On the eve of disaster, another health care primer. Pointing out the lies

As many know, Congress is preparing for a vote on the new healthcare act during this Christmas season, specifically tomorrow Dec 24, between 8:00AM and 12:00PM.  In an effort to persuade citizens to contact their representatives for "No" vote, I would like to point a few more myths on the current health care proposal.

Medicare denies fewer claims than private insurance

This is a fallacy often used by the left to promote a government run health care plan.  I'm sure you've all seen the ads, or stories, often projecting the woes of children, showing how the evil private insurance companies have denied health care claims.  Despite the despicable practice of using children in these ads, we find out that this is just wholly untrue.

According to the American Medical Association (AMA) 2008 National Health Insurer Report Card, Medicare denied 6.85% of all claims, higher than any private insurance company, with only AETNA coming close.  In addition, even the White House admits that ~12% of all claims are fraudulent (~$60B), where as, Fortune 500 shows that the total profit made by the top 10 private insurance companies was $8B combined!!  Read that again, Medicare losses almost 7 times as much in fraud as the top 10 insurance companies make in profit!  Begs the question, how can government run health care be more efficient?

Private insurance companies are only concerned with profit

This statement is a play on capitalist mentality.  Of course private insurance companies are concerned with profit, any company in America is else they would cease to exist.  However, is running a private insurance company really as profitable as the leftists would lead you to believe?

In a profitability report ranking the top 10 insurance companies ending Dec. 31st, 2008 shows that private insurance companies are operating on razor thin profit margins.

Blue Cross, 3.4 percent, United Health Group, 3.6 percent, Well Point, 4.1 percent, Aetna, 4.5 percent, Humana, 2.2 percent, Cigna,(loss), Health Net, 0.62 percent, Coventry Health Care, 3.2 percent, Americagroup,(loss)
Universal American, 2.0 percent, Centene, 2.5 percent

Compared to the 14%+ profit margins of other industries, such as oil, you see, Private Health Insurance (PHI) isn't the most profitable of businesses.

Medicare has lower administrative costs the PHI companies, thus making it cheaper to operate

Several "accounting" tricks help the leftist to promote this myth.  First of all, Medicare services a predominately elderly population, which translates to a significantly higher expenditures when compared to PHI companies.  So in this regard, when administrative costs are compare to "total costs", then the above is true.  However, when you take the administrative costs compared to a "per-patient" basis, you find a radically different number.  According to research by the Heritage Foundation, administrative costs per patient are 24.8% (on average)   higher with Medicare when compared to PHI.

In addition, Medicare, by virtue of being a government lenity, is not subject to many of the same administrative costs as PHI.  Administrative costs that are subject to inclusion by PHI, such as rent, marketing management, taxes, capital for equipment, etc, are included elsewhere in the federal budget and do not ride on Medicare's books.   A prime example of this is the act of premium collection.  PHI companies are responsible for their own costs of premium collection, however, Medicare doesn't count that cost on their books due to the fact that this is an action performed by the IRS.

Current health care plan will be deficit neutral

Again, this is a lie that is buried with accounting tricks.  In the current healthcare plan, if enacted, we , the taxpayer, will begin to be taxed on the new plan, but won't begin to see the benefits for 4 years.  In effect, we will begin paying for the health plan now, but our benefits won't start until 2014.  Well, of course it's deficit neutral when taxes are levied to pay for it before any expense is paid out!!!  That's akin to going to a Cadillac dealership, buying a car, making the payments on that car for 4 years, then receiving that car at the end of your payments and claiming you got the car for free!  Only in this case, we paid for a Cadillac, but got a Yugo at the end.

Lastly, the amount of tax increases and pre-tax limitation, used to fund this bill, while "making the bill budget neutral" would greatly increase the hardship on American families  earning less than $250,000 /yr.  Some of the facts according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the non-partisan scorekeeper of financial legislation. 

Employer offered pre-tax  Flexible Spending accounts (FSA) will be limited $2,500/yr vs $5,000 currently.

Elimination of payments for over the counter medicine reimbursements by workers covered under FSA or HSA (health savings accounts) which is currently allowed under the tax law

Limitation of the tax deduction allowed for medical expenses.  Down from the current 10% of AGI (adjusted gross income) to 7.5% under the new bill, increasing taxes on those between $50,000 - $75,000 annually.

New excise tax on so called "high cost health insurance plans", which according to the CBO and JCT (joint committee on Taxation), would affect 90% of consumers earning less than $200,000/yr.

Overall, the CBO and JCT predict that will increase taxes on all single people making over $40,000/yr and married couples earning over $75,000/yr.

An excise tax imposed on health insurance providers and medical device makers in 2010, would be passed on to consumers, resulting in higher premiums and cost for health care products, affecting for all Americans, with the hardest hit being those earning less than $250,000/yr.

Individual insurance premiums are expected to increase by an average, an average, of 10% or more when compared to current law.  So much for "free" or "lost cost" health care huh?


I could continue to go on about some of the falsities, or just flat out lies, being spread about the current health care plan, but I must balance the length of my posts with the amount of information I submit.  I can't make the posts so long that I lose peoples interest in reading.  However, the above gives us more than enough to know what has been said all along, this plan is a bad idea!  It will cost future generations trillions, will lower the quality and availability of health care, and gives the government more concentrated power than as ever been allowed in our history.  I urge you all to write/fax/call your congressman and demand a "No" vote to this monstrosity.  If ever there was a time to become involved, now is that time!


List of Senators that accepted "pay for vote" deals from Harry Reid

Politics is gone.  Will of the people is gone.  The only thing that matters: how much does it cost to sell out your conscience, the people that elected you, and your ideals.

According to the latest Rasmussen Polls, this health care bill is not something that people want.  55% of American's have stated that they do not want this Health Care reform (45% strongly opposed), with only people under 30 favoring the reform.  With the group most likely to use the new bills provisions, senior citizens, 60% are opposed to the bill.  53%  of Americans believe that the passage of this legislation will lower health care quality, while 58% say it will drive costs up.  Lastly, 57% of voters say that passing nothing would be preferable to passing nothing at all.

So, with all of these numbers showing an overwhelming opposition to this health care reform, why are we faced with it's possible passage during this Christmas season?  It's possible because we have a number of senators who, in lack of a better terms, have become political whores who offer their votes to the highest bidder.  Below, find some of the names of those Senators so willing to sell out their people.  Learn these names, they must learn that the American voter will no longer accept whores in our congress.

Harry Reid  (D - Nevada) - Ensured his state was exempted from Medicaid increases even before the bill was submitted

Ben Nelson (D - Nebraska) - Cornhusker compromise:  Nebraska is now permanently exempt from the state share of Medicaid expansion that the bill will cause.  A negotiation that both the Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman and the other Senator, Chuck Hagel have denounced.

Mary Landrieu (D- Louisiana) - Louisiana Compromise:  Was bought for a $300M increase in federal Medicaid funding

Bernie Sanders (D - Vermont) - $10B in pork barrel spending for the creation of state wide healthcare centers, as well as, additional Medicaid funding.

Carl Levin (D - Michigan) - Exemption from hefty excise taxes for non-profit insurers within his state.  A tax that like insurers in 48 other states will be required to pay.  A concession also received by Senator Nelson.

Chris Dodd (D - Connecticut) - $100M in pork barrel spending for the construction of a Univ. of Conn. hospital.

Evan Bayh (D - Indiana) - Agreement to  slash medical device taxes for Indiana.

John Kerry (D - Massachusetts) - Along with Vermont, received the most help in Medicaid funding at $1.2B.  While already covered, the deal was cut to substitute state funding for federal

Max Baucus (D - Montana) - Secured expanded Medicare coverage for victims of asbestos exposure at a Libby, Montana mine.

Kent Conrad (D - North Dakota) - Defended a special deal in which the following Western states receive higher federal reimbursement rates for doctors and hospitals servicing Medicare patients.

Democrat Senators of Florida, New York, & Pennsylvania - Medicare Advantage benefits for seniors in these states are protected, while the program will see massive cuts every where else.

Harry Reid showed his character by stating:

“You’ll find a number of states that are treated differently than other states. That’s what legislating is all about. It's compromise,

However, compromise that forces undue financial burden on a majority of  states, while showing favoritism to others, is not compromise at all.  It's not compromise to force a bill down the throats of an opposing American people who have clearly stated that they do not want it's passage, it's called tyranny.  You are a pimp Senator Reid.  The only compromise here is that you used money to "compromise" the will of the American people. 

