawyers whose only job is to make sure NO ONE gets access to his personal records (birth, school, passports, etc.)...leading a growing number of people to ask the only obvious question, "Why don't you just give them the records and END the speculation and divisiveness?"

This man has no honor. He, by his own press secretary's words, is not interested in listening to complaints and angry rhetoric. He is just focused on his agenda. That's right, to hell with the country...to hell with our constitution...to hell with us all...so long as he achieves his agenda.

To hell with with you, Mr. President. We're taking our country back and I DARE you to try and stop us.

NY-23 and NJ Are The New Lexington and Concord

The past 10 days or so have seen an amazing sequence of events in the New Conservative Revolution. New York's 23rd Congressional District and New Jersey's Governor's race have become the first battlegrounds in the fight to restore liberty and sanity in our country.

A brief view of the history of New York's 23rd Congressional District is in order. First, no "registered" Democrat has won this seat since the Civil War. However, as we are discovering ever so quickly, the letter following a candidate's name, is always a good indication of their true affiliation. This was never more true, in this district, than with the previous man who held this seat.

John McHugh, a registered Republican, was recently appointed by the Obama Administration to the position of Secretary of the Army. This is a position McHugh earned by selling his vote on this year's House version of the Cap and Trade bill, a bill passed by a mere six votes. McHugh was one of only eight Republicans to vote for that piece of legislation.

Contrary to Newt Gingrich's claim that the committee of District Republicans who nominated Dede Scozzafova to be their nominee to replace McHugh were NOT unanimous in their endorsement of her. It took at least three votes to finally nominate her.

A closer look at Scozzafava's views on certain key issues quickly revealed that she was practically, if not literally, just as liberal in her views as Bill Owens, the Democratic nominee. She supports gay marriage, abortion, says she would have voted FOR the Stimulus bill, and more.

Within short order, it became clear that conservatism was not being represented in this election. A vote for Owens, was akin to a vote for Scozzafave, and a vote for Scozzafava was akin to vote for Owens. Conservatives in the District knew they needed to do something. Within weeks, they recruited Doug Hoffman, a conservative Republican, to run for the seat on the Conservative Party ticket.

At first, Hoffman didn't have much by way of support. He had no money, not big name endorsements, not big party support structure and little time. He was trailing Scozzafava and Owens in the polls by 20 points. But then the unthinkable happened, his numbers got a little better and Sarah Palin openly endorsed him. Soon after, so did Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity and other conservatives.

Hoffman's numbers rose. He was bringing in all sorts of money, gaining grass roots volunteers and more. Within days, he had passed Scozzafava in the polls and was on the heels of Owens. A few polls even had him in the lead.

Then the next unthinkable thing happened, Scozzafava withdrew, suspending her campaign. Immediately the rest of the Republican Party backed Hoffman and it became a two man race between him and Owens.

Now, as of today, the next unthinkable event has occurred. Scozzafava's true colors as a liberal in elephant's clothing came into clear view as she came out in favor of Bill Owens. Her reasoning is that Owens would best reflect the views of the District's previous representative, John McHugh. Well, she couldn't be more correct about that. The problem, for her, is that we don't want someone to represent the Republican Party or conservatives who is willing to sell his vote for a promotion.

The outcome of this vote will be made clear on Tuesday, but, to me, this represents the first shots of the New Revolution. Conservatism will not stand by and watch this country be "fundamentally transformed" into a socialist/Marxist regime under the control of Barack Hussein Obama. It is not a foregone conclusion that Doug Hoffman will win this election. But if we can bring this victory home, we will have dealt the first major blow to our adversary in this War. This IS our Lexington.

The second great battle of this War, our Battle of Concord if you will, is in New Jersey. While the conservative/Republican candidiate in Virginia will, barring some disaster, win the Governor's seat there (and we would love to see similar results in the Lieutenant Governor's race and Secretary of State's race), the race for New Jersey's Governor's seat is the New Battle of Concord here.

New Jersey is clearly a blue state, as liberal as they come. For Chris Christie to even be running even with Corzine at this point is already a defeat for Obama. The fact that he, himself, is having to come out, during the last days, to campaign for Corzine is testimony to the importance of this race.

You see, to Obama, losing Virginia, a traditional Red State, is not a big loss. But to lose New Jersey would be devasting to him. This is now especially true because of Obama's appearances in New Jersey the past few days. If he cannot bring this seat home, he will be forced to re-group and re-formulate his entire presidency. He will have lost a great deal of political clout within his own party, especially with the Blue Dogs. No one in Congress will legitimately feel their seat is safe.

We will have effectively turned the tide of this war. Obama, Pelosi and Reid (along with their cohorts in progressivism, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and others) will NOT be able to buy anymore votes. Health care reform, as it currently stands, will be dead. Cap and trade will likely fail. As will Card Check and other elements of the socialist Obama game plan.

Like the original battles of Lexington and Concord, we don't necessarily have to win NY-23 or the NJ Governor's seat. The mere events leading to this Tuesday's election are enough to wake up a lot of people. Winning in one or both of these races, will only accelerate our victory. For all our sakes, I hope and pray we win both.

Only One Reason Needed to Reject Government Run Health Care

For several months, now, a vast majority of Americans have been inundated with opinions, facts, opinions ON the facts, lies, accusations of lying, apologies for accusations about lying, bills, proposals, ideas about bills, thousands of pages of bills, sob stories, accusations, threats, bullying and so on, all about one topic... Health Care Reform.

Yet for all the arguments FOR and AGAINST the reams of pages of health care reform proposals, there is only one real argument against a government run health care plan that need be presented: Every single program that the federal government has taken on since, at least, the early 1900s, has sooner or later expanded FAR beyond the initial proposals and cost FAR more than initially projected. That's because the agenda of Progressives is about control...the formation of greater and greater government control over every major aspect of society and eventually onto EVERY aspect of life.

Let's take a closer looker at the history of the federal government when it comes to major government run programs.

a) The federal income tax law. When first initiated it seemed harmless enough. It was a measly 7% in 1913...on income over $500,000. Do you have any clue what $500,000 of income in 1913 would be today? Based upon inflation rates from then till now, it would mean that in order to have to pay the top marginal tax rate of 7% you would have had to make what is the equivalent today of $10,000,000/year. Holy Cow for the Hindus amongst us.

But it didn't stop there. Due to the "emergency" of the first world war, Congress felt compelled to raise funds for the war by altering the tax rates. In 1917, the rate went to 67% of incomes over $2,000,000. Still not so bad. After all, there weren't THAT many people making that much money in 1917. Funny, though, how WWI began shortly after the US instituted the federal income tax.

Well, you'd think that once the war was over that rates would go back to what they were originally. You'd be wrong, though. In 1918, when the war ended, the highest marginal rate was 77% of incomes over $1,000,000. The very next year, rates DID go down, though...to 73% of incomes over $1,000,000. By 1922, it was 58%....of incomes over $200,000...oops, coming after the middle class...well, not really..not yet.

This sort of pattern of taking more and more money from people continued throughout the 20th century. But this only addresses the HIGHEST marginal tax rates. Let's look at the LOWEST rates...where people BEGIN to pay taxes. In 1913, a person had to make $20,000 per year before they paid a dime in income taxes. That would equate to $400,000/year today. How would you like that make $400,000 before you have to pay a dime in income taxes? And this is before there was that silly little FICA tax. That's coming later.

By 1917, you remember, the year we entered the Great War, the lowest marginal rate had doubled from 1% to 2%...but rather than beginning at $20,000/year of income, it began at $2000/year of income. When the war ended, that lowest rate was 6% of incomes of $4000/year and dropped progressively to 1.125% of incomes over $4000/year. It never did return to the $20,000/year level.

By the time WWII, the next "emergency", drew us into war, the lowest marginal rates went to 10%, then 19%, then 21% of incomes over 4,000/year. The maximum rates went to as high as 94% of incomes over $200,000. FDR had done what the progressives wanted.

Once again, the libs used their "emergency" to step up their control over our lives. The lowest marginal rates never again went back to that 4% rate. In fact, it wasn't until Reagan that they went below 20% of incomes over $4000/year.

