LET'S TRY THIS ONE MORE TIME - DEFINING "RIGHTS" UNDER THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
That sentence is not about Constitutional guarantees, nor are they even Constitutional issues. They were a Jeffersonian philosophy defining the main issues that fomented the American Revolution, and he put them to paper in the Declaration of Independence.

Looking at that sentence logically, we know immediately that all men are not created equal in neither the physical, intellectual nor emotional sense. Jefferson was talking about the equality of their God given rights! And it's not just "men" who have these rights, women have them as well. "Men" was the predominant term in the 1700's because women had few officially sanctioned and supported rights at that time. In fact, in 1868 the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified proclaiming that all citizens were granted the protections of the Constitution against unjust state laws. This Amendment was also the first to define "citizens" and "voters" as "male." It wasn't until 1920 that women were granted the right to vote in the United States, after the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment.

The "right to Life" should be obvious, inasmuch as we have laws prohibiting the unlawful taking of a human life. The only discussion now appears to be one of establishing beyond any question precisely when "life" begins. That's a subject for an entirely different blog.

The "right to Liberty" would insure our ability to come and go freely. We should remain unrestrained and unmolested in our travels within the United States, and need not request permission from anyone to move freely from point to point within those borders. This right, and all the others, are guaranteed by the Articles of our Constitution!

Which takes me to the "right to the pursuit of Happiness". Evidently this one is a bit difficult for some people to grasp. It is not a right to always be happy, and to think so would be an indication of mental deficiency. The English dictionary defines "pursuit" thus:
transitive verb
1 : to follow in order to overtake, capture, kill, or defeat
2 : to find or employ measures to obtain or accomplish : seek
The implication here is that one must take action, or chase after a thing to be pursuing it. We do that through personal effort, using whatever physical, mental or emotional skills and talents with which we were blessed and/or developed. Pursue does not mean we sit on our butt and wait for happiness to come wandering by so we can grab a handful. It means that you have a right, through you own efforts, to chase after those things which you feel will bring you "happiness". You do not have a right to take from someone else without just compensation, nor do you have the right to take rewards from the taxed labors of others. When the ants tire of supporting the grasshopper, the grasshopper will eaten by them. And, as William Shakespeare wrote, "Yon Cassius has a lean and hungry look; he thinks too much; such men are dangerous."

HEALTH CARE QUICKIE... YOU DO THE MATH

Here's a little logic test for you. The Democrats health care plan is basically unchanged. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md, insists that the goal remains the same: "to pass far-reaching legislation that would (1) expand coverage, (2) reduce costs and (3) improve quality."

Expanding coverage of exactly what? It would be simple enough to expand the number of people covered by 40-50 million - all that it requires is a stroke of Obama's pen on the Democratic legislation. Swell - now we have 40-50 million more people using existing medical facilities and existing medical personnel!

Jumping over #2 - "reducing costs" (I'll come back to that) - let's go to #3... Improve quality. How do we accomplish that with the same number of hospitals and medical personnel, while providing services to an additional workload of 40-50 million patients? WE DON'T!! You cannot improve the quality of anything by simply increasing the workload. And, if we do not increase the facilities and personnel, the quality - and availability - of treatment will necessarily decrease.

Reducing costs is therefore impossible. You must expand existing facilities and/or build new ones, and increase the number of personnel accordingly. Who will provide the materials and labor for construction without cost? George Soros? NO! Will the medical equipment and supplies manufacturers donate their equipment and supplies? NO! Will the roughly 500,000 additional medical personnel work around the clock without pay? NO! The American taxpayer will pay for these "improvements" by way of higher taxes - that's how 30 million additional citizens, and 20 million illegal aliens will be covered under a national health care program.
The Democrats have no sense of reality when it comes to the government competing with private industry in health care insurance and treatment. The majority of Americans do not want a government health program of any kind. It is not in the government's business to compete with private industry - the government's business is strictly that of legislation and regulation. "Voodoo economics" fixes nothing, yet it is being used to peddle this outrageously expensive health care system just as it was used to "create jobs". Every single job created by the "Stimulus Package" cost the taxpayers more than $461,000.

CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS VOTING POSITION

It is past time to tell the government "Enough!". It's time to tell the government "NO MORE!" A little socialism is way too much!

Health Care Reform for Dummies - Part II

This is my very own improved plan for health care management in the United States of America...

