"American institutions rest solely on good citizenship. They were created by people who had a background of self-government. New arrivals should be limited to our capacity to absorb them into the ranks of good citizenship. America must be kept American. For this purpose, it is necessary to continue a policy of restricted immigration. It would lie well to make such immigration of a selective nature with some inspection at the source, and based either on a prior census or upon the record of naturalization. Either method would insure the admission of those with the largest capacity and best intention of becoming citizens. I am convinced that our present economic and social conditions warrant a limitation of those to be admitted. We should find additional safety in a law requiring the immediate registration of all aliens. Those who do not want to be partakers of the American spirit ought not to settle in America."
(First Message to Congress, December 1923)
"My opinion, with respect to emigration, is that except of useful mechanics and some particular descriptions of men or professions, there is no need of encouragement, while the policy or advantage of its taking place in a body...may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the Language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them."
(Letter to John Adams, Nov. 15, 1794)
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Thursday, December 24, 2009
The Treasury is open for withdrawals...
Well now they have gone and done it. The Senate passed the national health care bill today and now it goes to committee. In committee representatives from both houses of congress will try to hammer out any differences in the two different versions of the bill. With any luck the anti-abortion and pro-abortion side will collide and the bill will ultimately fail, but I am not very hopeful of that happening. In November we will have to elect politicians that promise to repeal this crappy piece of intrusive legislation.
Many Americans for the first time have seen the way votes are negotiated for and paid for. Everyone knows that Ben Nelson of Nebraska held out until he was guaranteed his state would never have to pay for the mandatory expansion of Medicaid this bill will place upon the states. Republicans are calling his payoff the "Nebraska kickback"
Most Americans know about the second Louisianna Purchase that happened when Senator Landrieu of Louisianna sold her vote for, as she so proudly stated on the senate floor, $300 million.
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont nabbed $10 billion for his state and Senator Conrad absconded with money for the doctors in his state that treat medicare patients.
Now there are grumblings by Democrat Senators that supported the plan all along that they did not get what their vote is worth and now they are wondering where their share of the money is. During the negotiations in committee this jealousy and in-fighting among the Democrats may be the best hope conservatives have of this bill failing.
The greatest hope we have of this bill failing is the several states that are questioning the constitutionality of this bill under the "equal opportunity" clause of the Constitution that says all states must be treated equally.
Everyone please call your representatives and let them know the majority of us do not want this bill force fed to us.
Many Americans for the first time have seen the way votes are negotiated for and paid for. Everyone knows that Ben Nelson of Nebraska held out until he was guaranteed his state would never have to pay for the mandatory expansion of Medicaid this bill will place upon the states. Republicans are calling his payoff the "Nebraska kickback"
Most Americans know about the second Louisianna Purchase that happened when Senator Landrieu of Louisianna sold her vote for, as she so proudly stated on the senate floor, $300 million.
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont nabbed $10 billion for his state and Senator Conrad absconded with money for the doctors in his state that treat medicare patients.
Now there are grumblings by Democrat Senators that supported the plan all along that they did not get what their vote is worth and now they are wondering where their share of the money is. During the negotiations in committee this jealousy and in-fighting among the Democrats may be the best hope conservatives have of this bill failing.
The greatest hope we have of this bill failing is the several states that are questioning the constitutionality of this bill under the "equal opportunity" clause of the Constitution that says all states must be treated equally.
Everyone please call your representatives and let them know the majority of us do not want this bill force fed to us.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Are we ready for honest politicians?
Recently I saw pollster Frank Luntz on Fox News’s Sean Hannity show. Mr. Luntz answered a question from Mr. Hannity by saying “What Americans want most from their political leaders is the truth.” Mr. Luntz continued by saying “Americans want politicians that say what they mean and mean what they say”. I am not sure I believe this when politicians begin talking about entitlement programs.
In 2005 President George W. Bush warned of shortfalls looming in the coming years for the Social Security program. His plan to privatize Social security was met with scorn and disbelief. Many Democrats stated the President was crying wolf and there really was no problem with Social Security. When they managed to convince the public there was no problem with Social Security Bush’s goal of privatization became unattainable. President Bush learned a lesson many politicians already new; Entitlements are the third rail of politics. In other words any attempt to change the system could lead to the abrupt end of political careers.
In 2005 then Senate minority leader Harry Reid went so far as to claim “Social Security and Medicare are on sound financial footing for decades to come.” In fact Reid claimed the Republicans were trying to take Social Security away from senior citizens. I do not remember any politicians arguing to loudly against Senator Reid, after all who wants to be known as the evil person that would deny the elderly their benefits.
Lately some Democrats have contemplated expanding Medicare to cover people age 55 to 65. This plan would add approximately 35 million people to the Medicare plan. House speaker Nancy Pelosi is just one of many people that approve of this plan.
The truth is Medicare is a program that is unsustainable. In May, as they do every year, the trustees for Social Security and Medicare issued their annual report regarding the programs solvency. The trustees report the Medicare program will exhaust all of its funds by 2017 (1). In 2008 there were 45 million people enrolled in Medicare which had a cost of $386 billion. It is projected that by the year 2030 there will be 78 million people in the Medicare program and over the next 75 years Medicare represents an unfunded liability of $85.6 trillion (2). This is the estimate before adding 35 million people aged 55 to 64 to the program. President Bush had the right idea about privatizing; he just chose the wrong program to reform.
Many Americans refuse to listen to the truth about Medicare. We threaten the politicians, by virtue of our vote, when they tell us everything really is not o.k… What politician would risk their job by being honest with the public when it is far easier to just tell us what we want to hear?
The truth is not until the American public prepares itself for the truth and then demands honesty from the politicians will anything improve.
(1)www.Washington examiner.com/opinion/The-gathering-storm-on-social-security and-medicare-44970857.html
(2)www.dallasfed.org/news/speeches/fisher/2008/fs080528.cfm#top
Carl Goodson lives in Clute, TX a suburb of Houston. Carl can be contacted at conservativeCarl@gmail.com OR conservativeCarl.blogspot.com.
In 2005 President George W. Bush warned of shortfalls looming in the coming years for the Social Security program. His plan to privatize Social security was met with scorn and disbelief. Many Democrats stated the President was crying wolf and there really was no problem with Social Security. When they managed to convince the public there was no problem with Social Security Bush’s goal of privatization became unattainable. President Bush learned a lesson many politicians already new; Entitlements are the third rail of politics. In other words any attempt to change the system could lead to the abrupt end of political careers.
In 2005 then Senate minority leader Harry Reid went so far as to claim “Social Security and Medicare are on sound financial footing for decades to come.” In fact Reid claimed the Republicans were trying to take Social Security away from senior citizens. I do not remember any politicians arguing to loudly against Senator Reid, after all who wants to be known as the evil person that would deny the elderly their benefits.
Lately some Democrats have contemplated expanding Medicare to cover people age 55 to 65. This plan would add approximately 35 million people to the Medicare plan. House speaker Nancy Pelosi is just one of many people that approve of this plan.
The truth is Medicare is a program that is unsustainable. In May, as they do every year, the trustees for Social Security and Medicare issued their annual report regarding the programs solvency. The trustees report the Medicare program will exhaust all of its funds by 2017 (1). In 2008 there were 45 million people enrolled in Medicare which had a cost of $386 billion. It is projected that by the year 2030 there will be 78 million people in the Medicare program and over the next 75 years Medicare represents an unfunded liability of $85.6 trillion (2). This is the estimate before adding 35 million people aged 55 to 64 to the program. President Bush had the right idea about privatizing; he just chose the wrong program to reform.
Many Americans refuse to listen to the truth about Medicare. We threaten the politicians, by virtue of our vote, when they tell us everything really is not o.k… What politician would risk their job by being honest with the public when it is far easier to just tell us what we want to hear?