So much like immoral dealings on the shady streets of a city's underbelly, these Senators have offered up their votes to the highest bidder.  Foregoing the morality of the issue in exchange for money to come their way, the above senators betrayed the trust and well being of those that elected them.  Who would have known that, while prostitution is illegal in American cities, that illegality does not extend to our nation's capital.  Never mind the fact that, while good for their respective states, they have forced all of America to pay for these concessions thru the tax dollars of the working man, including the people within their state's borders.  So yes Senators, you may have a achieved a cost savings for your state, but your constituents will have their tax rates increased to help fund the concessions of others.  Yes, Obama has brought "change" to America, but little saw that this is "change" straight from the pockets of the American taxpayer.

A Libertarian's view on the Republican party

I was asked an interesting question the other day that I felt deserved an answer in this forum.  It's a question that I think many people may be wondering, and that others, without good logical reasoning and explanation, may not understand.  A question that is critically crucial to politics today.

"You call yourself a Libertarian, but you adamantly defend the Republican party.  If you are a Libertarian, why don't you support the idea of a 3rd party or support candidates such as Ron Paul, which would more likely promote your political ideals?"

This is an excellent question!  I love Ron Paul.  I think his ideas are ground breaking and would lead this country in the right direction, however, when the time came, I did not vote for him.  Why?  The answer lies in the American mentality of politics today. 

America was built on a two party system, first with the Federalists/Anti-Federalists which then evolved into the current Republican/Democrat parties of today.  I realize that this system has become a tradition within America. It's the only system that the American voter has ever known and to change something that ingrained in the American voter's psyche would not be easy, nor come quick.  Americans as a whole, are not very tolerant of radical change.  You need only to look at the uproar and backlash to Obama's socialist agenda to see this.  To attempt a three party system would be seen as a radical change and as history has shown, would not be allowed by the voters in our political system.

In addition, one must see the makeup of most third party systems.  Most 3rd parties are just a few degrees off of what the current Republican core values should be.  As the voter watched the Republicans derail and consistently depart from their conservative values and core beliefs, the 3rd party has stepped in to try and correct that course.  The more left that the Republican party veers, the more 3rd parties attempt to fill the void.  However, due to loyalty to the Republican system and the belief that they are supposed to support the same ideals, the end result is that 3rd parties usually only succeed to "split the vote".   Make no mistake, 3rd parties usually have a strong following, but it will not, at any time soon, be able to change the hearts and minds of those people who have identified themselves as Republican, either because of "family tradition" or a hope that the party will come back full circle and represent based on the values they are supposed to support.

Using the above point splitting the vote, you can look back at the 1992 election of Bill Clinton.  During this time, we saw  Ross Perot run as an independent 3rd party candidate to appeal to voters displeased with Federal financial budget deficits and fears of professional politicians.  Many people were moved by Ross Perot's (often mocked) presentations on how to balance the budget and the promise to change the way we practiced politics in Washington.  However, history has shown, Ross Perot won Bill Clinton the 1992  presidency.  The election results were as follows:  Bill Clinton, 43% - George H. Bush, 37% - Ross Perot, 19%.  With many of Ross's votes being siphoned from the Republican party, had Ross Perot not been in that election, predictions show that Bush would have received approximately 2/3's (12.6%)  or more of Perot's votes, meaning that Bush would have won 49.6% to 46%, after distribution of his votes among all candidates.  The same could be said for the 1996 election, however, in a much more narrow result.

So, I recognize that a vote for a third party is, in effect, a vote for the Democratic party.  We must remember, as the Republican party moves more to the left, so does the Democrat party.  With each election, our political parties make a leftist slide.  Democrats seek to turn America into a more socialist, global government party while the Republicans follow suit in efforts for "bi-partisan compromise".  This leads us to the administration that we have in power today.  So, it must be understood, 3rd parties today have little effect but to "split the vote" on the Republican side, allowing for more Democrat victories.

Therefore, I have chosen to throw my support behind the Republican party in an effort to reform the party from within.  After all, it would be easier to mold an existing, popular party, then to promote an new, unknown party to power.   To bring politics back to conservative values, we must first stop the erosion of the only viable conservative party that exists.   Until we are able to stop the liberal, socialist left, there will be no chance for change.  It is my belief, that the American people have finally awoken to the possibilities of the Democrat's socialist agenda, and with current polls, I'm being proven right that America is finding something that they do not want.  Hopefully, this may be the catalyst needed to bring back conservative representation.  Once achieved, it is then a goal to seek reform and change from within the Republican party.  As our conservative representatives see that Conservatism, financial responsibility, strong national defense, etc is what the people want, it will become easier to seek and achieve change from within the party.  

So while the Ron Paul's of the world align with my thoughts and values, I understand that a vote for them is a vote for liberalism due to the siphoning effect they have on votes from the leading opposition party.  While I would love to see Ron Paul as president, it's my belief that the best way to achieve that, is to cultivate his level of conservatism within Republican party.  Politics are fluid.  They change and bend to the will of the people, if and only if, the people exert the pressure required for change.   Right now, our politicians have no reason to fear us, but should we succeed in Senate/House turnovers during the next election cycle, we would give them such reason.  We would be able to use that fear to ensure that our politicians return to listening to their people.   So rather than seeking an outside 3rd party to represent me, I chose to force the existing party to stop the compromising that led them astray, and represent my beliefs thru activism and outspoken appeal.   That, my friends, is why a Libertarian votes Republican.

Ben Nelson sells his soul for ObamaCare

I can't say I'm surprised, but Ben Nelson (D - Nebraska) sold his soul to ObamaCare.  An article by Associated Content details the unhappiness that Sen. Nelson's constituents in Nebraska are feeling for their senior senator due to his betrayal.  Within the article, Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee compares Nelson to Judas by stating:

The last time a deal like the one Nelson negotiated with Democratic leaders was when '30 pieces of silver exchanged hands.

Like I said, I'm not surprised by this action.  In essence, Nelson sold out his ideals for a deal in which he negotiated the Federal Government picking up Nebraska's share of Medicaid forever.  This deal amounts to roughly $45M in the first decade adds even more spending on the federal dollar.

With this deal, the Democrats now have their magic 60 votes that could allow them to ram the bill thru legislation with no opportunity for Republicans (or the American people) to stop this monstrosity.  However, as even with a deal that will save his state millions, Sen. Nelson is finding out that his constituents aren't happy about his back room dealings.

Senator Nelson is lucky in that he isn't up for re-election in 2010, but I have a hunch that Nebraska will not forget this travesty soon.  Visit the site dedicated to removing Ben Nelson from office at GiveBentheBoot and get involved.  It must be remembered that Ben not only betrayed Nebraska, but all of America.  He was the crucial 60th vote, and without his support, this bill would have died as it should have.

So thank you Ben.  Like 59 other Senators before you, you have failed to listen to the people, failed to do the right thing, and for 30 pieces of silver, have sold this country out for evil.  How much will your Medicaid subsidies be worth when this bill drives our country to bankruptcy?  What deal have you struck when your people are suffering under the weight of higher taxes imposed by this bill and when the Chinese call in the loans that our government has taken to pay for this evil?  Judas's life was forever changed by the guilt he felt for the "deal" that he cut, and I can't help but wonder, do you even have enough of a conscience left to suffer the same? 


May Chase Bank rot in the deepest depths of Hell reserved for the most vile of corporations

Okay, so this is story has a lot of personal discontent to it, but it's also somewhat politically based.

To start, my story.  Approximately 11 years ago, I declared bankruptcy for reasons outside of my control.  In doing so, I knew that I would have to accept a lot of hardship along the way, but it was a last ditch attempt to dig my way out of bad circumstances.  So declare bankruptcy, I did.  While I don't recommend it to anyone, it was one of the best decisions I ever made.  Now, that doesn't mean it was easy.  I spent many years paying 23.9% interest on an automobile loan, had issues with getting any credit, but I was prepared for that.  During that time, Providian Bank took a chance on me and granted me a credit card with a $500 limit.  Over the next 7 years, through hard work and sacrifice, I was able to increase that credit limit substantially, while lowering the interest rate down to 16%.  During our financial relationship, Providian was bought out by WAMU, but they held to Providian's standards and due to them honoring the terms originally given to me by Providian, I grew very loyal to that credit card and the bank that held it.  They were honest with me, gave me nothing for free, but treated me with respect and rewarded me with higher credit limits and lower interest rates for my good credit behavior.

