Two-faced Politics or Convenience?

The President is pushing for this new reform on Wall Street.  Okay, maybe some reform is in order - like making the SEC more accountable for its inaction.  I can't say I know everything about Wall Street politics even though I have walked on Wall Street a few times - Trinity Church is beautiful from there.  I can't find my pictures of it or I would add them here.

I can say that two-faced politics are happening.  Wall Street is being reigned in while Fannie and Freddie are being let loose.  Why not reign in those two causes of the housing crisis?  Could it be that the money Fannie and Freddie make off the government ends up in the pockets of politicians?

Did you know: "The federal government owns more than 50,000 vacant homes."  source

I wonder how many of those were funded by Fannie or Freddie?

Kindle Wireless Reading Device (6" Display, Global Wireless, Latest Generation)

Health Care Reform and the Constitution

by Kerby Anderson

While most of the current debate about health care reform has focused on its cost, some members of Congress are talking about whether these bills would be constitutional. Senator Orrin Hatch raises a number of important questions in a recent editorial.

He notes that for the first time, "the federal government would be ordering Americans to buy a particular product or service they had not chosen to purchase." He is talking about the requirement that individuals purchase health insurance. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service concluded that this is an unprecedented constitutional issue.

Another constitutional problem with this mandate is that the penalty for failing to purchase health insurance is not a tax but a penalty. The Senate Finance Committee bill says it is an excise tax, but it is really a fine assessed against those who do not buy insurance.

Senator Hatch says this matters "because the Constitution requires that a direct tax be apportioned among the states based on population." An analysis published in the BNA Tax Report confirms that the penalty imposed on people "who don't buy health insurance would be an unapportioned direct tax in violation of the Constitution."

And another provision in the Senate Finance bill would impose an excise tax on the sale of high-premium insurance plans and provide relief from that tax for insurers in certain states. Once again, this appears to be in violation of the Constitution since it requires that excise taxes be "uniform throughout the United States." This tax cannot be uniform if it varies from state to state and gives preference to those states that are fortunate to have senators who serve on the committee and can write exemptions for those states.

Senator Hatch concludes by pointing out that it is "tempting to brush the Constitution aside to pursue political objectives, to let the ends justify the means. But if politics trumps the Constitution, the Constitution cannot limit government and, therefore, cannot protect liberty."

The senator is raising important constitutional issues. Congress should listen. I'm Kerby Anderson, and that's my point of view.

Mr. Newt Gingrich on Democrats Using Third World Tactics in Politics

I hope Mr. Gingrich doesn't mind, but I had to share this. I also made comments here and there in ( )'s. You can find more great articles here: Human Events.com

Turning the Senate into the Chicago City Council

by Newt Gingrich

"Using the budget reconciliation process to pass health reform and climate change legislation…would violate the intent and spirit of the budget process, and do serious injury to the constitutional role of the Senate."

These are not the words of a Republican or a conservative activist.

This is a warning issued on April 2 of this year from the former Democratic Majority Leader in the Senate, Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.).

He was referring to a dangerous assault on American freedom as it is protected by the constitutional balance of power – an assault that is being considered by the Obama Administration right now.

"We Pour Legislation into the Senatorial Saucer to Cool It"

The Founding Fathers designed the Constitution and our government to guard against political power grabs by slowing down the process of making laws.

(Slow it down and read it, please!)

They insisted that the Senate had to be a deliberative body to slow down the passions of the House and stop mob rule from destroying freedom.

In a famous conversation between the two presidents, Thomas Jefferson is said to have asked George Washington why the Framers had agreed to a second chamber in Congress at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. "Why did you pour that coffee into your saucer?" Washington asked him. "To cool it," said Jefferson. "Even so," said Washington, "we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it."

(I just loved that quote)

The Founders Relied on the Senate to Carefully Consider Before They Commit Us to a New Law

One of the key means by which the Senate slows down the legislative process is through the filibuster.

Unlike in the House, in the Senate, even a small group of senators can hold up a bill by threatening to continuously debate it.

It takes the votes of three-fifths of the Senate, or 60 senators, to end a filibuster. This means that it effectively takes 60 votes to pass a controversial piece of legislation or nomination.

And again, this is for good reason. The Founders looked to the House to more directly reflect the will of the people. They relied on the Senate to take a step back and carefully consider a bill before they commit the American people and our resources to it.

A Revolutionary Act Worthy of a Third World Country

I have taken this brief tour of American constitutional history to make an important point: The Obama Administration clearly has concluded it cannot get a big government health plan through the Senate if they accept the traditional, historic requirement of a 60-vote majority.

It is also clear left-wing activists would cheerfully destroy the integrity of the Senate and the freedoms it protects if that is what it takes to get a government-run, bureaucratic health care system which would expand their power and increase the importance of Washington.

Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the Democratic majority leader, has warned that a failure to get 60 votes would lead him to try to force through a bill with 50 senators and Vice President Joe Biden breaking the tie.

(And they call the President's podium the "bully pulpit"?)