Take note of the fact that there was no such thing as adjusting the rates to offset inflationary growth in incomes. They called this "income tax creep". More and more Americans found themselves making more money but also suddenly having to pay taxes on it. The Feds even reduced, not increased, exemptions used to reduce taxable income. In 1913, individuals received a $3000 personal exemption. By WWII that exemption was down to $500.

You know the current state of the income tax...convoluted and corrupted by special interests, earmarks and out of control IRS enforcement powers.

b) As if that's not enough, let's look at Social Security system. Originally designed as merely a supplemental retirement benefit with a tax rate of 1% on incomes up to $3000/year. In today's dollars, that would be a cap of about $45,000 of income/year. Not TOO bad...very palatable for the public to pay for a safety net retirement plan. Well, once in, the government didn't stop there...raising the rates precipitously over the next 70 years to what they are today...a max of 7.65% paid by both YOU and your employer on incomes UPTO $75,000/year.

But, of course, we get more benefits then we did in 1937, right. Yep, the SSA now has to pay a DEATH benefit to our family to the tune of $252....WHOOHOO!!!. And let's not forget they've also added a disability benefit...but, oh, wait, that's part of a totally separate tax...an ADDITIONAL nearly 1% (yes, the same amount as the original Social Security tax) of ALLLLLL income...no cap.

c) How about something simple, like driver's licenses and vehicle registrations? Federal courts have ruled over and over and over again that Citizens have a fundamental right to use the public roads for personal travel. Black's Law Dictionary in 1838 defined a "license" as permission from the state to do something which you would ordinarily have no right to do. What "permission" do we need from the government if the courts say we have a fundamental right to use the public roads for personal use?

Well, here's how we got to THAT point. Original licensing and vehicle registration laws were designed to regulate use of the public roads for COMMERCIAL purposes...research it, if you don't believe me. But this makes sense. The courts never ruled that we have a fundamental right to use the public roads for COMMERCIAL purposes. Therefore, the people who used the roads for commercial purposes would, legitimately, need to pay a fee for the privilege of doing so. And would, legitimately, have to register the vehicles they use for those commercial purposes.

So how did they get us to the point where we all needed to obtain a license to use the public roads for non-commercial purposes and to register our personal property with the state and pay a fee to do so? They slowly and progressively and, yes, secretly, redefined terms in the vehicle codes. Instead of defining a "driver" as someone who uses the public roads for commercial purposes, they made it seem that ANYONE who uses the public roads using a vehicle is a "driver". It was a slow and heinously deceptive corruption of power and control over our lives.

d) Another license that has become abused by government is the marriage license. When in the world did it become necessary for us to obtain permission from the government to get married? Well, it all began post Civil War. Some states required "freed" slaves to obtain licenses to get married. In some states, it became necessary for whites who wanted to marry a black to obtain permission to do so as well. Instead of repealing such ignorant laws, or declaring them unconstitutional, the government saw an opportunity to take further control over our lives by redefining terms in the law and thus requiring ALL people to obtain permission from the state.

Part of this issue centers around other, more corrupt power grabs by the government. But I will not get into them at this time. My point in bringing these issues up is to prove that the government is not going to be satisfied with just passing a health reform bill providing an alternative public option. Once in the door, this government has proved themselves to be usurpers, greedy for more and more power and control over our lives.

This is not about control? Think again. This is ALL about control. There are numerous reasons for different people to despise government run health care/insurance: abortion opponents, immigration reformists, lower tax advocates, business proponents, civil rights advocates and more. But THE ONE all encompassing reason to reject ANY and ALL efforts to reform health care/insurance which would potentially...to ANY degree...give government an IN to controlling the industry is the fact that once IN, the government will NEVER stop.

Once in control of the health care industry, there is almost literally NOTHING to hinder them from using that power to stick their noses and power grabs into virtually any area of our lives. Heck, there are already people talking about the health risks of too much internet use, too much cell phone use, too much video games, fast food, ....etc., etc., etc...can YOU see an end to what they might go after under this power? I certainly cannot.

Overexposing a President

It is obvious to almost everyone that Obama is appearing in public a lot more than other presidents have. But the numbers are truly astounding.

Interviews by MSM in the first nine months:
Obama - 41 (only 2 by Foxnews)
Bush - 8
Clinton - 7

Major Fundraising Appearances in the first nine months:
Obama - 21
Bush - 6
Clinton - 5

Interesting little side note to this last stat, in those 21 fundraising events, Obama raised less than half the money that Bush raised in his mere six events.

But is it any wonder how terribly overloaded we are by this president. I mean, seriously, even newlyweds need to have some time apart or they will just go nuts. Perhaps this is why so many of his avid fans are, at best, lukewarm about him these days. Its sort of like they're saying, "shut up, get off the TV, stop playing golf and dancing and running off to Copenhagen for the sake of your Chicago buddies...and DO YOUR JOB."

Enough said...except to say that considering what he does when he IS doing his job....hmmm...

HEY MR. PRESIDENT....CAN WE TALK TO YOU ABOUT A FEW TV APPEARANCES AND INTERVIEWS?

Sensible Conservatism and the 2010 Election

Yes, its early to start talking about the 2010 races. But, the sooner WE start talking about the more likely the candidates, including those already in Congress, will get the idea that this election is vital to US. But more important than being vital, this election will either be the beginning of the turn-around or the last nail in the coffin of conservatism and our Constitution.

The turning point of the 2010 election will lay with the sensibility or lack of sensibility of the conservative voters. Today, Dick Armey came out supporting the third party ultra-conservative candidate in the upstate New York congressional race. Why? Because that candidate BEST suits HIS ideologies. What will be the results? The third party candidate will take votes away from the Republican candidate. The Republican candidate will make it so this ultra conservative third party candidate will have NO CHANCE of winning. And the Democratic candidate, clearly the LIBERAL of them all, will probably win. Congratulations Dick...what a great achievement for Conservatism there.

The same thing is happening in New Jersey, a traditionally liberal state, where Christie, the Republican, was up by double digits a month or two ago. Now, with the advance of a more conservative third party candidate, Chris Daggett, the race between Christie and Corzine has narrowed to a literal toss-up.

Why is this happening? Because the uber-conservatives among us have decided that they cannot support a candidate who does not represent their views completely. Instead, they will gladly support a third party candidate that more acutely represents their views, even if that candidate has absolutely no chance of winning and most likely will deplete votes from the less perfect Republican candidate, to the benefit of the most liberal and least perfect of all candidates, the Democrat. I'm sorry to offend you, my friends, but this is foolishness and utterly senseless.

The time to vett candidates and promote the most conservative candidates is during the primaries. Once the general election occurs, rest assured that the winner will almost always be a Democrat or a Republican (yes there are districts and even Senate positions that can and will go to Independents and hopefully even more). But it is completely self-defeating to our cause to support ultra-conservative candidates who have NO chance of winning at the expense of losing that seat to the worst of all candidates...the liberal Democrat.

Is it the best world to have a not-so-perfect Republican win the election? No. But it is certainly better than shooting ourselves in the foot to the point of letting the liberal Democrats maintain control of Congress.

What should we do then? First, the primaries are not all that far away. Start working for your favorite conservative candidate now...no matter what party they in. Try to get them on the ticket of one of the two main parties. Second, keep a close watch on the atmosphere in your district in favor of independent candidates. If an independent candidate has any chance of winning in your district, by all mean, support them. If not, show some sensibility and support the most conservative candidate of the two main parties.

Third, once the party nominees are set, support the most conservative one of those (unless, again, like in point two, there is a chance an Independent can be victorious. It is fruitless to support a "better" candidate who has no chance of winning over the more liberal of the main candidates.

Fourth, try to maintain and channel of communication with whomever wins the election, but especially if it is the candidate you voted for. Most likely you will not agree with them on all issues. So keeping touch with them is your chance to change their mind on issues upon which you disagree.

Lastly, let me remind you to be sensible. Leave your arrogance and pride at the door to the poll.

Is the White House Occupied By Petulant Teenagers?

So why exactly is the White House assaulting FoxNews? Frankly, from everything I've seen from this administration over the first nine months it could be almost anything.

There have been numerous instances when this administration has behaved not so much unlike a bunch of petulant teenagers. Permit me to explain.