In walks Chase bank.  Using TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) funds granted to it by the US Government, Chase bought out WAMU.  That's not what the TARP funds were intended for, but that's another conversation.  So, using money granted to it by the US Government, Chase became owner of my credit card.  Now, again, I was loyal to this card and it had a good balance on it.  It was my primary credit card.  By this time, I've owned the card for over 10 years, never missed a payment on it, always paid more than the minimum balance, and had paid the card off several times.  Within 3 months of acquiring WAMU, I noticed that my interest rate on this card had skyrocketed from 16% to a detestable 32.9%!!!  I called Chase and requested that they lower my rate back down, that I was a good customer and didn't deserve this rate.  Their response was that they had sent me a letter informing me of the increase (which they did not!) and that it couldn't be lowered.  They informed me that the rate had been increased to "maintain profitability on my account".  Wow!  Really, you raised the interest rate of 10yr, on time paying, never missed a payment, never going over limit client just so you could make more money??  After several months of fighting with them, getting nothing but rude responses such as "Feel free to close your account" and the like, I decided to pay off the card.  Taking a loan, I paid the balance in full to be rid of the border line illegal interest rate charges but chose not to close the account because I didn't want to hurt my credit score.

Here comes the second jab.  3 months after paying off the balance in full, I DO receive a letter from them stating that "due to account inactivity they have decided to reduce my credit line".  They reduced it by over  2/3rds!!!! To add insult to injury, the letter also informed me that "Had I made a purchase that went above this new limit, I had 45 days to bring the amount beneath the new limit else I would be subject to monthly over credit, increased interest rate for over credit,  and other fees".   So now I have a credit limit that is less than a 1/3rd of what I spent 10 years building simply because I wasn't using the account.  In addition, had I made a good faith based purchase on this account subject to my known, earned previous credit limit, I would be subject to financial discipline for exceeding what I believed to be my appropriate limit.  WOW!

Before this time, my credit score was in the 700's and I'm very proud that I was able to build this score after having declared bankruptcy.  I take pride in my score actually, declaring it proof that a person can turn bad circumstances around.  However, because of Chase's actions, my score is now below 700, actions that were not done thru any fault, or mis-action, on my part.  WTH?  Again, I call them and get a "there's nothing we can do, feel free to close the account".   This time, they will get their wish.  They can't hurt my credit score any worse than they already have, so I've shredded the credit card and sent them a letter with the shredded remains along with a very nice, polite detailing of exactly what they can do with that card and how they might best be able to perform my suggestion.

Now I find out that JP Morgan Chase has repaid all $25M given to it from the TARP program.  While one would expect me to be happy that this evil bank repaid the government all the money given to it, I'm not!  We, the taxpayers, fronted that money to them, which they used improperly, but do you think we will get a check back  for their repayment?  Of course not.  2nd, the reason that they were able to repay this money was off the backs and blood of it's customers thru devious, vile predatory practices.  Do a quick Google search on Chase bank and you will find 100's of 1000's of stories just like mine.  Sites have been set up specifically to complain about this bank.  www.chase-sucks.com, www.chasebanksucks.com, and hundreds of other sites.  This bank prayed upon it's customers.  So essentially, this bank doubled dipped.  It was bailed out by a failed, misappropriated, ill-handled government bail out program paid for by the taxpayers (it's clients), then used predatory, vile, despicable practices to raise it's profit margins to pay those funds back. 

Where are our representatives in all of this mess?  Credit companies use credit to enslave the population.  They know, once you owe the money, you are theirs.  They can do what they want because you can't escape their grasp.  The credit reporting system allows this misuse.  Free market can't work here, because if you take your credit from one company to one offering better terms, your credit rating can still be hurt by the original bank.  If your credit rating gets hurt, then it makes the ability to move to a better bank harder, if not almost impossible.   Worst of all, the Government condoned these actions by bailing out the banks in the first place.  Chase should have been allowed to fail.  It wouldn't have killed our economy.  There are many credit unions out there that understand customer service and would have carried on.  However, the Government, in their infinite knowledge, bailed them out and allowed them continue.  They allowed the banks to use the funds improperly.  They allowed this monster to continue.  Chase made bad decisions, Chase over extended themselves, Chase should have reaped the consequences of those actions, but no.  Big government stepped in and enabled them to not only continue, but to take even greater advantage of their customers. 

Need we forget that we are in a horrible economic repression, bordering on full on depression?  With almost 17% of our population out of work, how do they possibly think that devious practices like this will help?  They won't.  Chase will continue to make things harder on it's clients and when they force them to default, the Government will be there to fund them again.  If this can happen to me, someone that was responsible and paid their bills on time, it can happen to anyone.  Especially those that have fallen on hard times due to the actions of our government.  Wake up DC!!  You are killing this nation in every way and this is just one more example.  I hope you are happy with the monster you created.  And Chase, I know there is a special place in hell reserved for you.  I long for the day that you find it.  Until that day, I will never do business with you, or any affiliate of yours, and I will do everything in my power to ensure no one else does either.  Should our government ever get out the way, capitalism and the free market will give your just dues, of this, I am certain.  Bastards!


Bob Marshall proves me right! Our representatives have lost touch with reality.

Today, Bob Marshall (R-Manassas) submitted legislation (Virginia Health Care Freedom Act) aimed at protecting Virginia's residents from the National Health Care Mandates being proposed by Congress.  Per the Washington Examiner, this is the first in what's expected to be a flurry of bills bent on defying the Fed in the next session.

While I completely agree and commend Del. Marshall on his foresight and goal to protect Virginians from this monstrosity, the real statement I would like to focus on comes at the bottom this article as quoted by Del. Dave Englin (D - Alexandria):

"I'm concerned about it because we have a number of newly elected Republicans who came in on the shoulders of the tea party crowd,",  referring to the conservative anti-tax movement. "I'm concerned that they're going to want to demonstrate their right-wing chops with these folks, and they're going to try some of those kinds of things."

Oh really?  You are concerned that representatives are going to attempt to do exactly the things that they promised they would do?  That they are going to do the things that got them elected in the first place?

Del. Englin, you are a schmuck!  You are EXACTLY what is wrong with our government today.  As evidenced by your statements, you are completely out of touch with the people that you represent and the sentiments of Americans today.  People wanted change, but they did not want the change they got.   In fact, according to a recent Gallup Poll, 44% of Americans would now rather have George W. Bush back in the presidency rather than continuing down the socialist road with President Obama.

So even as Obama's approval ratings continue to plummet, even as more and more Americans chose to voice their disapproval of the current administration via Tea Parties, 912Project, and other means, you refuse to listen.  You turn a deaf ear to the people who elected you and ignore the wishes of those that employ you.  In case you forgot, you are a "Representative" of the people, not a "Decider" for the people.  Your job is to listen and represent, not to forward your own ideals. 

Seems to me Mr. Englin, Mr. Marshall has it right!  Will this legislation pass, in most likelihood, no, but atleast he had the testicular fortitude to stand up for sentiments of the people that he represents!  This country wants its change back!  They are expressing this via the election of representatives who "come in on the shoulders of the tea party crowd" as you say.   Maybe you should try listening to people and actually do your job.  See that Obama mania is over and the people want nothing more to do with it. 

I do agree with you one thing thou, you should be concerned.  Not with the "newly elected Republicans" but with the will of the people and how to best perform your duty in representing them.  Continue your ignorant, blind eye ways, and you may soon find yourself out of a job! 

Queer eye for the........Middle school kid????

Fistgate:  The scandal surrounding Obama's pick for "Safe School Czar", Kevin Jennings, just keep getting worse.  For those of you that don't know, Fistgate is in regards to Kevin Jennings and his GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network) organization recently providing school age kits to assist in the sexual act of "fisting".  Well, if that wasn't bad enough, the scandal now runs deeper.

In a story released by Gateway Pundit, GLSEN is now being charged with providing sexual literature to children ages 14-21 during a GLSEN 2005 conference by the name of "Little Black Book - Queer in the 21st Century". 

Those who know me, know that my libertarian ways lead me to a belief that the government should not legislate/interfere with the actions of consenting adults.  What a person does in their bedroom is their action to deal with and be responsible for, and as long as that activity is between consenting adults and causes no harm, it's no one else's business.  However, this literature goes beyond and is now pushing these ideals on to children.

Excerpt from book (full reading on the link)

No Dookie On Your Noodle! Nobody knows better than queer men that shit happens. It’s just a fact of life…and butt sex. While there are steps to take to avoid a mess, they’re not always practical for the boy on the go. Condoms allow you a certain freedom that can be a great selling point if you’re cruising the park and don’t want stray spunk on your new polyester shirt...