The truth is not until the American public prepares itself for the truth and then demands honesty from the politicians will anything improve.
(1)www.Washington examiner.com/opinion/The-gathering-storm-on-social-security and-medicare-44970857.html
(2)www.dallasfed.org/news/speeches/fisher/2008/fs080528.cfm#top
Carl Goodson lives in Clute, TX a suburb of Houston. Carl can be contacted at conservativeCarl@gmail.com OR conservativeCarl.blogspot.com.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
The truth is ...
Because I live in south Texas where there is no border fence I see first hand the mass migration of people crossing the Rio Grande River and entering the United States. A large percentage of these people cross over looking for a better standard of living for themselves and for their families that remain behind. A small number of these people come to America for criminal pursuits.
Americans are deeply divided by this issue and arguments from each position can become very heated during any discussion of illegal immigration. Pro-immigration and anti-immigration camps both can produce study after study and report after report that reinforces their positions.
Liberal pro-illegal immigrant people will cite studies that suggest illegal aliens pay about $25 billion per year in taxes (1) and are a source of labor that performs jobs that most Americans do not want. About 20% of illegal aliens work in the construction industry performing mostly manual labor. Another 17% work in the service sector such as the restaurant or hotel industry (2). The Liberal groups will claim that American business lures the immigrant to this country with the promise of a job that pays many more times what they can earn at home.
Conservative anti-illegal immigrant people will argue illegal aliens consume about $45 billion more tax dollars than they contribute (3). They will claim the illegal immigrant is performing work that over seven million Americans could be doing in this time of 10% unemployment (4). Anti-illegal immigrant people will justly claim illegal aliens are committing violent crimes that would not be committed if these people were not in the country. They also claim the educational and health care systems in many states are strained to the limit trying to cope with large numbers of illegals immigrants.
The truth is… both the anti and pro illegal immigrant camps present arguments that pale in comparison to the issue of national security. The porous condition along the southern border presents many dangers that most Americans recognize. Many Americans, however, are unaware that almost 50% of illegal aliens enter the United States legally (5). These people become illegal by overstaying their visas or by not amending their applications when their status changes such as from student to worker.
Three of the four terrorist piloting the planes that struck American targets on 9/11 were in the country illegally and 15 of the 19 hijackers should never had been issued visas (6). More than 1,000 illegal aliens cross the border with Mexico every day (7) and it would not be difficult for a terrorist to mingle with these people, enter our country and begin to plot a strike against our citizens.
Of greater concern is the suitcase size nuclear device or “dirty” bomb that could be smuggled across the border in place of one of the loads of drugs that enters our country every day.
The Democrat party has always favored the illegal immigrant or as they like to say the “migrant worker”. By allowing the illegal immigrant populations to swell the Democrats are creating a new block of voters that will be dependent for some time upon government services. Republicans have opposed illegal immigration but this opposition has largely been lip service that has no effect on the numbers of people entering our country or staying in country illegally. The Republican Party has recognized business’s desire for plentiful cheap labor.
The truth is… the fence along the border must be constructed, maintained and patrolled to ensure the safety of all Americans.
Carl Goodson lives in Clute, TX a suburb of Houston. Carl can be contacted at conservativeCarl@gmail.com OR conservativeCarl.blogspot.com.
(1)www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecentersf134
(2) www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/business/yourmoney/03view.html?
(3)www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecentersf134
(4)www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/business/yourmoney/03view.html?
(5)http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=61
(6)”outrage” by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann copyright 2007 Harpercollins pp.21-27
(7)www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=16859&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1007
Americans are deeply divided by this issue and arguments from each position can become very heated during any discussion of illegal immigration. Pro-immigration and anti-immigration camps both can produce study after study and report after report that reinforces their positions.
Liberal pro-illegal immigrant people will cite studies that suggest illegal aliens pay about $25 billion per year in taxes (1) and are a source of labor that performs jobs that most Americans do not want. About 20% of illegal aliens work in the construction industry performing mostly manual labor. Another 17% work in the service sector such as the restaurant or hotel industry (2). The Liberal groups will claim that American business lures the immigrant to this country with the promise of a job that pays many more times what they can earn at home.
Conservative anti-illegal immigrant people will argue illegal aliens consume about $45 billion more tax dollars than they contribute (3). They will claim the illegal immigrant is performing work that over seven million Americans could be doing in this time of 10% unemployment (4). Anti-illegal immigrant people will justly claim illegal aliens are committing violent crimes that would not be committed if these people were not in the country. They also claim the educational and health care systems in many states are strained to the limit trying to cope with large numbers of illegals immigrants.
The truth is… both the anti and pro illegal immigrant camps present arguments that pale in comparison to the issue of national security. The porous condition along the southern border presents many dangers that most Americans recognize. Many Americans, however, are unaware that almost 50% of illegal aliens enter the United States legally (5). These people become illegal by overstaying their visas or by not amending their applications when their status changes such as from student to worker.
Three of the four terrorist piloting the planes that struck American targets on 9/11 were in the country illegally and 15 of the 19 hijackers should never had been issued visas (6). More than 1,000 illegal aliens cross the border with Mexico every day (7) and it would not be difficult for a terrorist to mingle with these people, enter our country and begin to plot a strike against our citizens.
Of greater concern is the suitcase size nuclear device or “dirty” bomb that could be smuggled across the border in place of one of the loads of drugs that enters our country every day.
The Democrat party has always favored the illegal immigrant or as they like to say the “migrant worker”. By allowing the illegal immigrant populations to swell the Democrats are creating a new block of voters that will be dependent for some time upon government services. Republicans have opposed illegal immigration but this opposition has largely been lip service that has no effect on the numbers of people entering our country or staying in country illegally. The Republican Party has recognized business’s desire for plentiful cheap labor.
The truth is… the fence along the border must be constructed, maintained and patrolled to ensure the safety of all Americans.
Carl Goodson lives in Clute, TX a suburb of Houston. Carl can be contacted at conservativeCarl@gmail.com OR conservativeCarl.blogspot.com.
(1)www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecentersf134
(2) www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/business/yourmoney/03view.html?
(3)www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecentersf134
(4)www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/business/yourmoney/03view.html?
(5)http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=61
(6)”outrage” by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann copyright 2007 Harpercollins pp.21-27
(7)www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=16859&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1007
Thursday, December 17, 2009
A tea party party?
I call myself a Tea Party activist and try to attend as many of the local gatherings that my busy schedule will allow. Most everyone I have met at these tea parties are serious people who believe in a government that is operated in a conservative manner. The question the Tea Party followers have always asked themselves is “How do we make an impact in elections?”
A Rasmussen Reports poll conducted December 4th and 5th had a surprising result. Although Republicans beat Democrats 43% to 39% in a generic poll, they would actually lose an election if there were a Tea Party candidate. The final tally was the Democrat receiving 36%, the Tea Party Candidate 23% and the Republican 18% with 22% undecided (1). The results of this poll have some people wondering if this is the time for a third political party.
The truth is a third political party may never win a Presidential election. The federal election laws and rules were created by Democrats and Republicans to benefit themselves and to exclude or limit third party challengers. An excellent example of this is Ross Perot who launched the Reform Party. Mr. Perot had the correct message and the money to self finance his campaign but he was limited by the election rules, debate organizers and ballot requirements.
Followers of the Tea Party movement must understand they do have a voice and now have sufficient numbers to affect national politics. What the movement followers lack is a national organization. The two national parties have had a century to grow, develop and create an organization with state, county and local offices in every region of the country. The Tea Party movement just does not have the time required to build an organization that will have the immediate impact they desire.
Some people believe there is no difference between the two major parties. There is a difference but it is not the elected officials representing the two parties, it is the party platforms. The Republican Party platform is really a conservative platform that most Tea Party followers agree with. The Republican Party’s shortcoming is not their platform, it is their elected membership. The Tea Party followers need to begin to infiltrate the Republican Party and begin to influence decisions, campaigns and platforms.