I took each of my kids to lunch around their thirteenth birthdays. Amongst the talk about peer pressure and drugs and teen sex, I made one other thing very clear to them. I told them that now that they were teenagers, its very important that, between now and their twentieth birthday, they need to make every vital decision that they are ever going to make for the rest of their lives....while they still know everything.

Teenagers, for the most part, want everything handed to them, don't want to have to work for it and have almost NO concept of the costs involved in getting what they want. Teens never want to have to face the consequences of their decisions and thus feel that no matter what decision they make, it should be the right one. They want everyone to else to agree with them. And whenever anyone doesn't, sparks fly. God only knows how us adults haven't killed ourselves without them to help us. And damned with our old fashioned way of doing things. They're a new generation and they assuredly know better. Anything or any way of doing things older then their dirty laundry laying under their bed is clearly antiquated, outdated and irrelevant. And let's not forget that we adults are the cause of EVERYTHING wrong in their world.

Tell me that's not this administration. I dare you.

And no doubt that's one of the reasons behind their juvenile attack of FoxNews. FoxNews' very existence is keeping them from getting what they want. And clearly they know what's best. They can't even understand HOW people, any people, would ever watch that network, let alone believe a thing they say. After all, THEY know best. We should all be listening to them, or at least their controlled version of the news.

But, all sarcasm aside, there is something even worse about these people. They aren't just a bunch of petulant teens. They're over-aged, over-educated petulant teens. These guys never grew up. They went off to college and had their egos stroked as they smoked their pot and dreamed about nirvana, all the while lambasting anyone and anything that stood in the way of their Utopian dream.

There was something sincerely diabolical about all that dreaming. They actually came up with a plan to achieve it. It started with Sociologists Cloward and Piven who wrote a paper on how to destroy American capitalism and usher in socialist dreams. Saul Alinsky followed with the rules of engagement for these post-pubescent pipe-dreamers (and we know where the pipe came from).

Then along came people like Bill Ayers, George Soros, Bernadine Dohrn, and many, many others. They began the process of establishing the right connections with news organizations, Hollywood elite, authors, educators, lecturers, musicians and more. The goal of that being to numb the country to their message. So that when the time came for their chosen one to be revealed, the country, and the world, would be ready for his message.

One little problem, however, two of the very tools they used over the years to ingrain their message into the minds of the perpetually dumb-downed Americans...the news media and internet...suddenly became the tools for exposing them. And they don't like that.

What's worse for these petulant teens? They can't do anything about it. They can't just shut down the internet, even though they would love to do that and technically could. They know that reality is, they cannot. Nor can they shut down FoxNews...not with the millions of people watching it everyday. And, despite all the rhetoric, they can do nothing about the fact that ten of the top eleven nationally rated talk radio shows are conservative.

This is why Obama is making so many speeches, showing up on TV all the time. He knows he has to keep his message out there. He also knows that he cannot keep that up forever. And this is why Dunn, Axelrod, Emanuel and the others are pulling out all the stops to attack FoxNews. And, yes, like those stubborn, petulant teens, they WILL try to control the internet and shut down conservative radio.

BTW, lest you get caught up the petulance of these little boys and girls, they are no dummies. Do NOT be caught off guard by this. There is a very good chance this is all a diversion to take attention from something else these guys are trying to pull off...yet another ploy of a conniving, deceptive teenager.

Dianne Feinstein Needs to Go

It doesn't matter anymore whether you agree with Feinstein's far left policies. I will not get into those here. I am seeking patriotic, freedom-loving Americans of all denominations to stand with me in saying, "enough is enough".

In a matter of just a few days, Dianne Feinstein has slapped all Americans three times in the face. First, when given an opportunity to help the people of her own state who have been suffering immeasurably since April of this year she turned her back on them. An amendment was proposed to a Senate bill this week which would have turned the water back on for millions of acres of once vibrant California Central Valley farmland was, for simplicity's sake, blocked by Feinstein and other Senators.

What the heck are they waiting for? Isn't it enough that 40+% of the Central Valley residents are unemployed, farmers are being run out of business, and people who were once the providers of food for California, the United States and the world are now lining up at food banks to get food provided for them from China, Japan and South American. I suppose it won't hurt Feinstein and her millionaire husband to have to pay three times the normal costs for produce and hundreds of other foods this fall and next year.

Next, Feinstein decided to slap us again over the Baucus Health Care Reform plan. When one Senator, who actually "got it" last month when he found himself confronted by thousands of constituents over what's happening in D.C. dared to propose an amendment to the Baucus bill that would have afforded a 72 hour window for anyone and everyone to read the bill, Feinstein and her cohorts decided that Americans were too emotional and incapable of intelligently understanding such a thing. She blocked the amendment, suggesting that what happened last month was merely the uncontrolled emotional outbursts of people who didn't understand what was really in the original House bill. And she didn't want that sort of thing happening again.

Does she not yet understand that it is only PARTIALLY about the insane provisions of these bills that we are enraged? We are enraged as much, OR MORE, over this very sort of arrogance and elitism by people just...like...her.

Lastly, earlier this week, Feinstein, seemingly doing the right thing, came out in support of an amendment to a bill that would have required all these presidential czars to appear before a senate committee twice a year to make accounts for their involvement in executive policy making and to account for their budget. Then, today, when the White House pressured her to drop her support of this amendment, she buckled and changed her mind.

Who, Ms Feinstein, do you work for? Have you NEVER heard of the separations of powers? Does it not occur to you that what you are doing violates the very essence of the Constitution you swore to uphold and defend?

I don't give a hoot whether you support the Baucus bill. Well, actually, personally I do. But that is actually irrelevant to this, much more important, matter.

I am not concerned about your personal environmental views. But I do care whether you are doing what you were sent to Washington, BY THIS STATE, to do...represent the interest OF THIS STATE. DO YOUR JOB...take care of your constituents FIRST. The Delta Smelt will not vote your sorry your know what out if you don't take care of them. But WE WILL.

I couldn't care less whether you actually believe the moronic views of people like Cass Sunstein or Mark Lloyd or any other of the Marxist advisers of President Obama. Not in relation to this issue. What I DO care about is our Constitution. And our Constitution ordains a separation of powers. The President has every right to ask you to change your position on a matter. But YOUR have an OBLIGATION to do what is right by the Constitution. And the Constitution says that you and your fellow Senators are required to oversee the activities of these people advising our president.

Dianne Feinstein has become far too arrogant and detacted from California's issues to be of any use to us anymore. Again, my friends, I don't care what your policy beliefs are. I will debate with you to the end over issues. But I will also stand by you in defense of your right to disagree with me. We must ALL demand that Ms. Feinstein cease and desist from these sort of slaps to our collective faces and get back to representing the interests of Californians. Either that or we, we Californians, must stand together to send someone else to Washington who WILL represent us.

ACORN Must Go Down...

I am convinced that ACORN must go down. They are in the middle of everything evil happening in this country right now. No, they are not the only organization working on these socialist ideals. But they are a key cog. And they must go down. The article below was posted on another blog. I have given them credit at the bottom. It shows that ACORN has already been investigated. Combine those results (linked in the text of this post), with the fact that Democrat John Conyers has already said that "the powers that be" won't allow ACORN to be investigated and you wonder who is behind the curtain. Let's play the role of Toto and pull back the curtain.

We haven't heard a word about this. Have you?

Staff Report


U.S. House of Representatives


111th Congress


Committee on Oversight and Government Reform


July 20, 2009

http://www.capitalresearch.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/7-23-09-ogr-acorn-report.pdf

See the conclusion on page 73 at least:

V. Conclusion


American nonprofits generate $1.3 trillion in revenues, have assets over $2 trillion, and employ 15 million people.408 Nonprofits represent a substantial portion of the activities directed toward public service, a mission obstructed by the fraud of groups like ACORN.

On the basis of this Report, the legal protections distinguishing ACORN and its affiliates must be ignored because the ability to ascertain whether federal moneys are being walled off from ACORN’s political activities is impracticable. As a result, ACORN and its Council of affiliates represent a politically partisan lobbying organization. ACORN and its affiliates’ nonprofit exemptions and receipt of federal grants must therefore bear greater scrutiny.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Why hasn't this been all over the news? Ok, stupid question; we all know why the news won't cover it, but we can!