Government regulation is probably needed in the following areas:
1. Medical Equipment Manufacturers - Regulation is needed to reduce the obscene profits on medical hardware. Profits in the $800,000+ range for one low-end Magnetic Resonance Imager (MRI) have surpassed reasonable profit, and entered the realm of profiteering. R&D and associated production and marketing costs should be amortized over the estimated life of the equipment - let's call it 10 years. This would eliminate the temptation to attempt to recoup all expenses in the first 10 units sold. All expenses in R&D, production and marketing would be tax deductible for the corporation during that 10 year period - but the corporation would not be tax exempt.

2. Medical Supplies Manufacturers - This would include expendable single-use supplies such as bandages, tongue depressors, disposable hypodermic syringes, catheters, cast materials, etc., and would be regulated essentially the same as above.

3. Pharmaceutical Manufacturers - No more gouging the American people. If product "X" is only worth $3 in Bangladesh, Indonesia, India or Somalia, then it's only worth $3 on this planet. Regulation would be essentially the same as #1, above.

4. Hospitals - This is basically the retail part of the business of medicine. The hospitals are not only saddled with the expenses forced upon them by equipment, supplies, and pharmaceutical manufacturers, they have the additional overhead expenses of personnel to cook, clean to hospital standards, and provide security within the boundaries of the hospital campus. Then there are the professional costs and wages. The average MD in the USA makes $171,000 per year. That's good money. The average nursing school graduate is paid an average of $22 per hour during the first year, and by the fourth year can be earning $25 per hour, average. To offset their overhead expenses hospitals charge about $5 for a band aid and $8 for an aspirin, and about $1,000 a day for a room! Hospitals should be regulated insofar as charges for consumables (supplies and pharmaceuticals) goes. Cost + 40% is the generally considered the retail standard markup, and that should work for hospitals too - as long as the rest of the medical system is working as it should.

5. Doctors - Doctors should be permitted to practice medicine using their best judgment, and nobody other than their immediate supervisor or the medical licensing board should be allowed to interfere. Doctors should be protected against outrageous lawsuits by capping suits against medical professionals at $500,000. Having a ceiling on malpractice lawsuits should reduce a doctors cost for malpractice insurance, and allow them to charge substantially less than $10 per minute for their time. Many doctors are paying $150,000-$200,000 annually, and a few pay even more for insurance. However, the majority find themselves in the $60,00 per year category. Now we have a chicken-egg-chicken situation... are doctors paying exorbitantly high premiums for insurance because they charge a lot for their services? Do they charge a lot for their services because their insurance is so high? Do they pay a lot for insurance because they may be sued for ridiculous amounts of money? A doctor's malpractice premiums are probably outrageously high because they do get sued for ridiculous amounts of money - by US! We are the primary driving force behind the exorbitant cost of health care. Lawsuits, non-payment for services, equipment costs, student loans to cover outrageous medical school costs, etc. all figure into the equation used to determine what 10 minutes of MD time is worth.

6. Health/Medical Insurance Companies - Most insurance companies are publicly traded, which means they are listed on one of the several stock exchanges, and are available to individuals, consortiums or other corporations to purchase stock. The insurance companies, as do all publicly traded corporations, have an obligation to their stock holders to show quarterly profits and pay dividends to the investors based upon the amount of money they have invested. Adding known "risk" to the group comprising policy holders increases the possibility of payouts and reduces the probability of producing those dividends. The uninsurable were classified that way for a reason - RISK! Insurance companies like to take money, and hate to part with it. If the insurers were forced to accept previously uninsurable clients, one of two things would have to happen:
a. The risk presented by the uninsurable would have to be paid for with higher than normal premiums... so high they would undoubtedly be unaffordable to 90% of those desiring insurance coverage, or
b. The premium rates of all insureds would have to be increased to offset the potential for increased losses by the insurance company.
Health/Medical insurance companies must be allowed - better yet, make that required - to sell policies in all 50 states, thereby increasing competition, and through that competition for the available health insurance $$, lower the costs of health insurance. In order for this plan to be cost-effective all the elements must come into play. And, sadly, the uninsurable must remain the uninsurable. Let the doctors and hospitals do a little pro bono work now and then, and make it completely tax deductible.

The "bottom line" is:

It is human GREED that keeps our health care costs in the stratosphere.

(Oh, yeah... and I did this with about 2,200 pages fewer than Congress!)

The Realities of Insuring The Uninsurable - THE HEALTH CARE CRISIS IN AMERICA!