In no way do I see how this could be practical for teaching to children of a middle school age.  Children of this age are impressionable and often susceptible to invocation.  You take a child who is already often lost and trying to find themselves, then add in an adult who is teaching such a sensational, taboo subject matter, you are likely to push children to a choice that they are not mentally prepared to make.  The curiosity of children of this age, along with the information being passed to them, will lead them to experiment, just to see what the fuss is about.  How can that be considered proper?

It seems that Leftists are working to bring the decision (and the fight) to the children of our country.  We consistently see the lowering of the age in which we start talking about controversial subjects.  First it was 18 years of age, then 16, now we are down to 14 years and younger!  We must understand that children are still learning the world and maturing mentally and are simply not prepared to deal with subjects of this magnitude.  Do I think that children of a certain age should be made aware of the impacts of sexual promiscuity, of course, to a point.  However, let's be honest, the promotion of an alternative lifestyle and "cruising the park for partners" is not sexual education, its the promotion of sexual risk.  It's the perverse pushing of social agendas on those ill equipped to deal with the repercussions of their choice.  However, from a leftist stand point, it's a viable tactic.  Indoctrinate the minds while they are young and impressionable to further the cause in the future.  After all, who really hears the subject matter when it's a small child making the speech.

Kevin Jennings is a vile human being who has no right being around children, much less having the charge of protecting their safety.  This man should be removed this position, and any position involved with the care of children, immediately.  It's one thing to educate about sexual topics, it's another thing to push ideals and agendas thru the children of America.  I know many adults that wouldn't be comfortable discussing things of this nature, however, we allow this group (GLSEN) and other to push it on the children.  It's time to take a stand and demand that this guy be removed from office.  These topics are the responsibility of the parent, not a stranger, to discuss with their children.   If these topics are to be introduced and discussed, they must be made with an age appropriate audience.

Again, this is not a commentary on homosexuality.  I would have the same reaction if the topic was made to "straight" children of this age and pushed the idea of "cruising for partners" and promotion of promiscuity.  If this is a lifestyle that you choose, when you are mentally prepared to make such choices, more power to you.  It's not for me to agree or disagree, but as long as it doesn't not infringe upon my rights or freedoms, then I do not care what you choose to do within your bedroom.  The topics that GLSEN brings to America's youth are not educational, not commentaries on tolerance, but simple pushing of practices and lifestyles that have no business being pushed on impressionable minds.  This guy, and his organization, make me sick.


Football? They can legislate football?

Wow!  In a time when almost every move our congress is making is being questioned on the grounds that they don’t have the power, this story from Komo news is released.

That’s right folks, the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee has approved legislation that would force the NCAA to determine a national champion by playoff only, stating that the current BCS system is unfair.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I hate the BCS system.  It’s hard to understand and I do believe it can be unfair, but is this really the thing that we want our congressional representatives working on?  In addition, what the hell even gives them the right to think that they can pass legislation on something that has no bearing on national affairs?

Congress, you want to know why America is starting to think you are imbeciles incapable of leading?  You wonder why your constituents think you are out of touch with reality?  You need to look no further than your actions today.  We have the looming health care fiasco, jobless rates approaching 17%, a failed stimulus bill costing the taxpayers billions, government take over of private industry, and yet you find it necessary to take time out of your day to legislate this?’

I’m embarrassed that it was  Texas Rep Joe Barton quoted in this article, but you know, Texas is a football state who takes the game very seriously.  However, our elected officials have more pressing matters at hand than the determination of how to pick a college football championship team.  Moreover, this is yet another example of the Fed sticking it’s nose some place it has no right and trying to exert authority in areas outside it’s jurisdiction.  Come on Congressmen (women), our country took a left hand turn down Shit Ave last November.  How about you guys trying pumping the brakes and see if you can’t get us turned around and back on the right path?  What’s next?  You going to pass a law dictating how American Idol can pick it’s finalist???  I wouldn’t be surprised if you did.


Why is the Tiger Wood’s story newsworthy??

Recently, Tiger Woods crashed his Cadillac Escalade  resulting in some minor injuries.  Unless you live under a rock, I’m sure you’ve heard all the speculations and rumor surrounding this unfortunate accident by now.  It’s been about the only thing being covered by the main stream media as of late.  Even Fox News is releasing stories about potential causes linked to Tiger’s scandalous doings. 

My question:  Who really cares?  So Tiger crashed his car, it happens to about 6 million Americans each year according to the statistics.  So what if the crash was caused by an angry wife who recently found out that Tiger had been cheating on her.  If he was cheating, he deserved to be chased out of the driveway with a golf club, it’s even almost fitting.   Again, who really cares?  What does this have to do with me and how does it affect my life?  Simple answer, it doesn’t!  Sure, there are 100’s willing to jump on the bandwagon and claim that this more evidence of our moral decline, but this is a story of one man.  Others wish to talk about Tiger’s lost endorsements and impact it will have to his career, but again, I DON’T CARE!  Nothing Tiger does, or doesn’t do, in public, in his private life, or in any other aspect has any impact on me.

What this story does do is detract from the issues that are facing America today.  Personally, I think that the current administration should be helping pay for Tiger’s divorce attorney due to the fact that it’s taken the media attention off of them and their current back room dealings.  Thanks to Tiger’s silly miscalculations in judgment, America’s attention has been diverted for the short term.

Everyone, we still have a government trying to force an albatross of a health care upon it’s people.  We have a president, who on one hand condemns those that attacked us on 9/11, but in the same breath calls the perpetrators members of “one of the world’s greatest religions”.  A religion, that by it’s very nature, preaches hatred and death to American citizens, or infidels.   He claims that there “has been no delay or denial of resources necessary to conduct this war”, yet refuses to acknowledge that it took him months to even talk with General McChrystal, then only allowing him a portion of the resources requested.  We have a government intent on raising the taxes imposed upon it’s citizens while claiming that a failed stimulus packages is providing for an economic rebound, even tho our adjusted jobless rate is now sitting at roughly 17%.  We have the issue of “"Climate-gate”, where it has been found that the so-called “facts” of global warming have been skewed, falsely reported, or in some cases, just plain fabricated, to support a broken theory aimed at trying to control the populace. Last, but not least, our government now wants to taken the broken TARP program and redirect the funds to a poorly attempted job recovery effort.

Folks, we still have a lot of turmoil ahead of us.  There is still a major fight for our freedoms and prosperity brewing.  We must not be taken off course by the story of a famous golfer crashing his luxury SUV.  Don’t fall under the switch and bait tactics of the media and keep your eyes on the real issue, our dwindling way of life at the hands of our current government.  Okay, we’ve all taken note, passed our judgments on Tiger around the water cooler, but now it’s time to start paying attention again.  In the grand scheme of things, this story has no consequence, so stopped fanning the flames.


Tea Parties: Should they organize on a national level?

Ken Vogel recently posted an interesting article on Politico.com regarding the perceived unrest within the Tea Party movement alive in America today.  Within this article, he points to some of fracturing and disagreements within local movements and alludes to the idea that the Tea Party movement should organize at a national level, rather than being the independent movement that it is today.

I completely disagree with this idea.  The beauty, the pure force of the Tea Party movement, is the fact that it is individual based.  These parties are for the common man, one who is fed up with the high tax and spend that congress has taken as the status quo, individuals who have grown weary of big government forcing health care, bail outs, and cap and trade down their throats against their will.  The reason that Tea Parties have such a voice is that they are derived of people, and issues, specific to the locale of specific parties presence.

Should the Tea parties begin to organize nationally, I agree that they will have a louder voice, but will that voice be as effective?  Once you start to organize at a national level, people must now start to make compromises to “achieve a unified front”.  Won’t that detract from the true purpose of the movement itself?  The issues that affect the constituents of Vermont, for example, may differ slightly from those of Texas.  If the party were nationally organized, whose ideals will win out to be the policy of the movement?  The answer is simple, the area with the most active members.  Isn’t that exactly the thing that the tea parties are expressing outrage at?  Shouldn’t the people have the ability, and the right, to protest those things that most directly affect them?

The impact that the Tea Party movement is having is to force our representatives to listen to what we, the people, have to say.  To remind them that they work for us, that they represent US.  Should we organize nationally, then who do we aim our voices to?  Since it’s a national voice, it will be aimed at no specific representative, but to the congressional body as a whole.  I see this as being less effective than the current movement.  Now, the Texas Tea party aims it’s anger and opinions to the Texas state representatives.  As all the calls are coming directly from the people who elect them to power, then they will be more likely to listen.  If it were a national voice, then what would force these senators when the opinions are coming from people outside of their districts.  Yes, some of the opinions will be consistent (smaller government, less taxation, etc), but not specific to the issues that face geographic areas.