Spread this around!

Consolidation of Notes on Obama's Health Care Speech

I wrote many, many posts tonight in response to several points in Obama's speech before Congress on health care reform. Many of my posts were from things I read from others (in those instances, I have referenced the link. Below, I will attempt to consolidate them in one piece of reading for anyone interested. I covet your views on any of them and encourage you to share any or any of this note.

A. Obama suggests many noble ideas...focusing upon the "character" of our nation and its history of caring for its own. Well, let's look at this plan from the Cato Institute and tell me if this does not achieve the goals without giving g...overnment the biggest single power grab in the history of our country.

http://healthcare.cato.org/free-market-approach-health-care-reform

B. Obama somehow thinks that providing a government option produces competition. Aside from the obvious, that he is using capitalistic terms to try to appeal to the capitalist right, there is an inherent problem with his claim. Read this article and o...ne I wrote awhile back (http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=127586754325) and READ THE BILL.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10382

C. Fact Check: Obama calls the suggestion that there will be some board deciding whether Grandma lives or dies is false. Yet he proposed that same thing himself and the government is about enact it with that part of health care they already run...Medicare. See the article, read the bill.

http://www.freep.com/article/20090819/OPINION05/90819047/1068/opinion/The-truth-about-death-panels

D. Obama keeps trying to convince America that no one, under his plan, will be required to give up their current plan or current doctor. However, that claim does not tell anyone how his plan would make it so that employers will invariably drop their pl...ans for the sake of their OWN business' competitiveness. If the fine for NOT covering their employees is less than the cost to cover them, what employer would be considered sane to keep their plan? Read the article AND the bill.

http://wordpress.asc.upenn.edu/2009/08/keep-your-insurance-not-everyone/

E. Obama said, “Our overall efforts have been supported by an unprecedented coalition of doctors and nurses; hospitals, seniors’ groups and even drug companies – many of whom opposed reform in the past.” …but who now support reform, because we've bought them... off... see the details of this article to see how PhRMA and WalMart will make out like bandits under the Obama plan.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Columns/2009/July/071609Cannon.aspx

F. RE: Obama's claim that our health care costs are higher in large part because of the shift of health care for those who do not pay. FACT: The Urban Institute says “Uncompensated care represents 2.2 percent of health spending in 2008.”

G. ADDING THIS LINK WHICH IS A VERY COPIOUS ANALYSIS OF HR3200...I didn't write, but can affirm its accuracy...having read HR3200.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/8851473/The-Health-Care-BillWhats-In-It

H. OBAMA: Requiring insurance companies to cover preventive care like mammograms and colonoscopies "makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives." THE FACTS: Studies have shown that much preventive care — particularly tests like the ones Ob...ama mentions — actually costs money instead of saving it. That's because detecting acute diseases like breast cancer in their early stages involves testing many people who would never end up developing the disease. The costs of a large number of tests, even if they're relatively cheap, will outweigh the costs of caring for the minority of people who would have ended up getting sick without the testing.

I. The MSM does not cover the proposals made by the GOP on healthcare and then castigate them for the party of "NO". The GOP has been proposing reforms for years. This link shows what they are currently proposing. Tell me what YOU think of their ideas.

http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare

J. (THIS IS AN AMENDMENT TO MY ORIGINAL POST) - Bettina had a thread that centered around the heckling done by one particular Republican congressman when Obama said this bill will not cover any illegal aliens. One of her responders suggested that it was typical of the right when he have no logical response and then went on to reference section 246 of the bill. Here is my response to him:

What this man is misreading is that the bill, in Sect. 246, prohibits undocumented aliens from receiving the Affordability Credits that are being offered to help low income Americans to afford this. Since I have NEVER met an illegal who filed a tax return, I doubt they will care whether the government actually PAYS them to get their health care in our hospitals and medical centers. Sect. 152, on the other hand, makes it illegal for any health care provider, NOT JUST EMERGENCY ROOMS, from discriminating against anyone...that would mean, ANYONE...not just legal immigrants and citizens.

I have one other problem with those who are offended by this congressman's outburst. Although it was inappropriate, it was nonetheless understandable considering the fact that at that very time and for quite a bit of the speech, Obama focused his attention on calling all sorts of people liars simply because they disagree with him about what this bill will do. So we have to sit quietly and let the president call us liars, but this congressman has to apologize for calling HIM one?

K. Appealing to our compassion and love for our families is formidable approach to trying to convince me to support your effort to pass this legislation. Such tender emotions lead to tough decisions sometimes...but they are OUR decisions, not the government's...stay out of our lives. When I could have declared bankruptcy (using government protection against creditors), I refused to do so. When facing my own burdens, I want the government ONLY to make sure I am not abused by others who might want to take advantage of me when I'm down. Let me make my own choices. I trust me. I do NOT trust you. Not because you are evil. I don't know whether you are or are not. But because you have never shown yourself be a source of true wisdom and sound advice in making personal decisions. I have people whom I do trust in that area. Leave me to that and do the job our forefathers handed down to you. I don't need my government telling me that I am being selfish because I do not choose to cover the financial risks of my youth by transferring my risk to some insurance company. If there ARE people who choose to not be insured, even though they CAN afford it, then face some disastrous health crisis that they cannot afford, I am not so heartless as to deny them care. The cost of such is so minute that it would represent almost nothing in comparison to the overall cost of health care in this country. Adjusting insurance rates by some small degree to cover those occasions is not unbearable. Or even better, cut out a few billion dollars of annual earmark waste and there ya go...its covered.

When you, Mr. President, can PROVE that you can take that part of the health care industry that you already control and make it work...cut the waste, show that care is not rationed and waiting times do not rock the universe, and eliminate the fraud...in other words, make it solvent...and we might just decide to give you another chance to discuss the rest of the health care industry. Until then, keep your hands OUT of my health care.

Obama/Libs Changing Health Care Approach

Being the marketing guru that he is, David Axelrod has done his research and is making changes to the end-game of the Administration's push of its health care agenda (and all their agenda, for that matter). Most of us who have been fighting this administration for the past 7+ months knew this was coming. But I received a full dose of this change last night at Tom McClintock's Town Hall meeting in Granite Bay, CA.

Tom was gracious enough to let people from both sides of the debate to present their points without disruption. In doing so, those who were given a chance to speak in favor of the administration's push for a public option health plan were clearly making the new arguments for Obama. They focused their attentions on four points: choice, competition, this is not about government control but rather about our rights, and we have to show some compassion for our fellow Americans. They added these four points (or more accurately, re-packaged these points) with one other favorite, namely that we are the only civilized society that does NOT have universal health care. I would like to present some very important information about how to address these points.

1. Choice, how is this bill about choice when it actually removes all choice. The provisions of HR3200 create a panel of "experts" who will, within five years, establish the standards which all health insurance plans must meet. These are called mandates. Mandates are why health insurance and health care is already as expensive as it is. Now they want to mandate the entire industry. In essence, however, it will remove all options...all choices. It won't matter what plan you or your employer buys, it will have the same basic provisions. What choice is that? Henry Ford once told an audience they could purchase the Model A in any color, so long as it is black.

And what happens if your company's plan or your privately purchased plan doesn't meet the government standards? Well, your employer is fined up to 8% of their entire payroll AND your plan is canceled and you and your fellow employees are automatically enrolled in the government plan. If you are silly enough to not buy a personal private health care plan that does not meet the government's criteria, then you too will be forced into the government plan and will have to pay a 2.5% tax on your income for not complying.

Those are really good choices.

2. Competition, the emblem of all that is capitalism. The administration has been saying for months that the government plan will bring competition to the industry and bring honesty to the insurance companies. But let's think about this for a second...or twenty.

Imagine, for a moment, that IBM obtains such an intense hold on the computer manufacturing industry that they set up a board designed to establish the standards by which all computers would be build. This board is run by people they appoint. This board establishes all the rules for computer manufacturing. They establish penalties for companies that do NOT manufacture computers by these standards and force you and me to dump a computer we own or buy that does not meet those standards. As soon as we dump that computer, we are forced to buy their computer.