The 2010 elections are now only 11 months away. Tea Party followers should begin to get involved in local elections. They should seek out and endorse true conservative candidates. Whenever possible they should volunteer to help in campaigns for candidates that believe in a conservative government. If necessary they should encourage conservative people to running for office or even consider campaigning for themselves.
This is not the time for a third party but it is the time to demonstrate to Republicans they can no longer campaign as a conservative and then govern differently. When the time comes to step into the booth and pull the voting lever each of us will have to decide what type of government we want. We will have to choose someone to represent us. I know I will vote for the most conservative candidate even if it that person is a third party candidate. I will do this even if I know the result will be a Democrat victory. My vote is how I will move the Republican Party back to conservatism.
Carl Goodson can be contacted at conservativeCarl@gmail.com OR conservativeCarl.blogspot.com. Carl’s Book “Letters to the editor: What is your government doing to you?” is available at amazon.com.
(1) www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/december_2009/tea_party_tops_gop_on_three_way_generic_ballot
A Rasmussen Reports poll conducted December 4th and 5th had a surprising result. Although Republicans beat Democrats 43% to 39% in a generic poll, they would actually lose an election if there were a Tea Party candidate. The final tally was the Democrat receiving 36%, the Tea Party Candidate 23% and the Republican 18% with 22% undecided (1). The results of this poll have some people wondering if this is the time for a third political party.
The truth is a third political party may never win a Presidential election. The federal election laws and rules were created by Democrats and Republicans to benefit themselves and to exclude or limit third party challengers. An excellent example of this is Ross Perot who launched the Reform Party. Mr. Perot had the correct message and the money to self finance his campaign but he was limited by the election rules, debate organizers and ballot requirements.
Followers of the Tea Party movement must understand they do have a voice and now have sufficient numbers to affect national politics. What the movement followers lack is a national organization. The two national parties have had a century to grow, develop and create an organization with state, county and local offices in every region of the country. The Tea Party movement just does not have the time required to build an organization that will have the immediate impact they desire.
Some people believe there is no difference between the two major parties. There is a difference but it is not the elected officials representing the two parties, it is the party platforms. The Republican Party platform is really a conservative platform that most Tea Party followers agree with. The Republican Party’s shortcoming is not their platform, it is their elected membership. The Tea Party followers need to begin to infiltrate the Republican Party and begin to influence decisions, campaigns and platforms.
The 2010 elections are now only 11 months away. Tea Party followers should begin to get involved in local elections. They should seek out and endorse true conservative candidates. Whenever possible they should volunteer to help in campaigns for candidates that believe in a conservative government. If necessary they should encourage conservative people to running for office or even consider campaigning for themselves.
This is not the time for a third party but it is the time to demonstrate to Republicans they can no longer campaign as a conservative and then govern differently. When the time comes to step into the booth and pull the voting lever each of us will have to decide what type of government we want. We will have to choose someone to represent us. I know I will vote for the most conservative candidate even if it that person is a third party candidate. I will do this even if I know the result will be a Democrat victory. My vote is how I will move the Republican Party back to conservatism.
Carl Goodson can be contacted at conservativeCarl@gmail.com OR conservativeCarl.blogspot.com. Carl’s Book “Letters to the editor: What is your government doing to you?” is available at amazon.com.
(1) www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/december_2009/tea_party_tops_gop_on_three_way_generic_ballot
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Will I be able to keep my home?
The number of foreclosure signs in my neighborhood is a constant reminder of the suffering of a great number of families during the last two years. The President has stated our economy has turned the corner and is showing signs of improvement.
Because of this improvement in the economy some radio and television personalities recently have been talking about the prospects of extreme inflation in our country. Author Dick Morris has stated our economy may have to battle hyper-inflation. Mr. Morris compares our possible future to the country of Zimbabwe whose inflation is so extreme the government has to print one trillion dollar bills.
The housing bubble of 2008 was the single greatest factor causing the recent economic crisis our economy has struggled with. The national foreclosure rate on family homes averaged only three percent (1) in 2008 and 2009 but that was enough to cause the near collapse of some of the largest financial institutions in the country. In an effort to avoid the total collapse of our economy congress passed the $700 billion TARP bailout plan for the major banks. A $29 billion program was authorized to modify home mortgages to stem the flood of foreclosures (2).
One result of this governmental spending is the infusion of cash into our economy. In the past 18 months the Federal Reserve has increased the money supply by 23% (3). I am not an economist but my common sense tells me an increase in the amount of cash circulating through the economy leads to inflation. Anyone old enough to remember the Carter Presidency will never forget the tough economic times our country struggled through.
During the last year of Carter’s term the increase of cash in the economy was only 8% (4) which was enough to create an inflation rate of 10% (5). Fed chairman Paul Volcker had to ratchet interest rates up to 20% (6) to lower inflation back to historic levels. What effect would an interest rate of 20% have on home owners with an Adjustable Rate Mortgage? Consider a family that has a $150,000 loan with an interest rate of 5%. That family’s monthly payment is around $800 per month. If their loan jumped to 20% interest their monthly payment would balloon to over $2,500.
I would assume that most Americans, like me, obtained the highest mortgage amount they qualified for. What will happen if their monthly payment triples? There is the real possibility the foreclosure rate will skyrocket and our financial institutions will be severely strained and could collapse.
Will our President then try to borrow more money from China and Japan to inject into the economy and delay the problem until he is out of office? Will he let the free market system settle the issue causing great pain for a large number of American families? Neither choice is particularly appealing but this President will always be remembered for the decision he makes.
I just hope that my yard does not become another in my neighborhood with a foreclosure sign in the yard.
Carl Goodson lives in Clute TX, a suburb of Houston. He can be contacted at conservativeCarl@gmail.com OR conservativeCarl.blogspot.com.
(1) articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/06/businessfi-mortgage6
(2) www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:43:./temp/~mdbs0GWrbG:.
(3) www.federalreserve.gov/releases/H6/hist/hrhist1.txt
(4) ibid
(5) www.inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_rate/HistoricalInflation.aspx?dsInflation_currentpage+2
Because of this improvement in the economy some radio and television personalities recently have been talking about the prospects of extreme inflation in our country. Author Dick Morris has stated our economy may have to battle hyper-inflation. Mr. Morris compares our possible future to the country of Zimbabwe whose inflation is so extreme the government has to print one trillion dollar bills.
The housing bubble of 2008 was the single greatest factor causing the recent economic crisis our economy has struggled with. The national foreclosure rate on family homes averaged only three percent (1) in 2008 and 2009 but that was enough to cause the near collapse of some of the largest financial institutions in the country. In an effort to avoid the total collapse of our economy congress passed the $700 billion TARP bailout plan for the major banks. A $29 billion program was authorized to modify home mortgages to stem the flood of foreclosures (2).
One result of this governmental spending is the infusion of cash into our economy. In the past 18 months the Federal Reserve has increased the money supply by 23% (3). I am not an economist but my common sense tells me an increase in the amount of cash circulating through the economy leads to inflation. Anyone old enough to remember the Carter Presidency will never forget the tough economic times our country struggled through.
During the last year of Carter’s term the increase of cash in the economy was only 8% (4) which was enough to create an inflation rate of 10% (5). Fed chairman Paul Volcker had to ratchet interest rates up to 20% (6) to lower inflation back to historic levels. What effect would an interest rate of 20% have on home owners with an Adjustable Rate Mortgage? Consider a family that has a $150,000 loan with an interest rate of 5%. That family’s monthly payment is around $800 per month. If their loan jumped to 20% interest their monthly payment would balloon to over $2,500.