Again, the pure beauty of the Tea Party movement is that it is made up of like minded individuals speaking out on the governmental injustices that affect them.  The core of it’s effectiveness is that it is comprised of people who refuse to compromise their ideals any longer.  Tea parties are making a difference, you need only to look at the recent elections held in New Jersey and New York.  I urge you to remain strong and stay the course.  I know it can be frustrating for your phone calls and letters to go unanswered.  I know that you can be disheartened to protest the albatross that is Universal Health Care, only to see your representatives to continue to ram it thru, but believe me, your voice is being heard.  Congressional members are starting to worry about their jobs and for the first time that I can remember in my short life, the Republicans are starting to unite and vote against measures that YOU disagree with.  You need only to look at the near unanimous vote against first health care iterations and the stimulus bill.  Only RINO’s (Republicans in Name Only) went against the vote.  Use these gatherings to become informed of the issues and continue to raise your discontent.  Tea Parties are making a difference at the local and state levels and that is where the true power lies.


Letter from Sen. John Cornyn (R. Tx) regarding the Harry Reid health care bill

Sen. Cornyn's Health Care Reform Alert
Thursday, November 19, 2009

Last night, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid released his 2,074-page health care bill, which Senate Budget Committee analysis shows will cost American taxpayers $2.5 trillion when fully implemented over ten years.

Until we have had a chance to read the full 2,074 page Reid Bill, it’s impossible for Americans to fully grasp what the Majority Leader has cooked up behind closed doors. It is my hope that Sen. Reid will afford all Americans the same courtesy that he had: ample time to study the legislation and deliberate the best way to proceed.

What we do know so far, as reported by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), is that this bill will have a wide, negative impact on Americans across the board – from seniors on Medicare to small business owners to future generations of Americans who will be footing the bill. The bill will increase taxes on all Americans by nearly half a trillion dollars and breaks the President’s pledge not to raise taxes on working families earning less than $250,000—at a time that unemployment is at a 26-year high.

While CBO has not been given time to analyze the Reid bill’s impact on premiums, every other independent analysis to date has found that Reid’s new mandates and taxes will increase health care premiums on American families. The Reid bill increases taxpayer spending and liability for health care over the next ten years—instead of reforming our already insolvent entitlement programs. It will gut the already insolvent Medicare program by $464.6 billion, hurting access to care for seniors. It includes a government-run public option that will, according to CBO, have premiums higher than private plans and cause millions of Americans to lose the coverage they currently have. The largest expansion of Medicaid since it was created means the Medicaid program will be the only coverage option for 60 million Americans. It will also impose $28 billion in punitive taxes on employers who do not comply with Washington’s new job-killing mandates.

These initial findings are troubling, to say the least. My staff and I will be pouring over the 2,074 pages, assuming we are given the time to do so. You can access the full text of the Reid bill from my web site:http://cornyn.senate.gov/public/?p=HealthCareReformHQ.
It is essential that Congress take the time get health care reform right. If the President and Majority Leader are more interested in getting health care reform right for all 300 million Americans than they are in putting a political feather in their cap for the midterm elections, this shouldn’t be an issue.

** Rednex Note – Get involved.  Write your congressman and let them know that the American people want the time to analyse this bill.  Don’t let the government take your rights without a fight. 


Republicans: A historical primer and plead

Many people who know me, know that my libertarian leanings have led me to disagree with the Republican party on many things.  However, when it comes to the two party system in America, the Republican party comes the closest to matching my ideals, and with whom I usually side, on most issues.  That being said, with each passing day, I grow more and more discouraged and distrustful of the current day party.  I can no longer say that they closely represent my ideals, because it’s become almost impossible to differentiate Republicans from the Democrats.  It’s almost impossible to tell where Republicans draw the moral line and where their beliefs actually lie.  It’s for this reason, I’ve decided to give a short historical primer on the party in hopes that people, as well as those that call themselves Republican, will know from where they came.

Democrats and liberals alike love to paint the Republican party as “the party of old rich white men”.  You need only listen to any interview with that nut job Janeane Garofalo to hear how Republicans are nothing but racists and minority haters, as shown in this quote she made to Bill Maher in October:

It's obvious to anybody who has eyes in this country that tea-baggers, the 9-12ers, these separatist groups that pretend that it's about policy – they are clearly white-identity movements. They're clearly white power movements. What they don't like about the President is that he's black – or half black (applause) – and they, what also is shocking is that people keep pretending that that's not really the case with these people.

It's very weird that whenever this comes up in conversation, so few people are willing to say that yes it is racism, straight up racism. And the Republican Party has been willing to carry water for racists in this country since about the 1950s

However, she shows the depth of her ignorance in this statement.  The Republican Party was born in the 1850’s by a group of anti-slavery activists.  The “Great Emancipator” himself, Abe Lincoln, was the first Republican voted into the White House.  It was also the Republican party of this day that passed the 13th (outlawing slavery), 14th (granting African-Americans equal protection under the law), and 15th (securing African-American voting rights) amendments. 

Along with belief of  “Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Speech, Free Men”, the core Republican beliefs are as such (as taken from the GOP site):

  • Power and ingenuity of the individual to succeed thru hard work, family support, and self discipline
  • Value of voluntary giving and community support over taxation and forced redistribution
  • Government must be limited so that it never becomes powerful enough to infringe on the rights of the individual
  • Low taxes as individuals know best how to make their own economic and charitable choices
  • Free market support of logical business regulation that encourages entrepreneurs to start business to enjoy fruits and satisfaction of self-made successes
  • Preservation of national strength and defense while working for peace, freedom, and human rights

These are, at their core, beliefs and values I agree with.  While my libertarian mind may disagree on how best to ensure them, they are the same.  However, it seems to me, that the Republican party has abandoned these principals.  We saw this with George Bush’s implementation of the first auto bailout, the Republican congress’s increased agreeance of tax and spend, and the list goes on.  So concerned with bi-partisanship and political correctness, the Republican party disregarded their core values and deserted those that elected them to represent.  Today, it’s almost impossible to tell who is Republican and who is Democrat on speech alone.  I ask, why is it so important to concede and compromise your beliefs to reach a “middle ground”?  If you stick to your principals, the people will follow.  I believe this is precisely why the party is a shadow of it’s former self.  Having abandoned the values that made the people believe in them, they left the people with no hope.  They went so far off course, that the American people, looking for any method of direction change, placed this socialist Manchurian candidate in power today.  Sure, now they start to unite, but my trust in them is gone.

It’s for this reason that I believe we should remind those in Congress who they work for and vote them all out!!  Democrats and Republicans alike need to be reminded that they work for us, the people.  That they were sent to D.C. to represent our wants and ideals.  With current direction, Republicans are starting to unite and rally against the so called “change” that Obama is bringing, but I fear it may be too little, too late.  A message must be sent, a message that states, We are in control.  Do as we ask or you will be fired!  Yes, there are good Republicans in office today, but cherry picking which stay and which go will not send the resounding message required.  We must turn over the leadership and let them know that we will no longer tolerate their abuse.  Our founding forefathers had the insight to give us the most powerful weapon of all, the power of the vote.  We can take back control of our nation with this weapon, but we have to be willing to use it.

To end, I offer you three quotes:

"Now more than ever, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption."

James Garfield, 1877

“So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men.”


“People often say that, in a democracy, decisions are made by a majority of the people. Of course, that is not true. Decisions are made by a majority of those who make themselves heard and who vote -- a very different thing”

Walter H Judd

I urge each of you to become involved.  The effects of the decisions of today will have impact for decades to come.  It is your duty as an American to openly discuss, question, and comment on all policies and opinions.  Use this forum if you so desire.  If you like what I say, comment and let your voice be heard so that others will know they are not alone.  If you disagree, then I offer you to do the same.  Debate and comparison of ideas is the only way to affect change.  Those who don’t understand the issues, cannot intelligently decide on them.  I am not close minded.  If you believe me to be wrong, then show me where, but be prepared to acknowledge my arguments as well.  As stated by Judd above, it is only the majority that makes themselves heard that decide.  For too long, too many have kept a silent voice and the time for that to change is now.


Universal Healthcare: Is it even constitutional?

There are many things within the healthcare proposal that have seen the limelight of debate: Should there be a public option, will illegals be covered, does a person have the right to keep current insurance, but of all these things, I think we are missing the most important debate.  Is universal healthcare constitutional?

Grounds:  Right to Privacy and due process.