Changing one-sixth of the American economy with 50 senators voting yes would be a revolutionary act worthy of a third world country.

(Where are their heads in this? We as a nation are suffering and all they can think about is their ideology. Socialism run a muck!)

Senator Byrd: "Reconciliation was Intended to Adjust Revenue and Spending Levels in Order to Reduce Deficits"

The Obama Administration and Sen. Reid are considering getting around the 60-vote majority rule in the Senate by using a process called "reconciliation." Under reconciliation, just 51 votes are required to pass a bill.

(Maybe they should call it "decapitation" because they are going to decapitate our economy)

Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd, whom I quoted at the beginning of this message, has unique authority on reconciliation. Not only is he the author of a remarkable history of the Senate (four volumes published between 1989 and 1995), he was, as he wrote, "one of the authors of the reconciliation process," which was created in 1985.

Here is what he said about using reconciliation to pass things like health care reform: "I can tell you that the ironclad parliamentary procedures it authorizes were never intended for this purpose. Reconciliation was intended to adjust revenue and spending levels in order to reduce deficits."

(I have criticized Mr. Byrd in the past but he is quickly winning me over to his brief moment of wisdom)

Sen. Byrd concluded with this warning: "The Senate cannot perform its constitutional role if senators forego debate and amendments. I urge senators to jealously guard their individual rights to represent their constituents on such critical matters."

(Right on)

For 20 Years, I Was Told to Be Patient When Conservatives Couldn't Muster 60 Votes

For 20 years as a member of the House, I was told to be patient when conservative reforms could not muster 60 votes or a conservative nomination could not get 60 votes.

For the last decade I was told to be patient when reforms conservatives wanted and personnel conservatives wanted were blocked by the lack of 60 votes in the Senate.

Now after a lifetime of sustaining the constitutional role of the Senate, we find that the left wants to suspend the normal constitutional process so they can ram through a gigantic government run health program immediately.

(And they are rushing why? Couldn't be that their time is running out? Or are they afraid the polar caps will melt too quickly, and they want aliens to find that they passed this bill as an "effort to save mankind")

Every American Who Cherishes the Institutions That Have Preserved Our Liberty Will Tell Their Senators to Fight

We are being told the Obama agenda is so important we should destroy the Senate and make it more like the House of Representatives.

(Mr. Gingrich is right on here)

This radical action may make sense to President Obama, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and senior strategist David Axelrod, all of whom come from Chicago and are used to seeing the Chicago City Council muscled by a strong mayor on behalf of a machine.

However, every American who cherishes freedom and appreciates the institutions that have preserved us from tyranny will be telling their senators to preserve the integrity of the Senate and preserve the protections of American liberty.

This fight over process may turn out to be even more important than the fight over the substance of the big government, big bureaucracy, high-tax health bill they want.

When both process and policy are wrong there is something very bad going on.

(Thanks Mr. Gingrich - Here's more from Human Events.com)

I, uh, I, um, Bush Did It Too...

Robert Gibbs about the czars - can't answer the questions so deflects it back to President Bush. These appointments are not legal yet no one will man up enough to say so.

What President Obama Needs To Say

Tonight, President Obama is going to give one of the most important speeches of his administration. Why? This speech will show if he is truly ready to stand up and be a leader.

This entire debate now falls upon leadership, and I will be looking as to whether he falls into step with his party or not. If he does, we will see this plan fall to pieces, because he refuses to be the leader he was elected to be.

There are many points of contention in this plan:

• It is too long and too much for one bill. It needs to be broken down and dealt with topic by topic. If the president agrees to this, he will be showing leadership.
• The government option (call it what it is!) is a boiling point. The liberals want it, and the American public does not. To drop it will lose votes, and to keep it will lose votes. Here is a major point of leadership. He has already said in the past that this is his one goal - a single payer system. Where will he stand tonight?
• The cost of the various options being "submitted" (because if you are not a Democrat you are not allowed to have your plans heard), are astronomical. He wants this plan to be revenue neutral. To pay for it, you have to make major cuts somewhere. Where is he going to stand on this?
• Also on costs, the current mountains of pages hide costs in various places. Some plans push a bulk of the costs onto states which are already in the hole economically. Other options hide costs by calling for "non-budgeted" expenditures which are totalling in the billions. Will he address this?
• What about tort reform? The democrats will not touch it with a ten thousand foot pole because they are heavily funded in their campaigns by these lawyers (case in point, the former Senator, wife cheating, ambulance chasing lawyer named Edwards). The Republicans want reform. A real leader will make some kind of move towards fixing this problem which would save doctors billions, that in turn would cut costs for patients.
• The people do not want the IRS having more power (we want it abolished anyway, but that is another debate). To suggest that the IRS should be allowed to fine people without health coverage goes far beyond the scope of this under-controlled institution. Also, health records do not need to be sent to the feds for better record keeping. That is too much government and too close to home. We want a federal government that is a whole lot less cozy with us. President Obama needs to address this issue.
  