I would assume that most Americans, like me, obtained the highest mortgage amount they qualified for. What will happen if their monthly payment triples? There is the real possibility the foreclosure rate will skyrocket and our financial institutions will be severely strained and could collapse.
Will our President then try to borrow more money from China and Japan to inject into the economy and delay the problem until he is out of office? Will he let the free market system settle the issue causing great pain for a large number of American families? Neither choice is particularly appealing but this President will always be remembered for the decision he makes.
I just hope that my yard does not become another in my neighborhood with a foreclosure sign in the yard.
Carl Goodson lives in Clute TX, a suburb of Houston. He can be contacted at conservativeCarl@gmail.com OR conservativeCarl.blogspot.com.
(1) articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/06/businessfi-mortgage6
(2) www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:43:./temp/~mdbs0GWrbG:.
(3) www.federalreserve.gov/releases/H6/hist/hrhist1.txt
(4) ibid
(5) www.inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_rate/HistoricalInflation.aspx?dsInflation_currentpage+2
Sunday, December 13, 2009
MORE EARMARKS
The Senate has voted to pass the $1.1 trillion bollar operating budget for the first six months of the next fiscal year. President Obama will certainly sign this bill into law, thereby breaking a campaign promise yet again. While running against Sen. John McCain for the Presidency Obama said there would be no more pork in any bill he signed. The $787 billion economic stimulus bill he signed in February contained 9,oooo earmarks. This $1.1 trillion bill has over 5,000 earmarks in it. The really sad fact of all this is Republicans have almost as many earmarks in this bill as the liberal Democrats. Is there any confusion as to why an imaginary Tea Party Candidate polled higher than an imaginary Republican. The Tea Party movement has momentum and, more importantly, a true passion for change in Washington. Republican candidates MUST understand that in future campaigns they will have to pass a Tea Party litmus test to be elected. To underestimate the passion and the staying power of the Tea Partiers would be a mistake many politicians will not be able to recover from.
Scamming the sytem
I was shopping at my local extra-large national retail store (Walmart)this afternoon and witnessed something that took me by surprise. A woman with two teenagers was using three different food stamp cards to pay for two cartloads of groceries. The three cards combined were not enough to pay the bill in full so this lady pulled from her purse a roll of money that would make a professional Las Vegas gambler green with envy! After the woman left I asked the cashier how many people he saw with multiple food stamp cards. He told me “quite a few” people had more than one food stamp card and some bragged of learning how to “work the system”. I paid for my purchase and made my way to my vehicle. By coincidence the woman with the three cards was parked beside me and was loading groceries into her vehicle. I wish I had a really new Chevy Suburban like hers! How does this happen? Why is my tax money going to a person with a roll of money and a brand new Suburban? Should retailers be required to notify the state when this situation occurs? What a waste!!
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Would I have supported slavery?
My friends have always said I am a politically conservative person although I consider myself more of a Libertarian. Being a good Libertarian, I do not approve of the proposed national health care reform plan that has passed the House of Representatives and is now on the floor of the Senate.
The heated debate in Washington concerning the proposed reform has turned ugly, if not downright stupid. Recently Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D)-NV proclaimed Republicans were behaving like the Senators that opposed the end of slavery in the 1800‘s by “stonewalling and dragging their feet” Is there any question why Mr. Reid is polling only 38% positively among his constituents? Its obvious Senator Reid needs some enlightenment concerning the party that drug its feet concerning civil rights.
In 1841 ex-President John Quincy Adams argued before the United States Supreme Court on behalf of a group of slaves that were accused of murder when they broke free of their shackles and revolted aboard the slave ship Amistad. John Quincy Adams just happened to be a Republican that won his argument thereby winning the slaves’ freedom.
The United States Supreme court in the 1857 case of Dred Scott-v-Sanford found that blacks were considered to be property and not classified as citizens and therefore could not sue. Scott, who was a slave from Missouri, had argued he should be free because his master had moved him for a period of time to Illinois which was a free state. Republicans were outraged about the decision and complained loudly. Democrats on the other hand supported the decision.
In 1862 Abraham Lincoln penned the bold and famous Emancipation Proclamation (which was actually two executive orders) declaring freedom for all slaves in 1863. Abraham Lincoln was a great Republican.
In 1958 Democrat Governor Orval Faubus, declaring that “Blood will run in the streets”, resisted school desegregation in Arkansas by using the national guard to prevent black kids from entering Central High School. President Eisenhower, a Republican, ordered Federal troops into Little Rock to enforce desegregation.
In 1963 Alabama Democrat Governor George Wallace, while personally blocking the doors and preventing two black students from registering at the University of Alabama, said “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever”.
In 1964 President Johnson signed into law the Civil rights Act of 1964. President Johnson encountered stiff opposition from Southern Democrats prior to signing the legislation.
Senator Reid must not be aware of the fact that since 1933 a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80% of the votes. In a stark and revealing contrast, Republicans have favored civil rights legislation in over 96% of the votes. (1)
If I were a Senator who opposed the proposed reform would Mr. Reid compare me to the Democrats that have traditionally opposed civil rights? I, like many of the Republicans in the Senate, believe I would be insulted by the suggestion.
(1) www.congresslink.org/print_basics__histmats_civilrights64text.htm
The heated debate in Washington concerning the proposed reform has turned ugly, if not downright stupid. Recently Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D)-NV proclaimed Republicans were behaving like the Senators that opposed the end of slavery in the 1800‘s by “stonewalling and dragging their feet” Is there any question why Mr. Reid is polling only 38% positively among his constituents? Its obvious Senator Reid needs some enlightenment concerning the party that drug its feet concerning civil rights.
In 1841 ex-President John Quincy Adams argued before the United States Supreme Court on behalf of a group of slaves that were accused of murder when they broke free of their shackles and revolted aboard the slave ship Amistad. John Quincy Adams just happened to be a Republican that won his argument thereby winning the slaves’ freedom.
The United States Supreme court in the 1857 case of Dred Scott-v-Sanford found that blacks were considered to be property and not classified as citizens and therefore could not sue. Scott, who was a slave from Missouri, had argued he should be free because his master had moved him for a period of time to Illinois which was a free state. Republicans were outraged about the decision and complained loudly. Democrats on the other hand supported the decision.
In 1862 Abraham Lincoln penned the bold and famous Emancipation Proclamation (which was actually two executive orders) declaring freedom for all slaves in 1863. Abraham Lincoln was a great Republican.
In 1958 Democrat Governor Orval Faubus, declaring that “Blood will run in the streets”, resisted school desegregation in Arkansas by using the national guard to prevent black kids from entering Central High School. President Eisenhower, a Republican, ordered Federal troops into Little Rock to enforce desegregation.
In 1963 Alabama Democrat Governor George Wallace, while personally blocking the doors and preventing two black students from registering at the University of Alabama, said “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever”.
In 1964 President Johnson signed into law the Civil rights Act of 1964. President Johnson encountered stiff opposition from Southern Democrats prior to signing the legislation.
Senator Reid must not be aware of the fact that since 1933 a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80% of the votes. In a stark and revealing contrast, Republicans have favored civil rights legislation in over 96% of the votes. (1)
If I were a Senator who opposed the proposed reform would Mr. Reid compare me to the Democrats that have traditionally opposed civil rights? I, like many of the Republicans in the Senate, believe I would be insulted by the suggestion.
(1) www.congresslink.org/print_basics__histmats_civilrights64text.htm
Monday, December 7, 2009
Conservative or nothing
In New York’s 23rd congressional district former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich endorsed The Republican candidate Deede Scozzafava for the seat vacated by John McHugh who has become Secretary of the Army. Many observers felt Ms. Scozzafava was far too liberal to be considered a true Republican. Ms. Scozzafava was a controversial candidate that supported gay marriage and abortion and also voted for tax increases and supported the Economic Stimulus Package. The result of her views was many conservatives chose not to support her. On October 16th however Speaker Gingrich offered his support. On Monday October 26th Mr. Rick Tyler, a spokesman for Mr. Gingrich, appeared on Fox News’s “Your World” with Neil Cavuto.