The latest iteration of the Democrats health care bill includes wording that, in effect states: "Government approved health care insurers (and they must all be "government approved") must provide insurance to those with preexisting conditions at the same premium rate as other insureds of the same demographic."That sounds wonderful on the surface, especially if you are one of those people who are currently uninsurable... but, when you look at it strictly from a business standpoint it presents quite a challenge to the insurance industry. Take just a second here to think about how you would handle the challenge if you were the CEO of Blue Cross Blue Shield, or one of the other big health insurance companies, keeping in mind that all insurance companies set their premiums based upon risk. They have people called "actuaries" (recently there has been a trend toward calling actuaries "risk managers") whose only job is to evaluate the risk factor (risk of potential payout) involved in issuing policies based upon gender, age, physical condition, alcohol or drug usage, smoking/non-smoking, occupational hazards, etc.. (I'll wait while you do that...).

Do you have a plan of action now? Well, we're proceeding regardless.

Most insurance companies are publicly traded, which means they are listed on one of the several stock exchanges, and are available to individuals, consortiums or other corporations to purchase stock. The insurance companies, as do all publicly traded corporations, have an obligation to their stock holders to show quarterly profits and pay dividends to the investors based upon the amount of money they have invested. Adding known "risk" to the group comprising policy holders increases the possibility of payouts and reduces the probability of producing those dividends. So, what are your options as CEO?

1. Maintain the status quo and do nothing. Continue to issue policies at the same premium rates even though you have been forced to accept 500,000 clients previously designated as uninsurable due to preexisting conditions. In about a year you can either ask the government for a bailout... or file for bankruptcy. Bad choice.

2. Work the technicalities of the government mandate to your favor. Government approved providers "must provide insurance to those with preexisting conditions at the same premium rate as other insureds of the same demographic." Increase everybody's premium costs to that which the previously uninsurable policy holder would have had to to pay prior to the government edict. This would probably make you oodles of profits, your stock holders would love you, and you would be "last seen" as you were forced into the back seat of a late-model black Chevrolet Suburban, with dark desert tint on the windows. Sadly, this may well be your best option.

3. Close your doors now and avoid the inevitability of financial collapse. This is the option the government would prefer you take... thus leaving a clear field for them to take over the health care industry in its entirety, and making the American people just that much more dependent upon "Nanny Government". Making it financially unfeasible - by way of draconian laws and unnecessary taxes - for publicly owned corporations to do business in the health care industry is precisely what the socialist government of Barack Obama plans to do. McDonald's is always hiring (or was... back when we had a few extra dollars to spend on a quick lunch or dinner).

Right now the insurance companies are in a lose-lose situation. They have been demonized by the government and the left-wing media since Obama began his "Change we can believe in" campaign. It's really more like...

or

Understand that I am not a big fan of giant corporations. Especially those selling health insurance. They've been bending us over for the last 3 or 4 decades! Most of the costs are nothing more than greed. Whose greed? The patient. Want to know why medical care is so expensive? Besides the 16 million illegal aliens that are getting it at no cost to them, because the rest of us are paying for it. Because there are no caps on malpractice lawsuits, and many doctors are paying over $200,000 a year in malpractice insurance premiums! Naturally, those costs are passed along to their patients. People are greedy... and they will sue at the drop of a hat! That's one thing that keeps our medical insurance costs high. Then there's the $800,000+ profit in one MRI machine. More corporate greed! How about those $5 hospital aspirins and the $8 band aids? Where do these hospital administrators shop for their supplies ... Neimann-Marcus? But, again, hospitals have to offset the losses from non-payment for services - and greedy vendors - somehow, so they just pass it along to the beneficiary of those goods and services.

The bottom line is that it all comes back upon those of us who act responsibly by having health insurance, or paying for our medical treatment ourselves. The bill falls in our lap either directly (paying our own medical costs) or indirectly (purchasing insurance at high premium costs or paying higher taxes). Like all businesses, the costs of doing business are passed along to the consumer. The hidden costs involved in thefts and loss prevention personnel are passed along. Any business-related expense that can be passed along is passed along (and the rest are written off their income tax)!

Probably the best approach to resolving the health insurance crisis in our country is to not just allow interstate insurance sales, but to require it. This should result in lower overall costs for health insurance due to increased competition for the available health care $$$.