There are also points to agree on:

• People with pre-existing conditions (such as myself) need hope that they can find good care in the future.
• People who lose their jobs need hope that they can carry their insurance until they get a new job and either get new insurance or be allowed keep what they have.
• There needs to be more competition instead of one or two insurance companies dominating a state. The federal government could fix this easily with interstate commerce adjustments.
• Costs need to be clear. Patients need to be able to shop the costs.

To see a good framework for such a plan look here: Empowering Patients

These pillars, in the Empowering Patients Act, were framed by doctors, who are now representatives in Congress, and can be subdivided for separate debate. That what we really want.

So Mr. President, again, if you are listening. Do not shove this enormous bill down our throats. It is too much to swallow and way too much for legitimate debate. If you really want to get it right, break it up in pieces. Then we can get to the real debate and real changes for those who need it. Thanks for listening, if you are. I guess we will find out tonight.

Predicted Deficit Spending By Obama, Stop the Bleeding

If you haven't seen it on a chart, here it is (source)


It is time to stop the bleeding, sign the petition here: Balance, Cut, Save

Evil-Mongers, AstroTurf and Mobs, Oh My

Harry Reid calls us evil-mongers. Nancy Pelosi calls us astro-turf, and the White house calls us a mob.

I guess they are hearing it. They are so frightened that name calling continues to be ratcheted to higher levels.

What would they say if I called Harry Reid an witch hunter (one who seeks to demonize anyone who opposes them)? What if I called Nacy Pelosi an Astro-Smurf (someone who is fake and ultra-liberal)? What if I called the White House mob bosses (wait, I already do that)? I had to define each of those for the small mindedness of these leaders.

George W. Bush called the despots of this world evil. As William McGurn so handily points out, Ronald Reagan called the Soviet empire evil.

But when have we ever seen a politician call Americans evil?

First, let's look at the definition of this term (sorry, today is definition day). A monger in this since is person promoting something undesirable or discreditable.

Since evil is used as an adjective, let's explore that word according to dictionary.com:

1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
2. harmful; injurious: evil laws.
3. characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
4. due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.
5. marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.

So, if you put it together, an evil monger is a liberal democrat, no, no: is a person who with malice and discontent seeks to bring harm to those weaker than themselves in hopes to promote their undesirable goods or services.

A monger was originally a peddler of goods. So as an evil monger, a person who disagrees with the leaders of the democratic party is selling a load of junk. Isn't that why Americans are mad?

Aren't we angry because of the load junk being forced on us by our current leaders? Socialism, the global warming farce, the wasted stimulus, and more are all pouring out of the mouths of those who say they are taking a higher moral ground.

Now, the president is going to spin his ideas again but this time he plans on playing on the emotions of people. The White House has turned to psychological warfare in order to win at all costs. And if that doesn't work, the democrats are threatening (along with the White House) to throw a tantrum by forcing us to swallow the goods they are peddling.

The real mongers are those who are trying to force this bad legislation through without the support of the citizens of this great country. The definition of evil says it is marked by anger and irritability. The response of the citizens isn't a mark of anger because we are not the ones trying to peddle junk. The reaction of the leaders, however, to how negatively people are responding to their peddling turns the table on Mr. Reid. Spin it anyway you want but you are still left with a bad piece of legislation.

For a better plan look here (and you can even read it in one sitting): Empowering Patients / Facebook page

The Answer To Rationing

That's right. I just read a story about how they are diagnosing people over the phone in England.

What a great idea. Staff hundreds of phone lines with people who needs jobs and give them the health symptom chart similar to those used for diagnosing computer problems at call centers in India (better still ship the jobs to India so no one can understand the diagnosis).

Don't believe this is happening? Read here.

A 16 year old girl died because of this only weeks after another young girl died. The first girl was diagnosed with H1N1 as was this girl. The first actually had meningitis. This girl, Charlotte Hartey, had tonsillitis!

Yes, government controlled health care is perfect for everyone.

Of course, the news of the day is how the White House is deciding that the "public option" is not a necessary part of the health care plan. As if that was the only problem with the bills being proposed? They still do not have a clue. There are thousands of pages being offered for consideration and hundreds of those pages have problems which restrict personal freedoms, hinder proper care, and misappropriate tax dollars while increasing the tax burden on all of us.

On top of this, the Washington Times has a commentary piece that shows how adding a simple word can actually cost the government health care plan billions. How? By changing the the methods of how doctors judge the necessity of care. The government wants to add "or medically appropriate" to the diagnosis process which means that not only will medically necessary tests be paid, but so will any test or procedure deemed appropriate. Read it for yourself.

Obama Supporters Being Paid to Show Up At Town Halls and Be Loud

Just returned from fishing with my little boy. Or should I say, just returned from feeding the fish. Little fish kept eating our bait. Glad something liked the nightcrawlers we used.

Anyway, I just came across this interesting tidbit in the LA Times. The Fund for the Public Interest is promising $400 to $600 a week to volunteers for helping to get people to show up at town hall events.