In the course of his appearance Mr. Tyler made several interesting comments. Mr. Tyler commended the participants of the several “Tea Parties” around the nation but noted the participants have no voice in the political process. Mr. Tyler noted the Republican Party needs to capture the energy and emotion of the Tea Parties but readily admits he did not know how this would be accomplished. Mr. Tyler also stated that as long as conservatives were voting for candidates other than Republicans the Democrats would remain in control of Congress. Mr. Tyler seemed to be suggesting that conservatives must vote for moderate Republicans to achieve change in Washington D.C.
Mr. Tyler unknowingly displayed the disconnect that exists between the Republican Party and conservative voters. There is a movement in America that is gaining in intensity and may soon become a ground swell of discontent among conservatives. Most conservative voters will not elect a liberal or even a moderate Republican. Mr. Tyler, like most Republicans I am afraid to say, has been unable to gauge the disgust many conservatives feel about the actions of the Republican Party during the past twenty years.
Mr. Tyler’s thinking is actually polar opposite of the conservative movement members thought process. The Republican Party thinks conservatives must vote for Republican candidates to achieve change. Conservatives believe Republicans must vote for conservative candidates to achieve this change. Many conservatives will vote for a third party candidate if the third party candidate is more conservative than the Republican candidate. True conservatives will do this even if the result is a Democrat winning the election (this was the outcome of the election for New York’s 23rd District seat). This is the only means the conservative voter has to convince Republican candidates they must be conservative or face rejection at the polls.
Some conservatives are willing to go so far as to lose all 535 seats of congress to the Democrats for two years if it will convince the Republicans true conservatism practiced by their representatives is what is desired by the American patriot citizen.
Carl Goodson lives in the town of Clute, a suburb of Houston, TX. Carl can be contacted at conservativeCarl@gmail.com.
In the course of his appearance Mr. Tyler made several interesting comments. Mr. Tyler commended the participants of the several “Tea Parties” around the nation but noted the participants have no voice in the political process. Mr. Tyler noted the Republican Party needs to capture the energy and emotion of the Tea Parties but readily admits he did not know how this would be accomplished. Mr. Tyler also stated that as long as conservatives were voting for candidates other than Republicans the Democrats would remain in control of Congress. Mr. Tyler seemed to be suggesting that conservatives must vote for moderate Republicans to achieve change in Washington D.C.
Mr. Tyler unknowingly displayed the disconnect that exists between the Republican Party and conservative voters. There is a movement in America that is gaining in intensity and may soon become a ground swell of discontent among conservatives. Most conservative voters will not elect a liberal or even a moderate Republican. Mr. Tyler, like most Republicans I am afraid to say, has been unable to gauge the disgust many conservatives feel about the actions of the Republican Party during the past twenty years.
Mr. Tyler’s thinking is actually polar opposite of the conservative movement members thought process. The Republican Party thinks conservatives must vote for Republican candidates to achieve change. Conservatives believe Republicans must vote for conservative candidates to achieve this change. Many conservatives will vote for a third party candidate if the third party candidate is more conservative than the Republican candidate. True conservatives will do this even if the result is a Democrat winning the election (this was the outcome of the election for New York’s 23rd District seat). This is the only means the conservative voter has to convince Republican candidates they must be conservative or face rejection at the polls.
Some conservatives are willing to go so far as to lose all 535 seats of congress to the Democrats for two years if it will convince the Republicans true conservatism practiced by their representatives is what is desired by the American patriot citizen.
Carl Goodson lives in the town of Clute, a suburb of Houston, TX. Carl can be contacted at conservativeCarl@gmail.com.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
To the editor,
A simple health care bill
I know today’s world is complex and can be confusing at times but I cannot understand why a health care “reform” bill must be 2,000 or more pages in length. It seems the older our country gets the longer winded our politicians become. The bills before the congress today would resemble hundreds of combined bills in years past.
In 2009 the $787 billion Stimulus package was enacted to create jobs and bolster the sagging economy. The total length of this legislation was only 407 pages. In 2008 the Bush administration proposed and received the $700 billion TARP program which was only 145 pages in length. It seems the further back in time one looks the fewer pages legislative bills needed to accomplish a purpose.
If I were to travel back in time I would see the Social Security Act of 1935, which is the largest government run program on the planet, was only 65 pages in length while the Louisiana Purchase Treaty in 1803 was only 10 pages long.
Some of the most important documents in our country’s history required very few pages to change world history. Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation written in 1862 was only two pages in length. The most important document in American history, The Constitution, was penned onto only four sheets of paper.
The document that started our country down the path of self government, The Declaration of Independence, was a grand total of one page in length. It seems today’s political jargon requires one page to declare it’s purpose and recognize each person that wants their name glorified in the pages of history.
Without a doubt the shortest policy enacted was the Monroe Doctrine which garnered a measly three lines in James Monroe’s 1863 inaugural address. Before anyone wastes their time trying to correct me, I will acknowledge the Monroe Doctrine was not a legislative bill passed into law. However The Doctrine had a greater impact on our country’s future than 99% of the thousands of bills that have been debated in congress since President Monroe uttered his famous words.
I wonder if it would be possible to return to the time of simple ideas written in simple terms any American with a high school diploma could read and comprehend. This past weekend I set a personal goal to devise a health care program that was less than three lines in length when written. The task I was determined to complete turned out to be a relatively simple one. My great health care bill would read: All Americans are eligible for Medicare.
Surely this is an idea all Democrats can agree with. Tell any Democrat the government is not capable of competently running health care and they will invariably answer “Medicare”. They tell any one who will listen Medicare helps millions of people and these people are satisfied with their benefits.
Does implementing a 2,074 page bill demonstrate their lack of confidence in the Medicare program or does it signal the Democrats desire to control as much of America as they can legislate to themselves. Maybe the Democrats recognize Medicare is an unfunded obligation of $36 trillion over the next 75 years and will need drastic benefit reductions in the future.
The truth is opening Medicare to every one is no better an idea than the legislation being debated in Congress today. I do feel secure in the knowledge that I created a bill that is only six words in length and is just as viable as any our current officials have devised. Now, what time does the Alabama - Florida game begin?
Carl Goodson is a resident of Clute, TX a suburb of Houston. Mr. Goodson can be contacted at conservativeCarl@gmail.com.
A simple health care bill
I know today’s world is complex and can be confusing at times but I cannot understand why a health care “reform” bill must be 2,000 or more pages in length. It seems the older our country gets the longer winded our politicians become. The bills before the congress today would resemble hundreds of combined bills in years past.
In 2009 the $787 billion Stimulus package was enacted to create jobs and bolster the sagging economy. The total length of this legislation was only 407 pages. In 2008 the Bush administration proposed and received the $700 billion TARP program which was only 145 pages in length. It seems the further back in time one looks the fewer pages legislative bills needed to accomplish a purpose.
If I were to travel back in time I would see the Social Security Act of 1935, which is the largest government run program on the planet, was only 65 pages in length while the Louisiana Purchase Treaty in 1803 was only 10 pages long.
Some of the most important documents in our country’s history required very few pages to change world history. Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation written in 1862 was only two pages in length. The most important document in American history, The Constitution, was penned onto only four sheets of paper.
The document that started our country down the path of self government, The Declaration of Independence, was a grand total of one page in length. It seems today’s political jargon requires one page to declare it’s purpose and recognize each person that wants their name glorified in the pages of history.
Without a doubt the shortest policy enacted was the Monroe Doctrine which garnered a measly three lines in James Monroe’s 1863 inaugural address. Before anyone wastes their time trying to correct me, I will acknowledge the Monroe Doctrine was not a legislative bill passed into law. However The Doctrine had a greater impact on our country’s future than 99% of the thousands of bills that have been debated in congress since President Monroe uttered his famous words.