Senate Passes Health Care Bill - Ignoring Citizens Expressed Wishes

The AP lead-in reads - "WASHINGTON – Senate Democrats passed a landmark health care bill in a climactic Christmas Eve vote that could define President Barack Obama's legacy and usher in near-universal medical coverage for the first time in the country's history."

Let's dissect that sentence:

"Landmark health care bill" - Yes it is. Only because the people never wanted it in the past, and the Congress actually listened to them back then.

"Climactic Christmas Eve vote" - More of an anti-climactic and cowardly vote. With a Democratic majority it was a foregone conclusion that the bill would get the necessary 60 votes. The real question was how much those last few votes would cost the American people in terms of political PORK! How much were the holdout political whores selling their votes for on Christmas Eve? And that idiot Harry Reid's adding the pressure of a Christmas Eve vote - knowing that such timing would undermine any thought of prolonging the process throughout the day - pretty much insured rapid passage by those 60 who lack any hint of integrity. They now have their 30 pieces of silver.

"Define President Barack Obama's legacy" - That's the real reason for the passage of this very expensive, very destructive bill by the Senate... to give Obama a victory of some kind, even at the expense of the citizenry. His legacy is already "defined" as one of appalling incompetence in all areas other than destroying the American economy for decades to come... Obama has done a fine job of that!

"Near-universal medical coverage" - One more step toward destroying our economy and making the once-free American people increasingly dependent upon the government. You don't add millions of people to any program without incurring additional costs, and Obama's voodoo math says we will save money! The only way we will "save money" is by increasing taxes for four years prior to providing any health care benefits. How does that "save" us any money?

Congratulations are in order for all those fine Senators who cast their votes to assist Obama in ruining the United States of America, against the wishes of "We the People". Enjoy it while you can, for on November 20th of 2010 we shall remember! Of course I am assuming that we will still have free elections in 2010, and that could prove to be a faulty assumption...

What Is WRONG With Our Legislative Process?

Although there are many areas where our nation's legislative process could be improved upon, the single most glaring point must be the practice of attaching totally unrelated amendments/riders/codicils and various other assorted hitch-hikers to any bill. All legislation should be able to qualify for an up or down vote based strictly upon it's stand-alone merit. There should be no deal making such as, "I don't like your Military Armament bill, but I'll support it if you allow me to attach my 'Contact Lenses for Myopic Armenian Canaries' bill, which nobody wants."

What kind of crap is that? That is where probably 95% of the Congressional "pork" comes from - hiding some worthless (to anybody other than the author) ego-boosting, vote-garnering, self-serving piece of legislation inside a must have piece of legislation!


If there are questions about the merits of a proposed bill, then debate those merits on the floor of the House and/or Senate. If the bill is legitimate, in the best interests of the country, and is sustainable then PASS IT! If it fails to meet objective criteria for passage then reject it. But, under no circumstances should proposed legislation be polluted with unrelated garbage riders! The present "Health Care" legislation began as an 1,100+ page document, which nobody read. It has now grown to 2,400+ pages! Who in the world will read -much less understand - everything on those 2,400+ pages? I would be surprised if even 10% of our elected representatives could honestly say they read it all. That's a LOT of ink... and most of that ink will be red instead of read.

If You Go Down To D.C. Today...

Socialists Picnic
(to the tune of "Teddy Bears Picnic")

If you go down to D.C. today

You’re sure of a big surprise.

If you go down to D.C. today

You’d better go in disguise.

For ev’ry nut that ever there was

Will gather there for certain, because

Today’s the day the socialists have their picnic.

Ev’ry socialist who’s been good

Is sure of a treat today.

There’s lots of marvelous stimulus

And bailout games to play.

Beneath the dome where nobody sees,

They’ll plead and beg as long as they please

That’s the way the liberals get their health care.

Picnic time for socialists

The little socialists are having a lovely time today

Watch them, catch them unawares

And see them legislate your job away.

See them gaily gad about

They'll throw our borders out;

They never have any cares;

At six o’clock the unions and lob’yists

Will buy their ev’ry vote,

Because they’re good little socialists.

If you go down to D.C. today

You’d better not go alone.

The left is running D.C. today

You may as well stay at home.

Don’t read that bill just sign it instead

It’s dark and stinks where they have their head,

Today’s the day the liberals have their picnic.