It seems that Mr Obama cannot garner up enough support to have people show up on their own free will. Instead, his supporters have to pay people to show up. Seems to me that if someone likes an idea enough then they will show up without having to be paid. Maybe this is a sign that people really do not like it.

ACORN and the SEIU are also getting into the act, Just yesterday, they bused in people from another district to counteract the overwhelmingly large crowd that showed up at an Arlen Specter meeting in opposition to the plan.

Here is the video. Pay attention to a couple of things:

• Read the sign of one of the SEIU people yelling that says, "Yelling is counter productive"
• Take notice of all the red ACORN shirts, the bus loads of people wearing ACORN buttons, and the few people who dared to wear their blue union shirts.
  

How Do You Pay For It, Mr. President?

Nothing like a night of karate to get rid of aggravation and clear the mind. So my mind begins to stir, and I begin to wonder about children and how they need to be led and reassured and chastised.

Then it happened. I had an epiphany. The White House leadership believes we cannot think for ourselves and should not be allowed to do so. They want to do the thinking for us. This is why today's town hall meeting with the president was again very docile. He opened with a speech that told us why he thinks we need what he is proposing.

Not once did he say, "I have listened to what you want and have put together a team to work out a plan that will be best for all of America based on your concerns and your input." No. He sugar coated everything, then told us what he was going to do.

Unfortunately, he cannot bring himself to really listen to us. This is why 90% of the talking was done by him as he fielded what, 9 questions? He cannot bring himself to listen to us because he has already decided what he wants. Why? He seems to have programmed his mind to accept only one outcome for government - a "Americanized" form of socialism. He has spent years bouncing his ideas off of who? Socialists, Marxists, self-proclaimed "freedom fighters" (I mean a local terrorist), and a minister who spent a large amount of his time criticizing America.

Now that I have criticized him, let me build him up. President Obama can become the hero in all of this if, as a leader, he will take the lead and offer reform that the people can trust. Compromise is not bad thing. At least, he is trying to get something done (he just needs to remember that he represents us, not rules us).

We need health care reform but not at the extent he is proposing from the federal government. We do not need more federal intervention. We want less government, not more.

• Besides, if we need a public option so bad, then why not use medicaid as that option? Is it that bad?
• If they know that Medicare and Medicaid are losing money because of waste, then why not start there. Cut the waste and use it to strengthen those two programs.
• Next, use medicaid to cover those who are losing insurance for three reason: loss of job, pre-existing conditions, and dropped coverage. And let these conditions be the only conditions other than the normal threshold of Medicaids current coverage.
  
• Finally, make it easier for insurance companies to sell across state lines - this is what the commerce clause are for in our Constitution, right?

So how do we pay for it?

Just by cutting off the waste, says our President, we can pay for 2/3's of the plan. Then by magically changing the withholdings allowed for those who make $250,000 or more, we can pay for the other 1/3. Is he for real?

Why not do better?

Why not use the Empowering Patients First Act (printable copy)

Pillar #1: Access to Coverage for All Americans

• Makes the purchase of health care financially feasible for all – Extends the income tax deduction (above the line) on health care premiums to those who purchase coverage in the non-group / individual market. And, there is an advanceable, refundable tax credit (on a sliding scale) for low-income individuals to purchase coverage in the non-group / individual market.
• Covers pre-existing conditions – Grants states incentives to establish high-risk / reinsurance pools. Federal block grants for qualified pools are expanded.
• Protects employer-sponsored insurance – Individuals can be automatically enrolled in an employer-sponsored plan. Small businesses are given tax incentives for adoption of auto-enrollment.
• Shines sunlight on health plans – Establishes health plan and provider portals in each state, and these portals act to supply greater information rather than acting as a purchasing mechanism.
  

Pillar #2: Coverage is Truly Owned by the Patient

• Grants greater choice and portability – Gives patients the power to own and control their own health care coverage by allowing for a defined contribution in employer-sponsored plans. This also gives employers more flexibility in the benefits offered.
• Expands the individual market – Creates pooling mechanisms such as association health plans and individual membership accounts. Individuals are also allowed to shop for health insurance across state lines.
• Reforms the safety net – Medicaid and SCHIP beneficiaries are given the option of a voucher to purchase private insurance. And states must cover 90% of those below 200% of the federal poverty level before they can expand eligibility levels under Medicaid and SCHIP.
  

Pillar #3: Improve the Health Care Delivery Structure

• Institutes doctor-led quality measures – Nothing suggested by the Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research can be finalized unless done in consultation with and approved by medical specialty societies. It also establishes performance-based quality measures endorsed by the Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement (PCPI) and physician specialty organizations.
• Reimburses physicians to ensure continuity of care – Rebases the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) and establishes two separate conversion factors (baskets) for primary care and all other services.
• Promotes healthier lifestyles – Allows for employers to offer discounts for healthy habits through wellness and prevention programs.
  

Pillar #4: Rein in Out-of-Control Costs

• Reforms the medical liability system – Establishes administrative health care tribunals, also known as health courts, in each state, and adds affirmative defense through provider established best practice measures. It also encourages the speedy resolution of claims and caps non-economic damages.
• Pays for the plan – The cost of the plan is completely offset through decreasing defensive medicine, savings from health care efficiencies (reduce DSH payments), ferreting out waste, fraud and abuse, plus an annual one-percent non-defense discretionary spending step down.