I wonder if it would be possible to return to the time of simple ideas written in simple terms any American with a high school diploma could read and comprehend. This past weekend I set a personal goal to devise a health care program that was less than three lines in length when written. The task I was determined to complete turned out to be a relatively simple one. My great health care bill would read: All Americans are eligible for Medicare.
Surely this is an idea all Democrats can agree with. Tell any Democrat the government is not capable of competently running health care and they will invariably answer “Medicare”. They tell any one who will listen Medicare helps millions of people and these people are satisfied with their benefits.
Does implementing a 2,074 page bill demonstrate their lack of confidence in the Medicare program or does it signal the Democrats desire to control as much of America as they can legislate to themselves. Maybe the Democrats recognize Medicare is an unfunded obligation of $36 trillion over the next 75 years and will need drastic benefit reductions in the future.
The truth is opening Medicare to every one is no better an idea than the legislation being debated in Congress today. I do feel secure in the knowledge that I created a bill that is only six words in length and is just as viable as any our current officials have devised. Now, what time does the Alabama - Florida game begin?
Carl Goodson is a resident of Clute, TX a suburb of Houston. Mr. Goodson can be contacted at conservativeCarl@gmail.com.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
To the citizens of Connecticut,
Recently while watching Fox News I saw a news segment in which several people were protesting a local appearance being made by Senator Chris Dodd. I would like to commend these citizens for becoming involved in the electoral process, voicing their opinions and their opposition to Senator Dodd’s re-election campaign.
Many Americans not residing in-state have wondered how Mr. Dodd has continually been re-elected by the citizenry of Connecticut and has served 35 years in Washington D.C.
Mr. Dodd’s role in the mortgage meltdown that helped cause the current economic crisis is well documented and need not be re-told. Mr. Dodd’s actions concerning land and house acquisitions are not as well known as his involvement in the home mortgage crisis. Anyone that reads Dick Morris’ “Catastrophe” pp.155 - 186 will be surprised by the favors done for Senator Dodd by various people who then profited from decisions made by committees Mr. Dodd was a member of. Mr. Morris displays copies of the property deeds and transfers of ownership.
I realize Senator Dodd is not the only person in congress that engages in questionable actions but the movement to clean house and toss out the garbage must begin somewhere. Senator Dodd would be an excellent candidate to receive the message that Washington works for us, not us for them. As an average American that has grown weary of corruption and “politics as usual” in Washington, I thank you for your actions.
Carl Goodson
Clute, Texas
Mr. Goodson can be contacted at conservativeCarl@gmail.com.
Recently while watching Fox News I saw a news segment in which several people were protesting a local appearance being made by Senator Chris Dodd. I would like to commend these citizens for becoming involved in the electoral process, voicing their opinions and their opposition to Senator Dodd’s re-election campaign.
Many Americans not residing in-state have wondered how Mr. Dodd has continually been re-elected by the citizenry of Connecticut and has served 35 years in Washington D.C.
Mr. Dodd’s role in the mortgage meltdown that helped cause the current economic crisis is well documented and need not be re-told. Mr. Dodd’s actions concerning land and house acquisitions are not as well known as his involvement in the home mortgage crisis. Anyone that reads Dick Morris’ “Catastrophe” pp.155 - 186 will be surprised by the favors done for Senator Dodd by various people who then profited from decisions made by committees Mr. Dodd was a member of. Mr. Morris displays copies of the property deeds and transfers of ownership.
I realize Senator Dodd is not the only person in congress that engages in questionable actions but the movement to clean house and toss out the garbage must begin somewhere. Senator Dodd would be an excellent candidate to receive the message that Washington works for us, not us for them. As an average American that has grown weary of corruption and “politics as usual” in Washington, I thank you for your actions.
Carl Goodson
Clute, Texas
Mr. Goodson can be contacted at conservativeCarl@gmail.com.
To the editor,
Goodbye Lou,
On November 11 Lou Dobbs, a CNN anchor for 30 years, announced his immediate retirement from the network. Mr. Dobbs is an outspoken opponent of illegal immigration while supporting legal immigration. Lou’s position concerning the issue of illegal immigration has drawn the ire of many people. One of Lou’s harshest critics is Geraldo Rivera of Fox News Corporation.
Geraldo habitually complains that Lou Dobbs slanders Latinos on a regular basis. Geraldo says Mr. Dobbs is a racist that resurrected his career on the backs of immigrants and is single-handedly responsible for the prejudice towards Latinos that supposedly exist within the United States.
What Geraldo doesn’t mention is his feelings about a government that practices true prejudice against Latinos. Mr. Rivera does not speak of the government that deports over 90% of the illegal aliens that cross the southern border every year. Geraldo remains silent when that government sentences illegal aliens to 10 year prison terms for entering the country illegally a second time.
How does Mr. Rivera feel about the government that sentences immigrants to six years imprisonment for overstaying a legal visa or imprisons a natural citizen for five years for marrying an illegal alien for the purposes of keeping that alien in the country?
I doubt Geraldo will ever speak of the stringent immigration laws of Mexico. Instead he will spend his time and efforts trying to discredit a news personality that reports the true facts about illegal immigrants and the negative impact they are having on the economic and social structure of our country.
Mr. Dobbs is correct when he states illegal aliens send almost $20 billion to Mexico every year. Money sent by illegal aliens in the United States to family members in Mexico is that countries 2nd largest source of income, second only to the exporting of oil which generates $24 billion per year.
A 2005 report by Bear Stearns proves Mr. Dobbs correct when he states the true estimate of the number of illegal aliens in the United States to be close to 20 million. The cost of educating, incarcerating and caring for these aliens is projected to be almost $62 billion in 2010 and increases to $150 billion by 2020.
Mr. Dobbs was a popular news anchor but there is no way he alone could be responsible for the attitudes of the majority of the American public. A recent Rasmussen Reports poll demonstrates 74% of Americans believe the U. S. Government is not doing enough to control the southern border while 63% believe securing the border is more important than legalizing undocumented workers. 67% of Americans believe law enforcement should conduct raids in places illegal immigrants are known to gather.
Mr. Rivera was involved in a much publicized heated exchange with Bill O’Reilly on Fox News’ “The O’Reilly Factor”. At one point during the exchange Geraldo accused people like Lou Dobbs of wanting to take immigrants “out back and shoot them”. Yet it was Lou Dobbs and his family that was fired upon, I do not believe Lou Dobbs ever shot at an illegal alien. I have never heard Mr. Dobbs differentiate between Latinos or the 1.5 million non-Hispanic people that are in the United States illegally. Mr. Rivera’s own biases and prejudices are on display when he assumes Lou Dobbs speaks only of Latinos.
I say I will miss Lou Dobbs and his nightly broadcast. I cannot say the same will be true when Geraldo fades from everyone’s memory.
Carl Goodson lives in Clute, TX, a suburb of Houston. Mr. Goodson can be contacted at conservativeCarl@gmail.com.
Goodbye Lou,
On November 11 Lou Dobbs, a CNN anchor for 30 years, announced his immediate retirement from the network. Mr. Dobbs is an outspoken opponent of illegal immigration while supporting legal immigration. Lou’s position concerning the issue of illegal immigration has drawn the ire of many people. One of Lou’s harshest critics is Geraldo Rivera of Fox News Corporation.
Geraldo habitually complains that Lou Dobbs slanders Latinos on a regular basis. Geraldo says Mr. Dobbs is a racist that resurrected his career on the backs of immigrants and is single-handedly responsible for the prejudice towards Latinos that supposedly exist within the United States.