Not only do all computer manufacturers have to abide by IBM's rules and pay fines when they don't, but should, by some miracle, some manufacturer be capable of abiding by those rules and still make a profit, IBM gets a share of those profits.

What sort of competition is that? It's not. In fact, if a company like IBM were capable of doing something like that and actually did it, there would be a public outcry and US Attorneys would bring suits against IBM for violation of anti-trust laws designed to restrain monopolies.

Isn't that EXACTLY what the government is doing with HR3200? Is there NOT a public outcry? Only one problem, THIS monopoly also owns those US Attorneys and the courts where those anti-trust lawsuits would be heard. Only thing is, there won't be any such lawsuits because the government has made sure that HR3200 contains provisions making sure they cannot be sued over this bill, and they put themselves in charge of enforcing it...how convenient.

That's not competition. That's gangland tactics and extortion.

3. Many the proponents of Obama-scare laugh at the notion that HR3200 is going to give the government control over our lives, absconding with our liberties. When they are not denying such lunacies they are pointing out all the liberties we lost under Bush's administration (expecting to divert the argument AWAY from the liberties under assault by Obama). However, mostly, they just laugh at the notion of government control through health care.

But let's take a look at what the bill does to give government more control over our lives. Aside from the obvious, that taking over 1/6 of the country's economy will afford the government massive control over the economy, there are numerous other means by which they gain greater control over our lives. One section, for example, gives them complete and utter access to all our bank accounts and financial information. Much broader access than they have now through the IRS (the organization, btw, that will charged with collection of all the taxes, fines, penalties, co-payments and premiums that are part of the plan).

Another section of the bill offers to hire outside organizations, under the control and pay of the government, to come into our homes to take care of our elderly during home care.

Another section of the bill gives similar outside organization authority to come into our homes to evaluate our lifestyles...under the guise of helping the health care panels fine new and better ways to help us citizens learn how to live healthier, thus reducing health care costs.

Yet another section gives the government authority to send people into our homes to evaluate how we raise our children, give us advice and determine whether our children our living well. Combine this with the current UN Children's Rights Initiatives, which this administration wants to participate in, you will soon find the UN telling our children that they don't have to go to church on Sunday or do what we tell them to do, if they don't want.

Do you doubt that these provisions are in the bill? Do you WANT me to quote the sections? I will if you want. But you HAVE to ask. I am not going to assume that by reading this that you actually care what the government is wanting to do with health care reform. Or you could just read the bill yourself and see it for yourself.

But let's assume, just for a moment, that this bill, as written, does NOT give the government control over our lives to the extent I am saying. Let me show you how the government has, in the past, taken a, seemingly, harmless idea/bill and slowly and progressively expanded it to control our lives in ways the founders NEVER intended.

a) The federal income tax law. When first initiated it seemed harmless enough. It was a measly 7% in 1913...on income over $500,000. Do you have any clue what $500,000 of income in 1913 would be today? Based upon inflation rates from then till now, it would mean that in order to have to pay the top marginal tax rate of 7% you would have had to make what is the equivalent today of $10,000,000/year. Holy Cow for the Hindus amongst us.

But it didn't stop there. Due to the "emergency" of the first world war, Congress felt compelled to raise funds for the war by altering the tax rates. In 1917, the rate went to 67% of incomes over $2,000,000. Still not so bad. After all, there weren't THAT many people making that much money in 1917. Funny, though, how WWI began shortly after the US instituted the federal income tax.

Well, you'd think that once the war was over that rates would go back to what they were originally. You'd be wrong, though. In 1918, when the war ended, the highest marginal rate was 77% of incomes over $1,000,000. The very next year, rates DID go down, though...to 73% of incomes over $1,000,000. By 1922, it was 58%....of incomes over $200,000...oops, coming after the middle class...well, not really..not yet.

This sort of pattern of taking more and more money from people continued throughout the 20th century. But this only addresses the HIGHEST marginal tax rates. Let's look at the LOWEST rates...where people BEGIN to pay taxes. In 1913, a person had to make $20,000 per year before they paid a dime in income taxes. That would equate to $400,000/year today. How would you like that make $400,000 before you have to pay a dime in income taxes? And this is before there was that silly little FICA tax. That's coming later.

By 1917, you remember, the year we entered the Great War, the lowest marginal rate had doubled from 1% to 2%...but rather than beginning at $20,000/year of income, it began at $2000/year of income. When the war ended, that lowest rate was 6% of incomes of $4000/year and dropped progressively to 1.125% of incomes over $4000/year. It never did return to the $20,000/year level.

By the time WWII, the next "emergency", drew us into war, the lowest marginal rates went to 10%, then 19%, then 21% of incomes over 4,000/year. The maximum rates went to as high as 94% of incomes over $200,000. FDR had what the progressives wanted.

Once again, the libs used their "emergency" to step up their control over our lives. The lowest marginal rates never again went back to that 4% rate. In fact, it wasn't until Reagan that they went below 20% of incomes over $4000/year.

Take note of the fact that there was no such thing as adjusting the rates to offset inflationary growth in incomes. They called this "income tax creep". More and more Americans found themselves making more money but also suddenly having to pay taxes on it. The Feds even reduced, not increased, exemptions used to reduce taxable income. In 1913, individuals received a $3000 personal exemption. By WWII that exemption was down to $500.

You know the current state of the income tax...convoluted and corrupted by special interests, earmarks and out of control IRS enforcement powers.

b) As if that's not enough, let's look at Social Security system. Originally designed as merely a retirement benefit with a tax rate of 1% on incomes up to $3000/year. In today's dollars, that would be a cap of about $45,000 of income/year. Not TOO bad...very palatable for the public to pay for a safety net retirement plan. Well, once in, the government didn't stop there...raising the rates precipitously over the next 70 years to what they are today...a max of 7.65% paid by both YOU and your employer on incomes UPTO $75,000/year.

But, of course, we get more benefits then we did in 1937, right. Yep, the SSA now has to pay a DEATH benefit to our family to the tune of $252....WHOOHOO!!!. And let's not forget they've also added a disability benefit...but, oh, wait, that's part of a totally separate tax...an ADDITIONAL nearly 1% (yes, the same amount as the original Social Security tax) of ALLLLLL income...no cap.

c) How about something simple, like driver's licenses and vehicle registrations? Federal courts have ruled over and over and over again that Citizens have a fundamental right to use the public roads for personal travel. Black's Law Dictionary on 1838 defines a "license" as permission from the state to do something which you would ordinarily have no right to do. What "permission" do we need from the government if the courts say we have a fundamental right to use the public roads for personal use?

Well, here's how we got to THAT point. Original licensing and vehicle registration laws were designed to regulate use of the public roads for COMMERCIAL purposes...research it, if you don't believe me. But this makes sense. The courts never ruled that we have a fundamental right to use the public roads for COMMERCIAL purposes. Therefore, the people who used the roads for commercial purposes would, legitimately, need to pay a fee for the privilege of doing so. And would, legitimately, have to register the vehicles they use for those commercial purposes.

So how did they get us to the point where we all needed to obtain a license to use the public roads for non-commercial purposes and to register our personal property with the state and pay a fee to do so? They slowly and progressives and, yes, secretly, redefined terms in the vehicle codes. Instead of defining a "driver" as someone who uses the public roads for commercial purposes, they made it seem that ANYONE who uses the public roads using a vehicle is a "driver". It was a slow and heinously deceptive corruption of power and control over our lives.

d) Another license that has become abused by government is the marriage license. When in the world did it become necessary for us to obtain permission from the government to get married? Well, it all began post Civil War. Some states required "freed" slaves to obtain licenses to get married. In some states, it became necessary for whites who wanted to marry a black to obtain permission to do so as well. Instead of repealing such ignorant laws, or declaring them unconstitutional, the government saw an opportunity to take further control over our lives by redefining terms in the law and thus requiring ALL people to obtain permission from the state.

Part of this issue centers around other, more corrupt power grabs by the government. But I will not get into them at this time. My point in bringing these issues up is to prove that the government is not going to be satisfied with just passing a health reform bill providing an alternative public option. Once in the door, this government has proved themselves to be usurpers, greedy for more and more power and control over our lives.