America's Health Care Town Hall

As a supporter of Karen Handel, I wanted to let those of you in Georgia who read this blog know that she will be at the Centennial Olympic Park in Atlanta from 1-4 PM for America's Health Care Town Hall. If you want to volunteer for Karen, go here: volunteer

To learn more about this fantastic event, check it out here: Town Hall
They have a great line up of speakers. Enjoy your Saturday!

To Lie or Not To Lie

Is President Obama lying in order to secure the passage of this health care plan?

Well, He said that AARP endorses the bill. AARP says no, but they do favor reform.

He says that each individual is overpaying by $6,000 than any other country. Fact Check says:

In fact, the U.S. spends about $7,000 per person per year in total, according to OECD figures. We spend about $2,500 more per person than the next highest-spending country, not $6,000.

Finally, he says that he hasn't been in favor of a single payer system for all the nation. Nor did he say it would take time to get there either. But when you watch the uncut version of the video of him saying he does. Well....watch the video.

Now what does proponent mean? Well according to Dictionary.com:

1. a person who puts forward a proposition or proposal.
2. a person who argues in favor of something; an advocate.
3. a person who supports a cause or doctrine; adherent.

Well, in the words of the church lady, "Isn't that special."

So, is he lying or just bending the truth because absolute truth is passe?

Now, his White House is saying that all the Town Hall raucous is because of the cable news (Fox news to be accurate - since they won't be). They are calling the "dissidents" a manufactured crowd that does not reflect the thoughts of America. Oh really?

Is that why the latest Rasmussen polls continually show that support for the health care bill is crashing to just below 40%? Is that why such said poll is showing that the honeymoon is fading with our President as his approval ratings plummet to under 50%?

It could not be because he is fibbing to us, could it? I have taught my kids that lying if wrong.

There are six things the Lord hates — no, seven things he detests:

haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that kill the innocent, a heart that plots evil, feet that race to do wrong, a false witness who pours out lies, a person who sows discord in a family. Proverbs 6:16-19 (NLT)

I will not allow deceivers to serve in my house, and liars will not stay in my presence. Psalms 101:7 (NLT)

If a ruler pays attention to liars, all his advisers will be wicked. Proverbs 29:12 (NLT)

A lying tongue hates its victims, and flattering words cause ruin. Proverbs 26:28 (NLT)

Congressman John Fleming Empowering Patients First

If you haven't seen the petition for this, you are missing a great opportunity to get Congress to sign up for this health care debacle they are creating.

Rep. Fleming has introduced a bill that basically asks Congress to put their money where there mouth is. Visit his site and sign the petition and look at his ideas for health care.

By the way, he actually knows what he is talking about since he has been a physician for about 30 years.

EMPOWERING PATIENTS FIRST ACT

Obama Health Care Supporters Threaten Harm to Opposition

You have probably seen him standing up and yelling at his representative as he stood behind his son, who was in a wheelchair. Now look at this interview and pay particular attention to the fact that someone has now threaten him, his son, and his wife.




Unions are taking up their arms and harassing people left and right through beatings and threats. President Obama's White House is lashing out the only way it knows how. They are "community organizing" and daring people to stand up in the face of others.

Now they have launched a second website in order to declare their intent about health care reform. Here is what Mr Obama's personal website says:

As you've probably seen in the news, special interest attack groups are stirring up partisan mobs with lies about health reform, and it's getting ugly. Across the country, members of Congress who support reform are being shouted down, physically assaulted, hung in effigy, and receiving death threats. We can't let extremists hijack this debate, or confuse Congress about where the people stand.

What happened to civil debate? Why attack people by calling them names (yes, I am just as guilty of this and two wrongs do not make a right)? The sad thing about this statement is that they are ignoring the just as grievous attacks by people who support this plan. They instead launched a website that says their opponents need a Reality Check. This website is meant to enhance the Health Reform site they are already running.

Of course you can see the two most frequently used words on all three of the these site: status quo and scare tactics. Of course, status quo politics and scaring people into believing that there are not any other real health care reform ideas, are not their tactics? Are they?

A fool shows his annoyance at once, but a prudent man overlooks an insult.

A truthful witness gives honest testimony, but a false witness tells lies.

Reckless words pierce like a sword, but the tongue of the wise brings healing.

Truthful lips endure forever, but a lying tongue lasts only a moment.

There is deceit in the hearts of those who plot evil, but joy for those who promote peace.

No harm befalls the righteous, but the wicked have their fill of trouble.

The Lord detests lying lips, but he delights in men who are truthful.
Prov 12:16-22 (NIV)

There is a lesson here for both sides of the issue. Fools show annoyance at once. They have a hard time maintaining a peaceful, reserved manner. Some who oppose government health care have stepped over the line.