Town Hall Meeting - Grants Pass OR - Aug 12, 2009

Well, by golly... I went to my first Town Hall meeting this afternoon. The meeting was scheduled for 5:15pm, and people began arriving around 3pm, which I know because I took a motorcycle ride past the Ann Basker Auditorium at 3pm and there were two people already waiting. I returned there about 3:30 after ironing a collared shirt to wear, so I'd "look respectable". By the time 5:15 rolled around there must have been about 4oo people crowded outside that venue.

You may recall that I have mentioned before how these politicians seem to choose their venue carefully and based upon limited seating capacity, so they don't have to hear too many complaints about how Washington is ruining the country... well, today was no exception! The Ann Basker Auditorium seats (or did for this particular event, anyway) 140 people, when 3 blocks away there was the Grants Pass High School Performing Arts Center that has a capacity of several thousand people.

Defending Obamacare was Congressman Peter DeFazio (D - 4th District, OR), whose voting record is generally liberal, yet he didn't impress me as a radical left-wing nut job. In the past, DeFazio has shown flashes of courage and independence, by not always keeping in the prescribed "party lock-step" mode. "Perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer" (thank you Henry David Thoreau) sometimes. These actions are not so infrequent as to be called rare, really, but they are infrequent enough to enable him to avoid the label of "Blue Dog Democrat". ("Defending" may not be the right word to begin this paragraph with either. He pimped the party line, but he did so without great enthusiasm. My take was that he was beginning to lean in the direction of Obamacare, but that he lacked the moral conviction to commit his full energies to that bill.)

By now you're probably wondering to yourself, "Well?? How the hell did the Town Hall meeting go?" Prior to the meeting there were some lukewarm exchanges outside, but no fists were thrown, nor were people really "getting in each others face", nor were they raising their voices much above that volume necessary for normal conversation in a crowd of that size. All-in-all it was pretty boring outside. Once the doors opened there was a semi-uncomfortable rush to get inside, since they had announced how many seats were available just before they opened the doors to the auditorium. (Luckily, I was the tenth person in line and made it inside within the first 5 seconds after the doors opened. And yes, I did push past a couple of left-wing, union line jumpers to accomplish that feat.)

After everyone was seated and awaiting the arrival of Rep. DeFazio, there was a bit more of the "lukewarm" antagonism tossed back and forth between the liberal, left-wing "I want the Government to be my daddy and take care of me forever." crowd, and the conservative, right-wing "We want the Government to stay the hell out of our lives, to follow the Constitution, and to allow us access to what we need to take care of ourselves!" group. And again, nothing got out of control. There were several times one group or the other tried to shout down a speaker, but regained their composure and returned to acting as adults within 10 seconds or so. Feelings ran strong on both sides, but there were no physical confrontations at all, and the verbal confrontations (also called "disagreements") were of very limited duration, and only at a slightly elevated volume. I believe there was an unplanned balance in the attendance, and it seemed that the number of people either for or against Obamacare was about even. There are certain media outlets that are claiming the Obama administration has "plants" in the audience of the Town Hall meetings, and that may be true to some small degree, but I believe the left - at least at our Town Hall meeting - was primarily represented by genuinely concerned citizens... as was the conservative right. BUT - those so-called "Town Hall Meetings" at which Obama appears are another story entirely. Of course they will be stacked with Obama supporters! What good politician (isn't that an oxymoron?) who is pimping his pet project wouldn't want to be seen on national TV with maximum support if he could arrange it? And, since the Secret Service provides the entry control at any Presidential event, they determine who gets inside and who doesn't. If you don't know the "secret handshake" (which would literally be something like having an invitation or your name on a guest list) you don't get in. Wearing a T-shirt that reflects conservative values, or if it displays any message that is contrary to Obama's socialist plans is also enough to keep you out.

According to plan, Representative DeFazio was Mr. Punctuality and arrived at precisely 5:15pm, and he departed at 6:16pm ( I won't fault him for a 1 minute overrun, but I will report it because it was so close to being perfect timing). The Josephine County Sheriff attended in his official capacity, along with a Deputy and two Grants Pass City Officers. DeFazio had a good handle on the subject matter (even if it was replete with party propaganda), and had obviously "done his homework". He even claimed to have read the entire 1108 page bill!

There were the usual concerns on each side - National health care vs private insurance; "How old will the government let me live to be"; and, "Where's the money coming from for this program?", etc. The only question he really dodged was, "IF Obamacare is so good, why aren't the House, Senate and Executive branch using it instead of just the rest of the citizens... why do YOU need gold plated health care?"