What Geraldo doesn’t mention is his feelings about a government that practices true prejudice against Latinos. Mr. Rivera does not speak of the government that deports over 90% of the illegal aliens that cross the southern border every year. Geraldo remains silent when that government sentences illegal aliens to 10 year prison terms for entering the country illegally a second time.
How does Mr. Rivera feel about the government that sentences immigrants to six years imprisonment for overstaying a legal visa or imprisons a natural citizen for five years for marrying an illegal alien for the purposes of keeping that alien in the country?
I doubt Geraldo will ever speak of the stringent immigration laws of Mexico. Instead he will spend his time and efforts trying to discredit a news personality that reports the true facts about illegal immigrants and the negative impact they are having on the economic and social structure of our country.
Mr. Dobbs is correct when he states illegal aliens send almost $20 billion to Mexico every year. Money sent by illegal aliens in the United States to family members in Mexico is that countries 2nd largest source of income, second only to the exporting of oil which generates $24 billion per year.
A 2005 report by Bear Stearns proves Mr. Dobbs correct when he states the true estimate of the number of illegal aliens in the United States to be close to 20 million. The cost of educating, incarcerating and caring for these aliens is projected to be almost $62 billion in 2010 and increases to $150 billion by 2020.
Mr. Dobbs was a popular news anchor but there is no way he alone could be responsible for the attitudes of the majority of the American public. A recent Rasmussen Reports poll demonstrates 74% of Americans believe the U. S. Government is not doing enough to control the southern border while 63% believe securing the border is more important than legalizing undocumented workers. 67% of Americans believe law enforcement should conduct raids in places illegal immigrants are known to gather.
Mr. Rivera was involved in a much publicized heated exchange with Bill O’Reilly on Fox News’ “The O’Reilly Factor”. At one point during the exchange Geraldo accused people like Lou Dobbs of wanting to take immigrants “out back and shoot them”. Yet it was Lou Dobbs and his family that was fired upon, I do not believe Lou Dobbs ever shot at an illegal alien. I have never heard Mr. Dobbs differentiate between Latinos or the 1.5 million non-Hispanic people that are in the United States illegally. Mr. Rivera’s own biases and prejudices are on display when he assumes Lou Dobbs speaks only of Latinos.
I say I will miss Lou Dobbs and his nightly broadcast. I cannot say the same will be true when Geraldo fades from everyone’s memory.
Carl Goodson lives in Clute, TX, a suburb of Houston. Mr. Goodson can be contacted at conservativeCarl@gmail.com.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Palin Derangement Syndrome
Sarah Palin has begun a tour to promote the release of her book “Going Rogue”. The majority of the stops on the tour are in heartland America where the ex-governor is extremely popular. Thousands are showing up to purchase Palin’s book and get the chance to meet the Governor. Given the Governors popularity it comes as no surprise the Anti-Palin machine has kicked into overdrive.
Recently Norah O’Donnell filed a news report on MSNBC’s “Hardball” with Chris Matthews in which she stated the crowd was largely white with almost no minorities. Mr. Matthews agreed calling the crowd monochromatic. So what Chris. I will bet a paycheck that a picture of the inhabitants of three out of the only four households in America that watch MSNBC would show all white people. I guess Chris Matthews has a monochromatic following.
Columnist Eugene Robinson states that Governor Palin is willing to thumb her nose at political and social convention. The political convention part of that statement is absolutely correct. Governor Palin is not a Washington insider and that is the part of her that makes her likeable with the average American. Concerning Mr. Robinson’s statement of social convention Governor Palin’s beliefs are in line with that of mainstream Middle America. This is a successful pro-life, pro-gun, pro-energy woman that reflects the values of most of “fly over” America.
Another columnist, Richard Cohen asks “While President Obama is in China meeting with our bankers could anyone imagine Palin conducting a protracted policy review about Afghanistan?” Actually there are many people who believe Governor Palin would be capable of deciding to send troops to Afghanistan if the Commander she appointed requested them and was trying to implement her stated policy concerning the struggle in that country. This would be in stark contrast to the current administration which puts forth the perception that Afghanistan and our troops there are not as important as a socialistic health care plan. Perhaps President Obama would not have to be in China meeting with our bankers if his administration would not borrow and spend our nation into bankruptcy. Mr. Cohen further states “The Palin movement is fueled by high-octane vile” but offers no examples of this “vile”. The only vile I see is the hatred voiced by liberal columnist and news organizations.
So why do the most liberal people on the far left fringes of society disapprove Governor Palin? Could it possibly be they see her as the most likely threat to their liberal agenda? Liberals realize they are the minority group of Americans even if a very liberal man was elected to the Whitehouse. Sarah Palin is a conservative’s conservative and will receive widespread support among conservatives if she chooses to be a candidate in 2012. .
The latest polls indicate the Presidents approval rating is below 50% even though his popularity rating is still above 50%. This would indicate Americans want to support their President but do not like the path this President has chosen to lead our country along. The Congressional dis-approval rating is at 76%, a near record high. Liberals must complete as many of their goals as possible before the next election for they surely realize Americans are not satisfied with the current administration or either House of Congress.
Mr. Robinson further states that Republican nominee contenders ignore her at their own peril. Conservatives say Democrats ignore her at their own peril. That is the real reason the Anti-Palin machine is in high gear.
Carl Goodson lives in Clute TX, a suburb of Houston. Mr. Goodson can be contacted at conservativeCarl@gmail.com.
Sarah Palin has begun a tour to promote the release of her book “Going Rogue”. The majority of the stops on the tour are in heartland America where the ex-governor is extremely popular. Thousands are showing up to purchase Palin’s book and get the chance to meet the Governor. Given the Governors popularity it comes as no surprise the Anti-Palin machine has kicked into overdrive.
Recently Norah O’Donnell filed a news report on MSNBC’s “Hardball” with Chris Matthews in which she stated the crowd was largely white with almost no minorities. Mr. Matthews agreed calling the crowd monochromatic. So what Chris. I will bet a paycheck that a picture of the inhabitants of three out of the only four households in America that watch MSNBC would show all white people. I guess Chris Matthews has a monochromatic following.
Columnist Eugene Robinson states that Governor Palin is willing to thumb her nose at political and social convention. The political convention part of that statement is absolutely correct. Governor Palin is not a Washington insider and that is the part of her that makes her likeable with the average American. Concerning Mr. Robinson’s statement of social convention Governor Palin’s beliefs are in line with that of mainstream Middle America. This is a successful pro-life, pro-gun, pro-energy woman that reflects the values of most of “fly over” America.
Another columnist, Richard Cohen asks “While President Obama is in China meeting with our bankers could anyone imagine Palin conducting a protracted policy review about Afghanistan?” Actually there are many people who believe Governor Palin would be capable of deciding to send troops to Afghanistan if the Commander she appointed requested them and was trying to implement her stated policy concerning the struggle in that country. This would be in stark contrast to the current administration which puts forth the perception that Afghanistan and our troops there are not as important as a socialistic health care plan. Perhaps President Obama would not have to be in China meeting with our bankers if his administration would not borrow and spend our nation into bankruptcy. Mr. Cohen further states “The Palin movement is fueled by high-octane vile” but offers no examples of this “vile”. The only vile I see is the hatred voiced by liberal columnist and news organizations.
So why do the most liberal people on the far left fringes of society disapprove Governor Palin? Could it possibly be they see her as the most likely threat to their liberal agenda? Liberals realize they are the minority group of Americans even if a very liberal man was elected to the Whitehouse. Sarah Palin is a conservative’s conservative and will receive widespread support among conservatives if she chooses to be a candidate in 2012. .
The latest polls indicate the Presidents approval rating is below 50% even though his popularity rating is still above 50%. This would indicate Americans want to support their President but do not like the path this President has chosen to lead our country along. The Congressional dis-approval rating is at 76%, a near record high. Liberals must complete as many of their goals as possible before the next election for they surely realize Americans are not satisfied with the current administration or either House of Congress.