Lies, however, will never quell the spirit of those who are being railroaded by reckless legislation. So I hope everyone listens to their hearts and finds the peace and strength necessary to have better debate throughout the rest of the Congressional recess.

Maybe I should listen a little more closely to this advice myself.

The New Democratic Process

Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) has taken upon himself the opportunity to criticize people for standing up against the health care bill. He says such people, like me, are standing in the way of democracy. Yep, we are in the way because we actually have a point of contest with men and women who are supposed to represent their constituents not Washington D.C.

The White House has vowed to fight back against people who stand up for themselves and don't roll over. The new democratic process is to demand that people cannot think for themselves, thus the White House will think for them.

The White House mob bosses have taken it upon themselves to bully people into accepting despotism. Why because they seem to believe that Congress represents them!

What happen to the checks and balances? Wait, I know. The checks are being spent without care and the balance is broken.

When did our country lose sight of representative government? The White House bosses better get a clue - mobs only follow mob bosses.

They say that no one is coming up with better ideas. That's because mob bosses do not listen and do not care. It is about them and only them and their pride.

Of course, we know where pride leads:

When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom. Proverbs 11:2 (NIV)

Pride only breeds quarrels, but wisdom is found in those who take advice. Proverbs 13:10 (NIV)

Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall. Proverbs 16:18 (NIV)

Better Ideas and Better Plans:

Let's all agree that no one wants to see anybody suffer because they cannot get good care. No one should be penalized because they have a pre-existing condition. No one should be denied access to care. Our disagreement is in how to help people get coverage.

So from CPR here is their ideas (for those in Congress and the White House whom haven't been listening):

Choice: A patient must have the right to choose their own doctor, and must protect a consumer's right to choose the health insurance that best fits their needs and budget.

Competition: Leveling the playing field for doctors, insurers, and consumers will result in healthy competition that drives down costs and increases favorable outcomes. Providers should publicly post their prices so consumers can shop and compare. States should eliminate burdensome regulations so insurance companies can compete equally across state lines.

Accountability: Making health care services more accessible, transparent and open through standardized insurance claims forms and equal tax breaks for individuals and companies will control costs by helping consumers and businesses compare "apples to apples" across the health care spectrum.

Personal Responsibility: Placing responsibility squarely where it belongs, on the shoulders of the patient, will encourage individuals make to make healthy lifestyle choices. Infusing personal responsibility into health care reform allows us all to maintain our cherished freedom to live our lives without government intrusion.

And from the Heritage Foundation:

• A Principled Path to Rational Health Care Reform
• Ensuring Access to Affordable Health Insurance: A Memo to President Obama
• Health Care Reform: Design Principles for a Patient-Centered, Consumer-Based Market

The Government is Losing Income Tax Revenue

22 and 57

What do those numbers represent?

Give up?

The first number represents an amount of individual income tax revenues. The second represent corporate tax revenues. Still do not know?

Tax revenues from individual income tax is DOWN 22% as well as tax revenue from corporate taxes which is down a whopping 57%!

This equals billions of dollars. Where is our government going to get the money to pay for all these plans for health care, clunker programs, and other spending programs?

You guessed it. Geithner did not speak out of place. I watched Robert Gibbs, the White House spokesman, dance around the subject of taxing the middle class yesterday. In his "uhs" and "ums", he unequivocally opened the door for higher taxes which will be wagered on the middle class - you and me.

History is repeating itself. Things are bad but because the liberal Democrats have not read the history that led up to the Great Depression; they are on the fast track to repeating the same mistakes which prolonged that depression - higher taxes (cap and trade), corporate taxes, and then middle class taxes.

We can make better choices:

• The FairTax is a good start - creates a constant flow of revenue for our federal government
  

• Cutting corporate taxes and giving small businesses tax breaks for job creation would be an easier start - lowers the prices of goods and helps provide revenue for businesses to create new jobs
  

• Drastically cutting back in federal spending is another - federal waste does not create jobs; it creates more debt
  

But the best idea would be for the President to man up and stop signing ridiculous spending bills and to revoke the stimulus spending. Why? The stimulus spending is not a fix - it is a bubble creator. He needs to be man enough to admit, now is not time for the change he is hoping for. Better change would come from a president who would much rather fix the spending problem of our government. Reduce spending and start paying off our national debt. Only then will we be in a better financial standing as a nation.

The stimulus is creating a situation in which inflation will skyrocket and the national debt will continue to bloom. The stimulus spending, when it actually gets spent, will in time make the economy look better - but at what cost? The stimulus is not a fix; it is a bandage. The problem is unfettered government spending which will take decades to recover from.

I am not a doomsayer. I am a realist. When I wanted to get control of my finances - I paid off all my debt. My wife and I will no longer use debt to fund our life. We use cash, and boy is it liberating!

Our federal government can do the same thing but very, very, hard decisions must be made, and that must come from stronger leadership.

Blue Dog Democrats, Kudos to the Rational

Blue tick hounds are the feature of one of my favorite childhood stories, Where the Red Fern Grows. These hounds were faithful, loyal, and down right great hunters in the book.