This is not about control? Think again. This is ALL about control.

4) Tugging on the heart strings of citizens is always a ploy of the far left. Saul Alinsky taught them to force their opposition to live up to their own standards. They want us to PROVE just how compassionate we are or EXPOSE ourselves as the self-centered, heartless beasts they try vehemently to project us to be. Are we so heartless that we would want some poor child or woman or whatever to go without proper medical care? Of course not. So we MUST give them what they deserve, what they need, what they are entitled to, what they have a right to.

FDR wanted desperately to establish a second bill of rights in his third term. He wanted people to believe that their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness should include more than what the original bill of rights included. In his State of the Union address in 1944 he said,

"In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

"Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens."

There are two fundamental problems with this mindset. First, it assumes that the fundamental right to PURSUE happiness must necessarily include the fundamental right to HAVE happiness. This second bill of rights centers around what actually would MAKE people happy, not the more general principle of the PURSUIT of happiness.

Secondly, it presumes that the fundamental rights of Americans are afforded them BY the government. FDR, along with most every other progressive, thinks that our rights are given to us by the government. Conservatives understand fully that the government was established to PROTECT the very rights we have by the very simple fact that we exist. Whether you want to believe that you were created by God or not, the Constitution affords you the presumption that by your mere existence you have these rights and government is established with the primary purpose of PROTECTING those rights. Any government that assumes they grant us our rights (such as through licenses) is a government which also believes it can, by legislative or executive authority, rescind those rights.

No matter how affectionate we are towards those who suffer a need, we must NEVER afford our government the power and authority to attend to those needs at the unwilling expense of another. Charity, not government, is the power of the people to care for its own. Government must bow to that charity as the right of the individual to effectively apply it. Government is not established to compel charity, but to encourage and clear the way FOR it.

We are compelled by conscience to attend to the needs of the lowly. Governments are not instituted to enforce our conscience but to enforce our rights to exercise our conscience.

5) Lastly, the new Obama health reform message includes the old stand-by argument that we are the only civilized nation that does NOT have universal health care. In invoking this argument, proponents of the Obama agenda use time honored WHO statistics concerning health care in America. They declare that we spend more than any other country. They declare that we rank 37th in life expectancy. But let's look at those two primary stats. First, expenditures on health care. We rank so high because we have the most sophisticated health care system. We provide amazing health care for our citizens to the tune of providing the greatest recovery rates from virtually every major illness (especially cancers of various kinds). There ARE ways to reduce those costs (i.e. - through tort reform that would remove the need for doctors to put their patients through virtually every test possible to diagnose an illness).

As for the stat about life expectancy, these WHO numbers, unfortunately, also include those who die from murder, auto accidents AND, get this one, WAR. Well, duh, no one else is willing to send hundreds of thousands of troops in to fight these despots. What do you THINK is gonna happen to our life expectancy numbers when that happens? When you remove war figures and the other false indicator, deaths of illegals, our life expectancy rate ranks in the top 10 world wide. When you remove deaths by auto accident, a number that skews our life expectancy number by the mere fact that we own more cars than any other nation, BY FAR, we rank in the top 5.

But exclusive of statistics, ask yourself this question, since WHEN have we needed to follow all the other countries in ANYTHING. What a LAME argument to do anything. Can you imagine what a pathetic parent you would be if every time your teenage son asked to do something that his argument for doing it is that all his friends are doing it? Give me a break. Grow UP, Mr. Obama.

In conclusion, let me just say this, the firestorm of opponents to this plan is ENORMOUS. We cannot allow this president to merely re-package this plan using focus-group tested terms and bribery...yes bribery. This president WILL use stimulus money to bribe votes from a corrupt congress. As one conservative senator said about "blue dog democrats"...there is no such thing as a blue dog democrat. These are democrats. They pretend to be fiscally conservative in order to get elected in a mostly conservative district. They will vote certain ways on issues where their vote will not effect the outcome, in order to continue the pretense about their fiscal conservatism. When it comes down to it, they want to be re-elected. They will take the buyoff from Obama and ride it to re-election if they can. The same can be said about the RINO republicans.

We MUST not allow them to get away with it. Pass or not, ANYONE who votes for this bill or its revised version, MUST be pushed out of office as soon as possible. Do NOT let up. If you cannot go to the 9/12 event, send letters to your representatives telling them you would have gone had you been able to. Let them know you will NOT let up until this president's Marxist agenda is completely defeated. DEMAND that your representatives DEMAND they have enough time to read and debate the final bill.

If you made it this far in my note, thank you for your kindness and patience. I have now proofread this note and re-posted it. I hope it is useful to you all.

(Originally posted September 3, 2009 on my Facebook page.

A Letter For The Ages

If I tried a million times I could not articulate what this woman articulated in her letter to Glenn Beck this week. It is unbelievable. It is a letter for the ages, a letter our founding fathers would have written. Please read it...please read it again and again until you feel what she feels. If you then cannot feel a fire burn within you to stand up and say no more to this government, then so be it.

Here it is:

I'm a home grown American citizen, 53, registered Democrat all my life. Before the last presidential election I registered as a Republican because I no longer felt the Democratic Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. Now I no longer feel the Republican Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. The fact is I no longer feel any political party or representative in Washington represents my views or works to pursue the issues important to me. There must be someone. Please tell me who you are. Please stand up and tell me that you are there and that you're willing to fight for our Constitution as it was written. Please stand up now. You might ask yourself what my views and issues are that I would horribly feel so disenfranchised by both major political parties. What kind of nut job am I? Will you please tell me?

Well, these are briefly my views and issues for which I seek representation:

One, illegal immigration. I want you to stop coddling illegal immigrants and secure our borders. Close the underground tunnels. Stop the violence and the trafficking in drugs and people. No amnesty, not again. Been there, done that, no resolution. P.S., I'm not a racist. This isn't to be confused with legal immigration.

Two, the TARP bill, I want it repealed and I want no further funding supplied to it. We told you no, but you did it anyway. I want the remaining unfunded 95% repealed. Freeze, repeal.

Three: Czars, I want the circumvention of our checks and balances stopped immediately. Fire the czars. No more czars. Government officials answer to the process, not to the president. Stop trampling on our Constitution and honor it.

Four, cap and trade. The debate on global warming is not over. There is more to say.

Five, universal healthcare. I will not be rushed into another expensive decision. Don't you dare try to pass this in the middle of the night and then go on break. Slow down!

Six, growing government control. I want states rights and sovereignty fully restored. I want less government in my life, not more. Shrink it down. Mind your own business. You have enough to take care of with your real obligations. Why don't you start there.

Seven, ACORN. I do not want ACORN and its affiliates in charge of our 2010 census. I want them investigated. I also do not want mandatory escrow fees contributed to them every time on every real estate deal that closes. Stop the funding to ACORN and its affiliates pending impartial audits and investigations. I do not trust them with taking the census over with our taxpayer money. I don't trust them with our taxpayer money. Face up to the allegations against them and get it resolved before taxpayers get any more involved with them. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, hello. Stop protecting your political buddies. You work for us, the people. Investigate.

Eight, redistribution of wealth. No, no, no. I work for my money. It is mine. I have always worked for people with more money than I have because they gave me jobs. That is the only redistribution of wealth that I will support. I never got a job from a poor person. Why do you want me to hate my employers? Why ‑‑ what do you have against shareholders making a profit?

Nine, charitable contributions. Although I never got a job from a poor person, I have helped many in need. Charity belongs in our local communities, where we know our needs best and can use our local talent and our local resources. Butt out, please. We want to do it ourselves.

Ten, corporate bailouts. Knock it off. Sink or swim like the rest of us. If there are hard times ahead, we'll be better off just getting into it and letting the strong survive. Quick and painful. Have you ever ripped off a Band‑Aid? We will pull together. Great things happen in America under great hardship. Give us the chance to innovate. We cannot disappoint you more than you have disappointed us.

Eleven, transparency and accountability. How about it? No, really, how about it? Let's have it. Let's say we give the buzzwords a rest and have some straight honest talk. Please try ‑‑ please stop manipulating and trying to appease me with clever wording. I am not the idiot you obviously take me for. Stop sneaking around and meeting in back rooms making deals with your friends. It will only be a prelude to your criminal investigation. Stop hiding things from me.