Did I come away from the Town Hall meeting feeling that I had learned anything new, or was inclined to change my mind about how I felt? No. Did I feel more comfortable about the ever-increasing role of our ever-expanding Government in our lives? Not a bit. Did I feel as if I had just wasted an hour of my life? Not exactly... it could have been more enlightening, but it wasn't exactly a Black Hole in my life either. Besides, anybody that goes to a meeting with any politician, and expects to come away from that meeting with a different understanding or perspective is going to be sorely disappointed.

I'm certain there are others who were in attendance, and heard the same words I heard - but carrying a totally different message than the one I heard - that felt as if the weight of the world had been lifted from their shoulders by Rep. DeFazio. I am equally certain there were those who left the meeting feeling as if the weight of the world had doubled in just 61 short minutes. And then there were the rest of us...

There's no way I could be wrong about this, since it is my perception of what I experienced this afternoon. So, neener-neener-neener to those of you who may think I am wrong!

"Prescription for America" - Infomercial or Propaganda?

ABC will air the special from the White House during prime time on June 24. "Prescription for America," to be moderated by ABC News' Charles Gibson and Diane Sawyer, will originate from the East Room and will feature the president explaining his plans for reforming the nation's health care system. Officials with the network claim they will air opposing views, that the audience that will offer up questions for the president during the program will be made up of Americans "who have divergent opinions" in the debate on national health care.

I will be surprised if any of several things happens at this ABC-Obama love fest:
1. "Officials with the network claim they will air opposing views" - that will be the first surprise, considering they have already refused to broadcast opposing views! ABC rejected an alternative health care ad submitted for airing during the prime time special on Wednesday.
2. If the audience "offers up questions for the president during the program", the audience will undoubtedly consist of nothing but Obama Democrats and Obama-sympathetic media (is there any other kind?), and the questions will be previously approved by Obama staffers to insure the president isn't caught with his teleprompters down.
3. The only "divergence of opinion" will probably be discussing how many billions of our tax dollars to throw away on this Marxist health care debacle.

A sales pitch is a sales pitch - no matter what the salesman may choose to call it. In this case it is relatively simple to understand:

BUY MY IDEA... and since it is MY IDEA,
there is no plausible reason to even offer possible alternatives,
much less discuss them.
I AM "THE ONE"!

For those of you who voted for him, we're ALL about to get what you deserve! NMP!

"States Rights" Is What Keeps America Free... Along with the 2nd Amendment

At last count, 30 states had reminded the Federal Government that the feds could not dictate to them, and that they were sovereign powers within the united structure. The only thing better than that would be if all 50 states perform that same act of sovereignty. Now, don't make the mistake some people have and confuse a declaration of sovereignty with secession. There has been no act of secession by any state .... yet.

What are "States Rights"? The first ten amendments to the Constitution are collectively known as "The Bill of Rights", and the Tenth Amendment proclaims: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

As you can see, although it doesn't jump right out at you, that short sentence says that unless it is specified in the constitution as a Federal power, that power, by default, belongs to the States, or the people! Of course, the Constitution isn't worth the paper it's written upon if we, the people, don't insist on its application in all government affairs. If we do not "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic" we deserve to wear the yoke and chains of socialist enslavement!

We have a definite and obvious threat to all our founding documents in Washington D.C. - a left-wing, socialist administration (which was put there primarily by a complacent "silent majority"), coupled with a left-leaning, socialist-inclined Congress. Disaster is imminent when there are no checks and balances between the legislative and the executive branches of Government.

The President's Cabinet consists primarily of tax dodgers, inexperienced incompetents heading critical Federal functions (CIA, Treasury, Homeland Security, etc.) and those who embrace the "One World" fantasy. As much as you may like to believe in the "One World" concept, it is nothing more than a fantasy. We are not all brothers and sisters riding this big blue marble. There are many millions of people around the world who either envy, resent, or simply hate the United States for reasons frequently beyond our understanding. Reasons - real or imagined - which reinforce their desire to bring about our failure and/or demise as a Democratic Republic. Remember that our individual reality is based on how we personally interpret what we see going on in our world. Reality has nothing to do with what the person on either side of us, or the person standing across the street from us sees - reality and truth are individual concepts!