Today we are witnessing a Blue Dog rebellion that proves that all Democrats have not fallen for the lust for power. I do not know how many will remain this way but until then - KUDOS to the Blue Dogs.

• They have proven that they are faithful to the people that they represent and not the party sing-a-long.

• They have proven that they are loyal and committed to the American ideal, an ideal that began with our forefathers: a republic for the people and by the people (not the ruling party)

• They have also proven to be great hunters as they are actually reading through the 1000 page nightmare being called "health care reform".

These great hunters have unearthed a $100 billion dollar fiasco that was written into the bill. Someone thought that they would be clever with the budget by putting in a provision for general health care (which would cover shots, wellness visits and such). This sounds great until you hear the next part.

The $100 Billion dollars will NOT be included as a budgeted item. In other words, the Democrats who are pushing this mess are hiding spending on health care! How else could they change the numbers and make the costs look better?

Let me put it in a better picture. Say I have a $2000 a month budget for my household. All the money has a category, and I do not have any extra income. But I decide to make a provision for $1000 more a month spending, without any way of covering the cost (not on credit or any other means of payment).

I can't do that. But the "fuzzy" math of our legislature allows them to print money whenever the feel like it. SO they fake the numbers and lie to us about the real costs!

Oh no, you say. Read Jamie Dupree's blog. Here is a snippet:

How about the title of Section 1705 for some good government language, "Expanded Outstationing."

This basically makes it easier for people to apply for help from the government at "DSH" hospitals - Disproportionate Share Hospitals, which get money from the feds and states to treat indigent patients.

Section 1712 would drop the "Tobacco Cessation Exclusion From Covered Outpatient Drugs."

That would make tobacco cessation counseling a covered benefit for pregnant women, according to one review of this bill.

Medicare began covering some of these type services in 2005.

Finally, let's talk about the government exempting some of its operations from certain laws, in this case the Paperwork Reduction Act, which has a self-explanatory title.

This bill has one specific exemption from that law, in Section 1221 on "Ensuring Effective Communication in Medicare."

I will let you come up with some quick one-liners on how an excessive amount of paperwork might not ensure effective communication.

Remember, you can download the bill yourself at http://bit.ly/nSL2A

As we work through the details of these bills, I keep getting complaints about my effort to see what's in these, in other words an accusation of media bias against the Democrats and President Obama.

One person was especially aggravated at my blog about Section 2002, which had a special budgetary exemption, so that certain costs were not counted on budget.

Don't believe the compost coming out of Washington! read it for yourself and see the disaster awaiting for us as our politicians seek to sink our nation into the mire of a greater depression.

It's time for the hippie revolution on Capital Hill to end.

Your Government Protectionist at Work

The American Family Association does not clarify that heterosexuality is normal in this list. Left undefined, many people will try to use this bill to justify any immoral sexual act. The list given is a list of all "sexual orientations" that can be classified as "protected" in the Hate Crimes bill.

From the AFA:

The Hate Crime law, S.909 (and HR1913), will make 30 sexual orientations federally-protected. The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has published 30 such sexual orientations that, because of Congress's refusal to define "sexual orientation," will be protected under this legislation. These 30 orientations are listed in the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), which is used by physicians, psychologists, social workers, nurses, and psychiatrists throughout the U.S. It is considered the dictionary of mental disorders. Those 30 sexual orientations include behaviors that are felonies or misdemeanors in most states.

Among those sexual orientations being protected by S.909 (and HR1913) are these:

Apotemnophilia - sexual arousal associated with the stump(s) of an Amputee
Asphyxophilia - sexual gratification derived from activities that involve oxygen deprivation through hanging, strangulation, or other means
Autogynephilia - the sexual arousal of a man by his own perception of himself as a woman or dressed as a woman
Bisexual - the capacity to feel erotic attraction toward, or to engage in sexual interaction with, both males and females
Coprophilia - sexual arousal associated with feces
Exhibitionism - the act of exposing one’s genitals to an unwilling observer to obtain sexual gratification
Fetishism/Sexual Fetishism - obtaining sexual excitement primarily or exclusively from an inanimate object or a particular part of the body
Frotteurism - approaching an unknown woman from the rear and pressing or rubbing the penis against her buttocks
Heterosexuality - the universal norm of sexuality with those of the opposite sex
Homosexual/Gay/Lesbian - people who form sexual relationships primarily or exclusively with members of their own gender
Gender Identity Disorder - a strong and persistent cross-gender identification, which is the desire to be, or the insistence that one is, or the other sex, "along with" persistent discomfort about one’s assigned sex or a sense of the inappropriateness in the gender role of that sex
Gerontosexuality - distinct preference for sexual relationships primarily or exclusively with an elderly partner
Incest - sex with a sibling or parent
Kleptophilia - obtaining sexual excitement from stealing
Klismaphilia - erotic pleasure derived from enemas
Necrophilia - sexual arousal and/or activity with a corpse
Partialism - A fetish in which a person is sexually attracted to a specific body part exclusive of the person
Pedophilia - Sexual activity with a prepubescent child (generally age 13 years or younger). The individual with pedophilia must be age 16 years or older and at least 5 years older than the child. For individuals in late adolescence with pedophilia, no precise age difference is specified, and clinical judgment must be used; both the sexual maturity of the child and the age difference must be taken into account; the adult may be sexually attracted to opposite sex, same sex, or prefer either
Prostitution - the act or practice of offering sexual stimulation or intercourse for money
Sexual Masochism - obtaining sexual gratification by being subjected to pain or humiliation
Sexual Sadism - the intentional infliction of pain or humiliation on another person in order to achieve sexual excitement
Telephone Scatalogia - sexual arousal associated with making or receiving obscene phone calls
Toucherism - characterized by a strong desire to touch the breast or genitals of an unknown woman without her consent; often occurs in conjunction with other paraphilia
Transgenderism - an umbrella term referring to and/or covering transvestitism, drag queen/king, and transsexualism
Transsexual - a person whose gender identity is different from his or her anatomical gender
Transvestite - a person who is sexually stimulated or gratified by wearing the clothes of the other gender
Transvestic Fetishism - intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving cross-dressing
Urophilia - sexual arousal associated with urine
Voyeurism - obtaining sexual arousal by observing people without their consent when they are undressed or engaged in sexual activity
Zoophilia/Bestiality - engaging in sexual activity with animals