As discussed in a earlier post, Section 1401, Pg 503 gives the government health care center undisputed access and authority to pull information from any government source.  In addition, Section 1651, Pg 734 allows, for law enforcement sake, the Attorney General to receive from the Director of HHS, all medical information when requested and Section 431, Pg 195 allows the HC administration access to all financial and personal records.   What impact do these sections have on a persons right to due process and to privacy?  In Griswold vs. Connecticut, the US Supreme Court recognized a constitutional right to privacy.  In addition, Whalen vs. Roethe court validated the duty to avoid unwarranted disclosure of personal information is rooted within the Constitution and the right to privacy.  It went on to state that “privacy involves two types of interests: individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters, and an interest in protecting one’s independence in making certain decisions”. (William H. Roach, Medical Records and the law)

So with these two court decisions, we have precedence showing that we have the right to privacy in accordance with our medical information.  If the HHS uses our medical history to substantiate, or adjust, our health insurance allowance under a federal plan, then how is this not considered unconstitutional?  Likewise, with our medical records, financial information, etc being made available without written consent, on what grounds does the US government have access to this information?  If not charged with a crime or illegality, then it would seem that the government has no right.  One could claim that by signing up for the government plan, you provide your consent for access, but under the healthcare plan, subscribing to the plan is not an option, but a mandate.  If we are forced to enter into this plan, then by proxy, we are being forced to provide consent.  Where would this abuse stop?

Grounds:  Usurping of Federal Privilege via the Commerce Clause

Many healthcare proponents have cited Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, more commonly known as the Commerce Clause.  This specific power granted to the Fed, allows for the “regulation of commerce with foreign nations, among several states, and with Indian tribes.” Using this clause, proponents content that the Fed has the power to regulate healthcare, as it deals with citizens of the US across all state borders; in addition, as health care comprises 1/6th of our GDP, regulation has a direct impact on economic affairs.  However, there are two major issues with this argument.

David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey cited two important court cases in the Washington Post:  United States vs. Lopez (1995) and United States vs. Morrison (2000).  In these two cases, the US Supreme Court rejected the notion that the commerce clause allowed the Fed to regulate non-economic activities, simply because, thru causal effects, they might have economic impact.  Judge Andrew Napolitano, expounds on this in his recent Wall Street Journal interview, by stating that the “practice of medicine consists of the delivery of intimate services.  In most all instances, this delivery occurs in one place and does not move across state lines.  One does not go to a doctor to engage in commerce, but to improve one’s health”. 

In addition, the application of the commerce clause is hypocritical when it comes to this issue.  Judge Napolitano continues in above article, to detail how Congressional regulation has allowed states to erect barriers that the commerce clause was expressly written to tear down.  In all states, Health insurance issuers are prohibited from selling policies to people in other states.  This artificially drives up health care cost, by disallowing the act of competition and individual policy creation.   Thereby, using this definition, its easy to see how the commerce clause would not apply to the health care debate.  How can proponents claim that this clause is the provision allowing the creation of universal health care, while on the other hand, the lack of the clause’s enforcement is a primary reason that health care insurance costs are so high?

Grounds:  Precedence of Roe vs. Wade

Ironically, a liberal agenda piece may actually be the guiding factor in determining the constitutionality of the universal healthcare plan.

In the 1960’s, the US Supreme Court created the right to privacy, and using that right, struck down a series of state/federal regulations of personal conduct, namely, the Roe v Wade (1973) abortion case.

While not abortion specific, the US Supreme Court established a constitutionally mandated zone of personal privacy that must be made free of government regulation.  The court explained this rationale in Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992) by stating:

"these matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and the mystery of human life."

If Roe v Wade upholds that a “right to abortion” holds true as a“choice central to personal dignity and autonomy”, then it would also seem to hold true that a person’s choice in intimate medical care would be covered under the same statue?  How could the inability to regulate fetal life within one’s own body, suddenly be found doable for the inclusion of medical devices, procedures, etc.  If the government cannot interfere or regulate a person’s physical body in the case of abortion, then it would likewise be unable to force a regulation in the terms of health care.

Rivkin and Casey state in another Wall Street Journal article that the weakness of the healthcare debate is shown via the principal of one size fits all approach.  Proper health care is uniquely individual as it is based on unique lifestyle choices, genetics, predispositions.  That under the health care proposal, the government seeks to a regularity in the application of governmental power with regards to health care practice.  By establishing this regularity, it will serve to limit the individual choice, taking primary decision away from the patient and their doctor, thus making the system constitutionally weak.

Grounds:  Improper Taxation

Lastly, within the healthcare bill, Section 313, Pg149-150 provides for a 2-8% tax on any employers who does not provide for the public option, while Sec. 401.59B, Pg 167 provides for a personal tax on any individual without health care.  Given the government’s right under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution to collect taxes, how could this be an argument for unconstitutional grounds?

First, Ernest Christianson explains to us in a Tax.com article that Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution forbids direct tax that is not apportioned among several states according to their numbers.  In addition, Article 1, Section 9 states that “no direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion with the Census or Enumeration herein”.  So given this, how is Congress pushing this tax thru with the healthcare bill?

Well, Sen. Baucus has claimed that the tax imposed on the uninsured is an "indirect tax” or an excise tax and doesn’t have to be apportioned.  However, Christian explains to us the error in this thinking, in that excise taxes are levied on a “thing”, not a person.  That a tax imposed directly on a person is akin to an income tax.  In addition, since this tax is levied only on those that fail to come under the plan, it is an unfair tax on action, which is beyond congressional authority.

In Bailey v. Drexel Furniture (1922), the Supreme Court established that Congress could not impose a “tax” to control behavior or conduct that it could regulate under the commerce clause.  In this case, the issue stemmed around the utilization of child labor, but the same precedent could be held for health care.  Since the tax included in the bill is only applied to those that choose not to participate, it is, in essence, a penalty for non-compliance.  Given the above shaky case for health care under the commerce clause, the precedent would hold true here.  As congress has no ability to regulate health care under the commerce clause, then neither does it have the authority to penalize the conduct (inaction) of citizens for non-participation.


For all the arguments against Obama Care, this is one argument that I would like to see more publicized. Lawyers are usually so quick to jump into the fray, but strangely, constitutional lawyers have been silent on this one.  Could it be that the Obama Administration is the lawyers saving grace, or is it that they too are scared to speak out against Pres. Obama for fear of back lash.  I know that the question has been raised to both the President, Speaker Pelosi, and others, but the idea of the bill being unconstitutional is always brushed off.  I find that a travesty and feel that we, the people, should demand an answer.  Why even go thru the debate and arguments if it can be found that the bill would not be legal under our founding documents. 


Of all mistakes, Lack of Leadership is the Biggest

We are a country in trial now.  We are in the midst of a politico cause financial disaster, a unemployment rate of 10.2% to 17.5% (depending on calculation method used), and a nation that now borrows it’s living expenses from foreign countries.  We need a leader!  We need a president that is willing, and able, to guide us thru these times and tribulations, but sadly, we are left with no captain at the helm.

I’m not sure we should be surprised.  America was so caught up by the showmanship and speech of our current president, so excited by his claims of “hope and change”, that they failed to fact check his resume.  They failed to find that, not only was he not qualified for the position, but that he also lacked the leadership characteristics to prepare him for the job at hand.  The American people hired this man because he was “likeable” and “well spoken”.  His victory was one of stardom, not record. 

Pres. Obama’s only claim to legitimacy is his three years spent as a senator and time as a state senator.  During that time, he was absent for 314 of 1300 roll call votes (24%), often putting him in the worst 10% of congress.  As a state senator for Illinois, 129 times, our current President chose to vote “present” .  While, this only represented ~ 3% of his votes, its a flag for his leadership.  These were not insignificant bills, but politically contentious issues which included votes on partial-birth abortions, the ability to seal court records of victims of rape and sexual abuse, and protection of a child if surviving an abortion attempt.  For a man who campaigned on a promise to “tackle and address” the tough issues, I don’t see how this fits his declaration.

One would also assume that at least some foreign policy experience would be needed to fill such an important office, but Pres. Obama has none.  One need only look at some of his recent policy decisions/actions, to see his lack here as well.

Great Britain
As our strongest, most loyal ally, one would expect the President of the United States to treat the UK with respect, but Pres. Obama has snubbed them at every turn.  From the returning of the Churchill Bust, to the undiplomatic reception of PM Brown, to the narcissistic offering of an IPOD of his speeches to the Queen, our president has shown nothing but contempt to our friends across the pond. 