Twelve, unprecedented quick spending. Stop it now.

Take a breath. Listen to the people. Let's just slow down and get some input from some nonpoliticians on the subject. Stop making everything an emergency. Stop speed reading our bills into law. I am not an activist. I am not a community organizer. Nor am I a terrorist, a militant or a violent person. I am a parent and a grandparent. I work. I'm busy. I'm busy. I am busy, and I am tired. I thought we elected competent people to take care of the business of government so that we could work, raise our families, pay our bills, have a little recreation, complain about taxes, endure our hardships, pursue our personal goals, cut our lawn, wash our cars on the weekends and be responsible contributing members of society and teach our children to be the same all while living in the home of the free and land of the brave.

I entrusted you with upholding the Constitution. I believed in the checks and balances to keep from getting far off course. What happened? You are very far off course. Do you really think I find humor in the hiring of a speed reader to unintelligently ramble all through a bill that you signed into law without knowing what it contained? I do not. It is a mockery of the responsibility I have entrusted to you. It is a slap in the face. I am not laughing at your arrogance. Why is it that I feel as if you would not trust me to make a single decision about my own life and how I would live it but you should expect that I should trust you with the debt that you have laid on all of us and our children. We did not want the TARP bill. We said no. We would repeal it if we could. I am sure that we still cannot. There is such urgency and recklessness in all of the recent spending.

From my perspective, it seems that all of you have gone insane. I also know that I am far from alone in these feelings. Do you honestly feel that your current pursuits have merit to patriotic Americans? We want it to stop. We want to put the brakes on everything that is being rushed by us and forced upon us. We want our voice back. You have forced us to put our lives on hold to straighten out the mess that you are making. We will have to give up our vacations, our time spent with our children, any relaxation time we may have had and money we cannot afford to spend on you to bring our concerns to Washington. Our president often knows all the right buzzword is unsustainable. Well, no kidding. How many tens of thousands of dollars did the focus group cost to come up with that word? We don't want your overpriced words. Stop treating us like we're morons.

We want all of you to stop focusing on your reelection and do the job we want done, not the job you want done or the job your party wants done. You work for us and at this rate I guarantee you not for long because we are coming. We will be heard and we will be represented. You think we're so busy with our lives that we will never come for you? We are the formerly silent majority, all of us who quietly work , pay taxes, obey the law, vote, save money, keep our noses to the grindstone and we are now looking up at you. You have awakened us, the patriotic spirit so strong and so powerful that it had been sleeping too long. You have pushed us too far. Our numbers are great. They may surprise you. For every one of us who will be there, there will be hundreds more that could not come. Unlike you, we have their trust. We will represent them honestly, rest assured. They will be at the polls on voting day to usher you out of office. We have cancelled vacations. We will use our last few dollars saved. We will find the representation among us and a grassroots campaign will flourish. We didn't ask for this fight. But the gloves are coming off. We do not come in violence, but we are angry. You will represent us or you will be replaced with someone who will. There are candidates among us when hewill rise like a Phoenix from the ashes that you have made of our constitution.

Democrat, Republican, independent, libertarian. Understand this. We don't care. Political parties are meaningless to us. Patriotic Americans are willing to do right by us and our Constitution and that is all that matters to us now. We are going to fire all of you who abuse power and seek more. It is not your power. It is ours and we want it back. We entrusted you with it and you abused it. You are dishonorable. You are dishonest. As Americans we are ashamed of you. You have brought shame to us. If you are not representing the wants and needs of your constituency loudly and consistently, in spite of the objections of your party, you will be fired. Did you hear? We no longer care about your political parties. You need to be loyal to us, not to them. Because we will get you fired and they will not save you. If you do or can represent me, my issues, my views, please stand up. Make your identity known. You need to make some noise about it. Speak up. I need to know who you are. If you do not speak up, you will be herded out with the rest of the sheep and we will replace the whole damn congress if need be one by one. We are coming. Are we coming for you? Who do you represent? What do you represent? Listen. Because we are coming. We the people are coming.

New World Health Care

According to our president, our country is now faced with another crisis. This time it is the crisis in health care. I won't go into the details as why the president considers this an important issue, but suffice it to say that the only reason he considers it a crisis is for the purpose of creating a faux panic amongst Americans and thus to Congress, so that he can get this legislation through quickly.

Quickly? Hmmm...a recurring theme with this president.

It would seem our president is very sly. He understands a certain fact that many Americans are just now waking up to, namely that he will not have four years to get all the things done that he wants to get done. He'll be lucky to have a year. Because, by this time next year (actually much early than now...perhaps as early as this October), the entire House and a third of the Senate will be scrambling to figure out how they can possibly keep from being lynched, let alone keep their jobs. By January of next year the president won't be able to get a dog leash law passed.

He knows full well that if he does not get this health care bill passed and passed by September of this year, it will never pass.

So, he is putting on the full court press. He's got one of the government's news agencies (ABC) all ready to air the Obama Info-Mercial on why we MUST have his health care plan. He actually thinks he can pull another fast one over on the American public. Frankly, with the help of the various government news agencies (NBC, MSNBC, ABC, CNN, NYT, Washington Post and so on), they could very well make Congress BELIEVE that the American people are behind Obama on this one.

Let me make one thing clear, I am not stepping over the line in saying THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DO NOT WANT THIS. Pass this bill and everyone of you are gone..sooner than later..gone.

So, let's ignore all the rhetoric and look a couple of simple issues here:

Simple Cost Analysis

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that, without taking into account many of the provisions of the president's proposal, this bill cost taxpayers $1.6 TRILLION. The caveat of that previous sentence means that it will, when they finally figure out the costs of ALL the provisions of his proposal, cost FAR more than that.

In addition, the estimates show that of the supposed 50 million people currently not insured, the president's proposal will leave about 35 million of them still uninsured. It will also remove about 23 million from current employer-paid plans and put them on this plan. BUT, it will only insure about 15 million people who aren't currently insured (for argument's sake and to make numbers easier to crunch, I'm going to round to 16 million newly insured).

Now, don't get me wrong, being able to insure 15 million new people is nice. But what's the cost? I don't wanna get crazy here with too much, so let's just keep it simple. What's $1.6 TRILLION divided by 16 million people (remember I rounded up to make this easy)?

$100,000 per newly insured person...MINIMUM.

Do I need to say more about this? Okay, I will. Obama wants us to believe, based upon his talk to the AMA and other speeches, that this will be paid for by the immense savings this country will experience from having everyone insured. But remember, there are still another 35 million people uninsured. Not to mention that the CBO estimates show little or no savings from this perspective.

Well, there is ONE way the government run health care system would save money. You see, statistics show that 80% of all health care costs are from a mere 20% of the population. Anyone wanna guess what that 20% is? Mostly the elderly.

Do you remember Tom Daschle? He's the guy Obama originally wanted to run Health and Human Services (HSS). Fortunely for us, Daschle ran into some ethics issues and had to withdraw his name from consideration. However, his theories on the health care "crisis" still live on. Daschle wrote a book called Critical: What Can We Do About The Health Care Crisis. In the book, one of his views on how to deal with the extreme costs of health care is for all citizens to accept the inevitable...death. He suggests that Americans are too caught up on extending life year after year after year, no matter the costs. That if Americans would just realize that we are only making it more painful for those that survive us....FINANCIALLY, we would be willing to withdraw from many of the life-extending treatments we endure.

This, my friends, is why England's health care board (a system Obama has openly stated is the model for what he wants) stopped all medications for breast cancer patients...to SAVE MONEY.

THIS is how Obama intends on saving money and paying for his plan. GET IT?

Competition?

Let's move on. Obama says he does not want to eliminate private health insurance carriers. He just wants to add a "public option" as a competition to private insurers. He wants the government, in other words, to open up an insurance company to compete with private companies. Do you understand what this is?

What would it mean to you, if you run or ran a business, if your chief competitor had unlimited access to money, set all the rules for all the companies doing business in that industry, and could, essentially dictate how much of YOUR profits they could take from you legally?