To protect a "sexual orientation" under S.909 (and HR1913) - while leaving that term undefined -- is to protect this whole range of bizarre sexual behaviors. It is to normalize by federal law what are still considered to be mental disorders (paraphilias) by the American Psychiatric Association.

Politics as Usual Violating Senate Ethics

Senator Feinstein has decided that making money through the backdoor is more important than our economy. She decided to introduce legislation that would move $25 Billion into the FDIC for spending on their special projects. Okay, so this on the surface looks normal. But.....yes, there is a but....

Senator Feinstein's husband is the board chairman of a real estate company that just received a substantial contract with the FDIC. Again politics as usual, and a clear violation of Senate ethics statutes. Even more fishy is that Senator Feinstein is acting in an area that she is not responsible for. She is not on the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs which controls funding for the FDIC. [source]

Come Congress, how can you ignore this? How does the media ignore this? Is the golden girl from the Golden State going to get away with this? Maybe so since so many more politicians seem to dip into the same pot. You know they don't become millionaires just by being in Congress. Funny thing how their spouses become millionaires though.....

Gay Marriage and the National Stage

I have tried not to get into the deep when it comes to speaking about homosexuality and the agenda some have in forcing everyone to believe it is okay.

There is now legislation that, if passed in current form, would make it a felony for me to even say that homosexuality is a sin and ministers who preach it from the pulpit could face felony charges for saying it is a sin.

Now, we have a Miss USA contestant who was placed in the spotlight because she answered truthfully and honestly about her view on gay marriage.

Here is my view on the whole subject - homosexuality is not a national issue and should never be protected with a "anti-hate law". Such laws only create more hate and anger. Each state should have the right to either recognize homosexual partnerships (or marriage) or not. It is a state issue!

Yes, I believe homosexuality is a sinful practice. I also believe that looking at pornography, divorce, sex outside of marriage, and cheating on one's spouse are also sinful practices. Why homosexuality has become the "chief" sinful practice attacked by some Christians is beyond me.

The Bible tells us that all sexual immorality is a sin, and those who participate in those acts are on the verge of missing heaven completely. I say "on the verge" because I believe in a loving God who wants to forgive sin and restore relationship with all.

But to demonize a woman for her religious views or to make laws because a very, very, small minority want to silence the religious speech of others is beyond what our founding fathers ever imagined for our nation. It is also beyond anything that God would stand for.

Let the state's decide whether or not they will recognize gay marriage, and let God judge that state. Let's not bring more judgment upon our nation for trying to moralize immoral acts with legislation that tries to silence the majority.

Remember, we are not a democracy - we are a republic - a nation ruled by laws.

Here is a letter on the Hate Crimes Bill:

The enactment of so-called "hate crimes" legislation is a long stated objective of the homosexual agenda.

What "hate crimes" legislation does is lay the legal foundation and framework for investigating, prosecuting and persecuting pastors, business owners, and anyone else whose actions reflect their faith.

The House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to mark-up the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 this Wednesday, April 22. They need to hear from you.

It was in a similar hearing last Congress that Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) admitted that under the legislation pastors could be arrested for hate crimes.

The act would establish a new FEDERAL offense for so-called "hate crimes" and add "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" as protected classes. It will mandate a separate federal criminal prosecution for state offenses.

Adding "sexual orientation" to thought crimes legislation gives one set of crime victims a higher level of protection than it gives to people like you and me.

ALL people deserve to be protected from crime, not just certain groups.

Sign our Petition TODAY to say equal protection under the law means equal protection for ALL. Please join the over 22,000 people who have already signed this petition. If you have already signed, please forward to ten of your friends and ask them to sign.

Fight Hate Crimes!