As a "Conservative-Traditionalist" this is the basis of my reality:

1. The United States has accomplished more in 233 years than any other culture has in 2,000+ years, yet our left-wing Government wants us to emulate the great left-wing socialist countries of Europe. (Yeah... that makes sense, considering how successful they've been! Without our assistance, Europe would have been a territory of Germanys Third Reich for the past 60+ years! And their socialized health care works well too... for those who live long enough to actually get some medical care.)

2. Our foundational documents - the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution of the United States of America - and the ideals and well thought out philosophies contained therein, are responsible for the aforementioned success, and have stood us in good stead since their creation. (I believe in the axiom, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", and that protecting those ideals and philosophies is a personal responsibility, and one well-worth fulfilling.)

3. I see no need, nor any Constitutional authority for any Government - Federal or State - to create "hate crimes". Relatively few crimes are committed out of a sense of love, or even mild fondness. The crime is in the act, not in the motivation or thought behind it. All true "crimes" are already covered by a myriad of Federal and State laws, and local ordinances. Why would "hate crimes" not fall under the existing category of "crimes of passion":

"Usage: When any feeling or emotion completely masters the mind, we call it a passion; as, a passion for music, dress, etc.; especially is anger (when thus extreme) called passion. The mind, in such cases, is considered as having lost its self-control, and become the passive instrument of the feeling in question." Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary

Hatred and rage are simply anger in extremis - at the far negative end of the "love-hate continuum".

4. The use of the word "homophobe". Along the same line as "hate crimes" homophobe is a misnomer in most instances. I would suggest that word be replaced by homocontemnor, one who finds homosexual behavior to be contemptible or viewed with great disdain. Although homosexual behavior was once tolerated in some ancient societies, it is generally regarded as sexually deviant behavior in the American culture.

5. Our Government, in its passage of legislation, rarely reflects the expressed will of "we the people", but, rather, the expressed will of corporations and other moneyed interests. Essentially, we have "the best government that money can buy." We need to resurrect our Constitution, and replace our legislators in a manner that best serves the people of our once great nation. This is supposedly taken care of at the voting booth... but that only happens when every eligible voter actually votes! We are at that juncture in history where personal and collective indecisiveness and complacency will destroy us from within our own borders.

6. Tax abuse by our Government is rampant. We can tell there are few Jews in our Government by the proliferation of PORK! "Pork" another euphemism for the euphemistic "earmarks" that Barack Obama pledged to eliminate if he was elected as our President. "Earmarks" are nothing less than uncontrolled Government waste of our tax dollars. Yet one of his first actions was to rubber stamp an Omnibus Spending Bill with around 9,000 various cuts of swine in it! Is it the will of the people that failed banks and corporations be "bailed out" with our tax dollars? No, it's not - 74% of the people are against such actions, but our Government - in its infinite wisdom - has chosen to ignore what we the people want.

7. As for the Second Amendment, it pretty much speaks for itself... and in plain English. An armed people are a free people - citizens - an unarmed people are more properly called "subjects".

I could go on for a very long time about the insufficiencies of our current government, and I may do that in a future posting, but, for now this seems sufficient.

There is a possibility that I could be completely wrong about this... but I'm not an illegal alien who doesn't read and comprehend the English language. I was born and raised in this country, and educated - as opposed to indoctrinated - in that language. I consider myself fortunate to have received my education while the youth of our country were still being taught HOW to think, instead of WHAT to think... as they are today.

Are We Ready to Eat ... FRANKENFOOD?

Here's an item that doesn't get nearly the attention it should in our national media. Perhaps it's all about the money, like everything else in our lives.

Monsanto, our home-grown chemical giant has created genetically engineered (aka GE - remember that abbreviation) strains of seed that are pesticide resistant. Not a big deal, you say? The same GE has introduced pesticides into the genetic code of those same seeds, and pesticides are poison. About 10 percent of the 70,000 chemicals used in the United States are also carcinogenic. So your chances of being poisoned by farm products are pretty good, and your chances of developing a food-induced cancer are about 1 in 10. Worse yet, the public protector, our USDA leveraged our farmers into using GE crops - initially corn - through a strange arrangement between the Department of Agriculture and chemical giant Monsanto that was enthusiastically endorsed by Congress in 2000. The deal was made possible when Congress agreed to give farmers a break on federal crop insurance if they planted crops that resist pests and produce higher yields, making them less vulnerable to crop failures, and U.S. taxpayers less vulnerable to large insurance payouts. That, the seeds do. Do we stop eating corn? Keep in mind that much of our corn is used as silage, and fed to chickens, cattle, pigs, etc. Do we stop eating meat as well? That leaves us with fruit... for the time-being... until cross-contamination of the fruit crop sets in.