Let answer that simply....they would either have you agreeing to do things their way on everything or they would run you out of business.

Have you ever seen one of those westerns where the big cattle baron puts a dam on the river upstream from all the small cattle ranchers? The big bad cattle baron controlled the water. The other ranchers either did things his way or they were forced to sell their land and their cattle to those big bad cattle barons. That's what's happening here.

Do They Really Know How to Run a Business?

Stop laughing...really. Honestly, the government has done some things right..like our military (though, I must admit that most of the mistakes made militarily usually occurred when politicians interfere...i.e. - Vietnam and Iraq). Oh okay...so they don't typically do things right from a business perspective. At least they try.

But let's just look at this health care issue from a business perspective. First, when a company is seeking to make significant changes to their business structure they usually will scale things into place in order to work out the kinks in the changes they're putting into place.

Let me explain. I work for a national photography company. When they made the transition, several years ago, to digital cameras from film cameras, they did not make these changes immediately and across the board. After, of course, coming up with a plan for the implementation and a cost analysis, they initiated the transition in one of 16 districts around the country. Once the testing period was complete they had a good idea of what kinks needed to be worked out. They proceeded to fix those kinks and transitioned a second district. That transition exposed additional kinks. When they had done this enough times to felt that they had worked out enough of the kinks to make it work efficiently, they transitioned the rest of the districts.

Has the federal government done this with regards to health care? Well, actually, yes, they have. Its called Medicare. Have there been kinks in the Medicare system? Duh. Of course there have. Have there been efforts by Congress to fix those kinks? Duh. Of course there have. Have they worked out enough of those kinks to justify transitioning the rest of the country? Well, you make the call...but to me the answer that question is also...DUH..NO WAY.

Do you want to know what happens when a company makes a broad, across the board business transition? They usually end up spending a whole lot of money fixing the mess and often times go out of business...especially if they are not a properly capitalized company. Has anyone done a quick analysis on the financial stability of the federal government to see if it might screw us all if they try this and fail? Do we really want people who didn't properly GUESS what the unemployment figures would be when calculating the consequences of passing the stimulus bill spending another $1.6 trillion and then some screwing with the health care system?

Can It Be Done?

I have NO idea. It don't look good. No other...SMALLER...country has ever succeeded at it. I'm really not sure why these guys think they can. But here's a simple alternative.

1. Instead of spending $100K per PERSON on this idea, let every American have a Health Savings Plan. My company and my wife's school do and WE LOVE IT. They provide a major medical plan that takes care of most everything we need after a $5000 maximum out of pocket cost per year. Then we get to save up to $5000 per year (each of us) into a pre-tax account. We then get these VISA cards that give us access to those accounts for medical purposes. We get to go, pretty much, wherever we want. It covers health, dental, vision, chiropractic, weight loss (when prescribed by a doctor) and more. If we don't use up all the money, it carries over. So we get to build up the account for later years when the needs are greater.

2. For the seniors in this country who are already on Medicare, fulfill the obligation to them until they die. The costs will diminish as the years go on.

3. Provide incentives for ALL employers to provide these plans in the form of tax credits and/or additional tax savings. That savings will only go back into the economy in the form of higher personal income taxes to the owners, hiring more employees or increasing return on investments.

4. Fund each family's account, who is not already under a corporate plan, with $5000. That's a heckuva lot less than the $100K PER PERSON that the president's plan would cost. This cost should be the ONLY out of pocket cost to the government since the tax incentives would provide enough economic activity to provide tax revenue to the government to pay for its costs. That would cost about $600Billion one time.

5. As a last resort, for those slipping through the cracks, do the following: a) set up health savings account for them (as stated earlier), b) make arrangements with every health insurer for them to put money from their profits into a pool for use by unemployed, under-employed and uninsured for a major medical plan. The unemployed would received free benefits; the under-employed would get a discount based upon need; and the uninsured (but fully employed) could buy into the major medical plan at the best rates possible by actuarials. Small businesses, who can't afford to do their own plans, could buy into as well, based upon certain income levels and such. It would be run by a consortium of people from the various insurers, plus government representatives. The rules for participation would be legislated. Each insurance company's involvement would be based upon what percentage of the health insurance pie they have; c) provide only emergency health care for illegal immigrants only. All hospitals must participate by either helping to finance (those hospitals not in the hot zone where illegals usually live and need care) or by accepting the illegals.

Okay...there's the foundation for what I think we should do. Can you do better? I definitely don't think the Obama plan is better.

Obama Imperialism

President Obama has spent countless energy apologizing around the globe for America's imperialistic policies, even as he puts pressure on Israel to do what he wants with regards to the Middle East peace process.

If you heard him speak recently regarding the disturbing violence in Iran over their fraudulent election results, you know that, according to him, it is not his policy to "meddle" in the affairs of a sovereign country.

Yet, going almost unnoticed by the mainstream media in the past few weeks was the Obama administration's direction to forces in Afghanistan that are now required to read captured enemy combatants their Miranda rights. You know, "you have the right to remain silent, etc."

Now wait a second. The Miranda case was a U.S. case...right? It was regarding accused criminals when they are arrested, right? If I'm not mistaken, those are rights afforded to Americans or foreigners arrested on American soil, correct? WHY, do our soldiers (who are not policemen, btw) have to tell foreigns combatants, captured in a war on FOREIGN soil, that hey have AMERICAN rights?

Isn't that imposing American values on citizens from another country? Isn't THAT imperialism?

What it is, my friends, is Obama imposing HIS values on the world. Obama is playing a great game of diversion. While apologizing for America's past policies and acts (at least ones that don't jive with what he wants to achieve), he is imposing, not just upon foreign lands, but upon all of us, his view of how things should be everywhere.

So, think about what he is doing and judge for yourself what his intentions, policies and desires are.

1. He calls for one spending bill after another with visible means of paying for anything.
2. He manipulates the bankruptcies of GM and Chrysler, re-writing the rules of law and commerce to bypass bond-holders in favor of the UAW. (add to this that he says he has no desire to own or control GM, despite offering no viable means for GM to buyout the US shares, leaving the UAW and the federal government in complete charge of both companies)
3. He forces banks to take TARP money and then refuses to let them pay it back.
4. He forces stimulus money onto various states that do not want it.
5. His Secretary of Homeland Security calls virtually any and all organizations and people who stand in opposition to Obama and his administration domestic terrorists, or potential domestic terrorists. He then proceeds to push for legislation giving him and policing agencies greater ability to keep guns or remove guns from the hands of terrorists.
6. He promotes the false statistic that 90% of the guns used in the Mexican drug wars were purchased in the U.S.
7. He no longer allows anyone in his administration to call foreign terrorists by the word "terrorist" but rather as enemy combatants. So, in other words, while people who would blow up the Sears Towers are not terrorists, but Americans who own guns, support the Pro-Life movement, attend fundamental Christian churches and/or are returning veterans are, or are potential, terrorists.
8. American soldiers are now required by Obama to afford those "enemy combatants" the rights that they are not legally afforded, but would like to take away our 2nd amendment rights, eliminate free speech and free press from those who oppose him, advocate that a private organization (the federal reserve board) control ALL financial organizations, even non-banks, and that the federal government has a right dictate to private organizations how much they pay their employees.
9. He wants to install a federally run health care program for ALL Americans without a visible means of paying for it, despite the protests of the majority of Americans. (see my next blog post for more on this subject).
10. He wants to require that all youth volunteer for community organizations (like ACORN and its plethera of affiliates) in order for the government to provide financial aid for college tuition. And, of course, with more and more Americans becoming utterly incapable, due to the financial disaster he has placed upon us all, to pay for their children's education, more and more and more college students will NEED the help of the federal government for tuition assistance. And let's not forget that the feds are placing more and more pressure on private universities (especially Christian based ones) to do things like - allow gay students admission, hire gay employees, and so on...or they will cease providing grants for students attending their schools.

I'm going to leave this at 10 items...for two reasons. Number one, I could be here all day listing everything. And number two, because I want you, my friends to add to the list. I do not know all the things this man is doing. But from these ten alone, it is clear, the direction he wants this country....AND THE WORLD...to be heading into. Only God can help us now. It is time to return to Him.