In spurn to a Latin American ally, Latin American Honduras, President Obama quickly condemned and sanctioned the country of Honduras for diplomatically, and legally, removing President Manuel Zelaya from power after his attempts at an unconstitutional power grab.  After a 15-0 Honduran Supreme Court decision (of which 8 members were of Zelaya’s own party) to remove the  President  Zelaya under article 239 of their constitution, the Pres. Obama's reaction was to cutoff aid to this invaluable ally and deny political visas to it’s leaders.  As a lone example of democracy in this region, an ally on our war on drugs, and a $5B annual export country, we should take a stand and defend the actions of this Honduras, but instead, we have abandoned them.

Poland & Czech Republic
In an effort to placate Russia, Pres. Obama pulled out of the missile defense shield to be deployed in Poland and the Czech Republic.  In a hopes to win Russia’s support in negotiating with Iran, Obama stated that “”the initiative was aimed at the wrong enemy, Iran” just shortly before we learned of Iran’s development of weapons grade plutonium and enrichment.  Talk about a timing miscue of ultimate proportion!  While this move does not severely harm our allies, due to their involvement with NATO, it is a definite mistake to abandon allies who went to grave political sacrifice to allow this defense.  Leadership is not throwing your friends and allies under the proverbial bus.  Worst off, we made this concession and gained nothing in return.  No promise of help from Russia, no pressure on Iran, no concession on Russia's part at all.  For the return of nothing, we abandoned friends.

Even French Prime Minister Sarkozy showed public contempt for our president over his handling of the Iran nuclear announcement.  When Pres. Obama called for proposals for dialogue, PM Sarkozy responded with:
"What good has proposals for dialogue brought the international community?" More uranium enrichment and declarations by the leaders of Iran to wipe out a UN member state off the map."
Who thought we would see the day when the French would be lecturing us on taking soft handed approaches to hard subjects?  This may very well be the biggest insult of all.

In addition, Iran flaunts it’s arrogance directly in the face of our leader.  After Obama states “Iran has been put on notice” during a speech in Pittsburg, Iran’s response was to test two ballistic  missiles capable of carrying warheads 1,200 miles.  Pres. Obama:  You threw down the gauntlet and it was picked up and used to slap you in the face.  Where do you leave this country when your words carry no fear, no slight of retribution.  Our country is being threatened, yet you do nothing!

General McChrystal, Obama’s commander in Afghanistan, has requested an additional 40,000 more troops else America risks failure in the theater.  A request that is seconded by McChrystal’s superiors.  However, our president has done nothing with regards to this request.  For a president who campaigned on the idea that victory in Afghanistan was paramount, how can you go for over 70 days without talking to your military commanders.  You can find time to unsuccessfully campaign to bring the Olympics to your beloved Chicago, to hold town halls with citizens of foreign countries, but yet you have no time to make a decision, when indecisiveness puts the sons and daughters of America in harms way?  You, a man of no military background or service, think you know better than a general how best to handle conflict?  A true sign of leadership is knowing when to defer and trust the decisions of those who know.  It’s time you used your backbone and allowed our military what it requires.  Waffling and delaying on decisions that put this countries sovereignty at risk are not the leadership we need.

Presidential cabinet
Another true sign of leadership, is the people that person chooses to surround himself/herself with.  Again, you fail in this regard.  You have chosen tax frauds and cheats as your top advisors.  Kathleen Sebelius, Tom Daschle, Nancy Killefer, Ron Kirk, and worst of all, Timothy Geithner.  Please tell me how you think it’s a good idea to put a man in charge of the Treasury, who himself is unable to properly pay his taxes.  Have you no vetting process for your advisors?  Do you not consider character at all in your appointments?  My fear is that you do not.  It’s not hard for a man of questionable character to associate with others of the same character.  Again, America was blind and should have seen this with your associations of Saul Alinsky, Rev. Wright, and others.

Failure in your own policies
Lastly, the most appalling lack of leadership, is the fact that you are unable to even usher in your own policies.  You promised this countries people transparency and openness, yet your shoved the $787B stimulus package down our throats via your doom and gloom speeches that drove the Dow below 7000.  You stated action had to be immediate, with no time for oversight, yet when the bill was passed, you went on a three day vacation before signing it into law?  Where was the urgency then?  You preached health care, but you haven’t even guided your team for it’s proposal.  Instead, you allow Pelosi, Reid, and Bakkus to outline YOUR agenda.  You state falsities of “no illegals covered” when there are no provisions to protect against it.  You state that the bill will not cost us one dime, but the CBO states that it would add $249B to the deficit, for an overall cost of $1.5T.  When asked by a blogger “Will people be able to keep their insurance and will insurers be able to write new policies under your health care plan?”, You, yourself, stated “You know, I have to say, I’m not familiar with the provision you are talking about”.  If you don’t understand, or know, the provisions of your own healthcare plan, then how are you leading?  To say I disagree with the policies your agenda is forwarding is a gross understatement, but atleast I would have some respect for you if you stood up and directed the policies in your name.  I can respect someone who leads, even if in opposition to my beliefs, but you sir, have shown no such determination.

Lastly, as the American people start overwhelming uniting in opposition to your policies and direction via tea parties, you aren’t even aware that they are demonstrating.  How can a leader be so out of touch with his people?  However, rather than facing the critics and leading, you choose to attack and start a war with Fox news?  In fact, you release the hounds on anyone that opposes, or speaks out, against you.  You label them racists and bigots.  I don’t care that you are black (half-black?), all I care about is your steering this country towards a cliff.  I guess that makes me a racist, but then again, I was never aware that socialism was considered a race.

This country needs a leader and that is not Barack Obama.  We are at time of crisis and we need someone that lift us out and expounds on our virtues, reminding us of why this country is great, not tour the world apologizing for us.  A leader that will not stand by and politely listen while a dictator bashes his country, but one with the fortitude to walk out or refuse the handshake of a dictator.  A leader that believes in the country he leads, it’s place as a shining light in this world, and not someone who bows before rulers of enemy nations.  We need a leader and I pray that we will find one come the next election.  Just like we hired you with a lack of experience, we can fire you for the same reason.


Universal Health Care: Coverage for all or just governmental control?

There are many things to be worried about it when it comes to the health care proposal that is being debated currently, but I think the most disconcerting of all is that amount of control this bill grants the government over our lives.  I can hear you naysayers now saying “Man, this is the conspiracy theory rants all over again”, but let me break down some of the provisions of the health care bill and let you make up your own mind.

Control of Private Citizens

Sec. 1401, Pg. 503 – Comparative Effectiveness Research


`(A) OBTAINING OFFICIAL DATA- The Center may secure directly from any department or agency of the United States information necessary to enable it to carry out this section. Upon request of the Center, the head of that department or agency shall furnish that information to the Center on an agreed upon schedule.

`(B) DATA COLLECTION- In order to carry out its functions, the Center shall--

`(i) utilize existing information, both published and unpublished, where possible, collected and assessed either by its own staff or under other arrangements made in accordance with this section,

Notice the important parts here, “may secure directly from any department or agency of the United States”.  There are no exclusions here, it clearly states ANY department.  In addition, it goes on to state that the Center may use both published and unpublished information, again with no restrictions.  You are hereby giving the government unrestricted access into your private lives, allowing them to create a data network of your most private information.  No longer will you rest assured of “Doctor/Patient confidentiality”, the government will have access to all.

Sec. 1711, Pg. 764 – Required Coverage of Preventative Services

`(z) Preventive Services- The preventive services described in this subsection are services not otherwise described in subsection (a) or (r) that the Secretary determines are--

`(1)(A) recommended with a grade of A or B by the Task Force for Clinical Preventive Services; or

`(B) vaccines recommended for use as appropriate by the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and

`(2) appropriate for individuals entitled to medical assistance under this title.'.

Here, the bill states, that if a preventive service recommended by a grade of A or B, or vaccines determined appropriate by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), then they will be given to those entitled to medical assistance.  You worried about Swine Flu?  With this section, you need not worry, cause you will have forced immunization regardless of if you want it or not.