Additionally, new research from Austria shows that a commercial strain of Monsanto-made GE corn causes mice to have fewer and weaker babies. What is this doing to human fertility? Is the GE food also a means of GE the human population? Will those who aren't killed off as a direct result of ingesting GE foods, produce numerically smaller future generations of less robust, illness-ridden offspring?

There are valid arguments to be made on both sides of this situation. Personally, I believe we should always err on the side of caution! Until such time as GE foods can be proven, beyond any question, to be 100% safe and as healthy as any food product has ever been, there should be NO GE FOODS allowed in the United States, much less having GE foods being promoted by our own government watchdog agency, the USDA. Urge your elected officials to vote AGAINST HB875!

No way in HELL am I wrong about this one!

Obama Desires to Bill Military Members for War and Service Related Injuries!"

The following are quoted excerpts from "Our Voice" the American Legions' online e-zine - "WASHINGTON, DC (March 16, 2009) – The leader of the nation’s largest veterans organization says he is “deeply disappointed and concerned” after a meeting with President Obama today to discuss a proposal to force private insurance companies to pay for the treatment of military veterans who have suffered service-connected disabilities and injuries. The Obama administration recently revealed a plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in such cases."

The article goes on to say, “It became apparent during our discussion today that the President intends to move forward with this unreasonable plan,” said Commander David K. Rehbein of The American Legion. “He says he is looking to generate $540-million by this method, but refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it. There is simply no logical explanation for billing a veteran’s personal insurance for care that the VA has a responsibility to provide. While we understand the fiscal difficulties this country faces right now, placing the burden of those fiscal problems on the men and women who have already sacrificed a great deal for this country is unconscionable.”

"Unconscionable"? That word doesn't begin to describe my feelings toward the actions of your liberal, lying, left-wing, cowardly "leader". A man who, without any military experience whatsoever, is suddenly the Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces. A man who has so little respect, consideration, or compassion for those who have been placed in harm's way - by the government - that he would even consider such an outrageous plan. Despicable is the word that comes immediately to mind ... followed by unconscionable, and a few other words that I won't post here.

Want to save the taxpayers some money? It could easily begin with an across-the-board 50% pay cut for the members of Congress. That would save the taxpayers $46,477,250 per annum! Congressional office, mail, and staff allowances could also be halved.

In 2003 the total amount of allowance provided to Members of the House ranged from $701,136 to $1,636,750. Members do not have to use all of the money allotted to them in their allowances. (Each Member is allotted $748,312 to hire up to 18 staff and four additional temporary, part-time, of shared staff. Staff cannot be paid more than $151,974 per year.) That's a mean average of roughly $1,169,000 per representative. (Source: Congressional Research Service, January 26, 2004)

In 2003 the total amount of all three allowances provided to Senators ranged from $2,264,345 to $3,751,995 for a mean average of $3,008,170. Senators do not have a limit on the amount staff they can hire! (Source: Congressional Research Service, January 26, 2004) I think most people could run an office on $1.5 million per year - everybody I know could! The only thing you couldn't do would be to throw lavish parties for your supporters.

So, what would be the result of forcing military members to pay for their own health care? The immediate and most noticeable result, would be a sharp decline in enlistments and re-enlistments in our armed forces - especially those most likely to find themselves in the midst of armed combat, the Army and Marines. Our military would be reduced to the point where national defense would fall, once again, squarely on the shoulders of the "citizen soldier" ... shades of 1776! My assumption here is that your liberal, left-wing government would actually desire national defense. They believe that insufficient numbers of trained military will make the handover of our country that much easier - especially if they can pull off a nationwide gun grab.

A less obvious result of forcing our military members to pay for their own health care would be putting the government one step closer to realizing the control they can exert over the citizenry with a "National Health Plan". Old? Handicapped? Reached those non-productive years of retirement? Report to the nearest Soylent Corporation office - the year 2022 isn't that far off.

Obama has shown his true color ever since his inauguration. He's neither black nor white - his true color is communist red! This unqualified and unprepared usurper was elected to the most powerful position in the free world, by the sheep of our nation - the entitlement whores! God save us from ourselves ...

I could be wrong about this ... and Obama could care about the future of our country. FAT CHANCE!