Sec. 1801, Pg. 828-832 -  Disclosures to Facilitate Identification of Individuals likely to be ineligible for low-income assistance

(a) In General- Paragraph (19) of section 6103(l) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:


`(A) IN GENERAL- Upon written request from the Commissioner of Social Security, the following return information (including such information disclosed to the Social Security Administration under paragraph (1) or (5)) shall be disclosed to officers and employees of the Social Security Administration, with respect to any taxpayer identified by the Commissioner of Social Security--

`(i) return information for the applicable year from returns with respect to wages (as defined in section 3121(a) or 3401(a)) and payments of retirement income (as described in paragraph (1) of this subsection),

`(ii) unearned income information and income information of the taxpayer from partnerships, trusts, estates, and subchapter S corporations for the applicable year,

`(iii) if the individual filed an income tax return for the applicable year, the filing status, number of dependents, income from farming, and income from self-employment, on such return,

`(iv) if the individual is a married individual filing a separate return for the applicable year, the social security number (if reasonably available) of the spouse on such return,

`(v) if the individual files a joint return for the applicable year, the social security number, unearned income information, and income information from partnerships, trusts, estates, and subchapter S corporations of the individual's spouse on such return, and

`(vi) such other return information relating to the individual (or the individual's spouse in the case of a joint return) as is prescribed by the Secretary by regulation as might indicate that the individual is likely to be ineligible for a low-income prescription drug subsidy under section 1860D-14 of the Social Security Act.


This one is hard to read, I know, but this bill amends the IRS code to allow access to your personal financial information, and if you file jointly, that of your spouse to determine where you fall on the eligibility scale.  This includes not only wages, but also monies from trusts and partnerships that your family may be involved.

Sec. 440, Pg. 843-844 – Home visitation program for families with young children and families expecting children.

This is a pretty big section that goes into Sec. 1904, Pg. 843-844, so I will spare you the full section, but pay special attention to this:

`(v) provide parents with--

`(I) knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive, language, social, emotional, and motor domains (including knowledge of second language acquisition, in the case of English language learners);

`(II) knowledge of realistic expectations of age-appropriate child behaviors;

`(III) knowledge of health and wellness issues for children and parents;

`(IV) modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices;

`(V) skills to interact with their child to enhance age-appropriate development;

`(VI) skills to recognize and seek help for issues related to health, developmental delays, and social, emotional, and behavioral skills; and

`(VII) activities designed to help parents become full partners in the education of their children;

I guess it’s only right.  The government does know what’s better for us and our children than we do, right?  Well this bill says yes.  Notice that this section allows for visitation to provide parents “modeling, consulting, and coaching on parental practices” as well as providing" knowledge of realistic expectations of age-appropriate child behaviors”.  So a stranger gets to come into your home and lecture to you about what is realistic for you to expect from your child?  A person that knows nothing about your family, morals, or way of life?  Yeah, and this system has work so well in the foster care arena.  While I’m not a parent, I think I would have grave problems with anyone telling me what I should expect from my child, much less some government drone that meets with 100 families a week.

Sec 2521, Pg. 1000 – National Medical Device Registry

`(g)(1) The Secretary shall establish a national medical device registry (in this subsection referred to as the `registry') to facilitate analysis of postmarket safety and outcomes data on each device that--

`(A) is or has been used in or on a patient; and

`(B) is--

`(i) a class III device; or

`(ii) a class II device that is implantable, life-supporting, or life-sustaining.


Again, another very long section, but as titled above, if you have a medical device used, or implanted, in your person, that device (you!) will be tracked by this national registry.   They state that the purpose of this clause is to examine, and track, the outcome of such devices in patient wellness.  However, how will they be able to determine the effect unless they know how you lived with the device?  Will your moves, lifestyle, and choices all be recorded for the “purpose of outcome evaluation?”  Even if you had a device implanted before enactment of the bill, subsection 4, line (A)(i) would require manufactures of said devices to submit information to the registry, if deemed necessary by the Secretary.  Again, a very scary proposition knowing the government, by virtue of caring for you, now has the ability (mandate?) to track your life thereafter and that the value of your choices may impact the next citizen needing such device.


First, by no means am I a lawyer, which you most certainly need to be to really be able to understand the provisions of this bill, but I have picked out the sections of the bill that seemed most easy to understand.  That being said, this is by no means a full accounting of the privacy and control issues that exist with this disastrous legislation, but hopefully, it’s enough to open your eyes and start asking questions.

** Note:  I did not even start getting into the limitations and restrictions that this bill would put on our Doctors and Nurses.  I felt that this post was getting far too long, but rest assured, if passed, the medical profession would cease to be the sought after career it once was due to the suffocating control imposed upon it by our government.  If interested, I will dig into it, but not until.  That said, stay tuned in next few days when I look into other claims of this so-called “health reform act”.

Joe Wilson is my hero!

Why would I consider Joe Wilson (R -S.Carolina) my hero you ask? The answer is simple: On September 9th, 2009, President Obama was giving a speech to a joint session of Congress dispelling the "myths of healthcare" when he made a statement that "Illegal Aliens would not be covered under the current health care plan" to which Rep. Joe Wilson responded with a resounding "YOU LIE!"

Why would this simple act raise this man to hero status in my eyes? It did so because Rep. Wilson spoke the truth, he had passion about the American President lying to the American people, and with those simple words, brought a much needed question to the forefront of this debate, which is "What is the truth?"

Today's leadership tries very hard to spread the falsehood that illegals won't be covered because, due to a Rasmussen poll, nearly 80% of the American population oppose the covering of illegal aliens under any health care plan Critics: Free Health Care means more illegals Many proponents will even state that the bill doesn't specifically include coverage for illegal aliens so therefore the president is correct. They will even go so far as to point out Section 246 of the bill specifically denies subsidies and payments "on behalf of of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States". However, it's important to note, while this provision is included within the bill, there are absolutely zero methods to enforce this section of the bill. In fact, any attempt by the Republicans to ammend the bill so this section is enforceable, have been defeated by the Democrat leadership.

Rep. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) offered up a Republican ammendment to the health care plan that would have provided checks and balances, and a method of enforcement, to prevent illegal aliens from receiving government subsidized health care, however, this ammendment was shot down by the House Ways and Means committee in a 26-to-15 vote following straight party lines. So if the Democrats are so opposed to the covering of illegal aliens, why defeat an ammendment that would ensure it's probablilty? The answer is, they are counting on the fact that Section 246 is unenforceable, providing them their goal of complete coverage, while allowing them to maintain that they opposed it all along. Now are you starting to see the genius of Rep. Wilson's statement?

Jack Martin, Director of Special Project at the Federation for American Immigration Reform states, that by defeating Rep. Heller's ammendment, “there is no system for the verification of identity, and the entitlement to receive those benefits." Urban Grind The Congression Research Service (CRS) itself states "Under H.R. 3200, a 'Health Insurance Exchange' would begin operation in 2013 and would offer private plans alongside a public option…H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens—whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently—participating in the Exchange." Washington Examiner The CRS goes on to state that there are no provision requiring those that seek coverage or services to provide any proof of citizenship.

Lastly, the leadership is operating on the principal of "least known facts" to help ensure that they reach their goal of covering illegals. Even under section 246, the standards are so lax, it would not be hard for illegals to meet the standard. According to John Sheils of the Lewin Group, a health care consulting firm for UnitedHealth Group, of the 12 million undocumented aliens (Obama's number given during the 2008 presidential campaign), over half (5-6 million) use falsified documents to obtain employment. Ronald W Mortensen, in a recent Center for Immigration Studies research paper, puts that estimate even higher by stating that experts suggest that ~75% of working age illegals use fraudulent Social Security cards for employment dispelling the misconception that illegals are undocumented. Couple that with the fact that many can use these documents to obtain Driver's Licenses and/or State ID cards, you can start to see how Section 246 of the health care plan will do absolutely nothing to prevent the coverage of illegal aliens under the government plan.

So with all that said, again, Rep. Joe Wilson is my hero for have the courage and fortitude to stand up and publicly call the President out on what he was doing, which is lying to the American people. The only thing I disagree with Rep. Wilson on is that he apologized for his statements. Was the outburst against congressional decorum, yes, but at a time when this country's leadership is doing everything in it's power to bancrupt and move this country down a socialist path, I think a lack of decorum is needed! Sen. John McCain called Rep. Wilson's comments "totally disrespectful" and asked for an apology. Well Sen. McCain, maybe if you would have had showed the same passion and contempt for the lies as Joe Wilson, you might not have lost the election to begin with and we wouldn't be worring about this disaster that is ObamaCare. To all the Congress men and women who felt the need to condemn Rep. Wilson for his comments, take a look around you. See that your constituents do not want this bill passed and that it is bad for America. You condemn the man that "was disrespectful and engaged in childish name calling" but you say nothing about a President who stands before his people and flat out lies about his plans. You are silent while our President leads us down yet another road of broken promises and false statements. You should look in yourself and see, Joe Wilson did what was right for America and called out the lies that are being spoken to us. I would consider this country lucky if we had more representatives like Joe Wilson and less that are willing to sacrifice the good of this country for misguided "respect and decorum".