Mr. Robinson further states that Republican nominee contenders ignore her at their own peril. Conservatives say Democrats ignore her at their own peril. That is the real reason the Anti-Palin machine is in high gear.
Carl Goodson lives in Clute TX, a suburb of Houston. Mr. Goodson can be contacted at conservativeCarl@gmail.com.
Friday, November 20, 2009
If you are elderly or disabled or will become elderly (all of us), watch out for national healthcare. Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel is a Bioethicist and is President Obama’s health policy advisor. Dr. Emanuel wrote an article for the Hastings Center in 1996 in which he argued only people that were capable of being participating citizens should be guaranteed basic healthcare benefits. An example of his beliefs would be a person that suffers from dementia. Dr. Emanuel believes a person that suffers from dementia should be denied health benefits. Does this mean the aged or the disabled should be denied benefits because they are not “participating” citizens? Would the person who becomes unemployed be denied because he was not a “participating” citizen? Dr. Emanuel believes “25 year olds should be given preferential treatment over 65 year olds because 65 year olds have already had their 25 years”. Great if your are 25, not great if you are 65. Dr. Emanuel has developed a hierarchy of care that emphasis’ care to 5 groups of people. 1.Youngest 2.prognosis 3.Save the most lives 4.Lottery system 5.Instrumental value. His hierarchy gives 15 to 40 year olds preferential treatment. Sounds like fascism to me!
Am I a racist?
I have always been a conservative man. I believe in a small government, lower taxes and self reliance and determination. The current administration is proposing policies and programs I do not agree with. These governmental efforts have caused me to exercise my first amendment right to peaceably assemble and petition my government for a redress of grievances. I attended a tea party for the first time on tax day April 15th and have attended several more since. The Americans I have seen at these tea parties have been patriotic people who love their country and are concerned about real issues.
I do not agree with our President on most issues. Because of this disagreement I am being told by Janeane Garofalo, an actress, I am a racist. In fact she says all tea party attendees are racist that cannot tolerate a black man occupying the oval office. I have never judged a man based on the color of his skin, only his beliefs and values. Before this actress accuses any one of racism she should remember some Presidential history.
The President favors a single payer universal health care system. Most Americans believe this is a socialistic program and robs taxpayers of their freedom by placing the responsibility of another person’s action upon them. The majority of Americans reject this plan and I agree with them.
The President believes private corporations should be subjected to stringent government oversight and regulation. He would like a powerful federal government to regulate the economy and promote social justice. Social justice is the policy of a progressive graduated income tax, an inheritance tax and the redistribution of wealth. The majority of Americans reject the idea of redistributing wealth and over burdensome taxation. I agree with these Americans.
The President is an ardent supporter of labor unions. He says he believes business owners and workers should be treated as equals although he favors labor. I believe labor unions, in a rebuke of capitalism, place unfair burdens upon the business owner. I must disagree with the President and side with the business owner.
The President believes the government should restrict access to tour country’s natural resources. I believe a nations resources should be exploited to advance that nations society. Once again I disagree with the President.
Because of my beliefs I am labeled a racist. The President that believed in single payer health care, government regulation of business, high taxation, strong labor unions and government ownership of natural resources was Teddy Roosevelt. Mr. Roosevelt, a white man, was running on the Bull Moose Party ticket and campaigning in the year 1912. Barak Obama has embraced these same policies with eloquent modern speech but they are the same progressive liberal goals of the early 20th century.
Now I ask Ms. Garofalo to please explain to me what makes me a racist.
Carl Goodson lives in Clute TX, a suburb of Houston. Carl can be contacted at conservativeCarl@gmail.com. Mr. Goodson’s book “Letters to the editor:What is your government doing to you?” is available at amozon.com and barnesandnoble.com. **
I have always been a conservative man. I believe in a small government, lower taxes and self reliance and determination. The current administration is proposing policies and programs I do not agree with. These governmental efforts have caused me to exercise my first amendment right to peaceably assemble and petition my government for a redress of grievances. I attended a tea party for the first time on tax day April 15th and have attended several more since. The Americans I have seen at these tea parties have been patriotic people who love their country and are concerned about real issues.
I do not agree with our President on most issues. Because of this disagreement I am being told by Janeane Garofalo, an actress, I am a racist. In fact she says all tea party attendees are racist that cannot tolerate a black man occupying the oval office. I have never judged a man based on the color of his skin, only his beliefs and values. Before this actress accuses any one of racism she should remember some Presidential history.
The President favors a single payer universal health care system. Most Americans believe this is a socialistic program and robs taxpayers of their freedom by placing the responsibility of another person’s action upon them. The majority of Americans reject this plan and I agree with them.
The President believes private corporations should be subjected to stringent government oversight and regulation. He would like a powerful federal government to regulate the economy and promote social justice. Social justice is the policy of a progressive graduated income tax, an inheritance tax and the redistribution of wealth. The majority of Americans reject the idea of redistributing wealth and over burdensome taxation. I agree with these Americans.
The President is an ardent supporter of labor unions. He says he believes business owners and workers should be treated as equals although he favors labor. I believe labor unions, in a rebuke of capitalism, place unfair burdens upon the business owner. I must disagree with the President and side with the business owner.
The President believes the government should restrict access to tour country’s natural resources. I believe a nations resources should be exploited to advance that nations society. Once again I disagree with the President.
Because of my beliefs I am labeled a racist. The President that believed in single payer health care, government regulation of business, high taxation, strong labor unions and government ownership of natural resources was Teddy Roosevelt. Mr. Roosevelt, a white man, was running on the Bull Moose Party ticket and campaigning in the year 1912. Barak Obama has embraced these same policies with eloquent modern speech but they are the same progressive liberal goals of the early 20th century.
Now I ask Ms. Garofalo to please explain to me what makes me a racist.
Carl Goodson lives in Clute TX, a suburb of Houston. Carl can be contacted at conservativeCarl@gmail.com. Mr. Goodson’s book “Letters to the editor:What is your government doing to you?” is available at amozon.com and barnesandnoble.com. **
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
The Audacity of Obama
Just hours before the House of Representatives voted on bill H.R. 3962 The Affordable Health Care for America Act (National Health Care) President Obama conducted a televised news conference. The purpose of the press conference was to urge democrats to approve the legislation. One of the last statements he made during the press conference was to declare this bill was NOT socialistic. Why did the President feel compelled to say this? Could it be that deep down he knows this is not true and he is trying to convince himself it is true?
In America individuals have always had the right to live according to their beliefs as long as they did not infringe upon the rights of others. Along with this right was the accepted fact the individual was responsible for their decisions. In other words you are responsible for your actions.
Cigarette packages have labels warning of the consequences of smoking. Millions of adults make the conscious decision to light up knowing what the long term results to their health may be. God Bless America for providing smokers the freedom to make this decision.
Everyone knows excessive drinking will cause health problems and destroys families and relationships. God bless America for providing these drinkers the freedom to make the decision to consume alcohol.
Obesity is widely recognized as America’s greatest health issue. Some people cannot say no to food even when they know the consequences of overeating. God bless America for providing all the food these people can possibly eat.
Some people choose to lead a promiscuous lifestyle even though they know there is a significant health risk potential. Most people are aware of the hazards associated with unsafe sex practices that could lead to fatal diseases. Once again God bless America for providing these people the freedom to make this choice.
The smokers, drinkers, overeaters and promiscuous in our society are adults that have made the decision to participate in these activities even though they have been made aware of the consequences.
Now I am being told by my government my taxes will be used to pay for the chemotherapy and radiation treatments of the smoker with lung cancer. I will be forced to pay for the liver transplant for the alcoholic. All taxpayers will provide money to diagnose and treat the various illnesses and conditions that are associated with obesity. Everyone with HIV/AIDS will clamor for the expensive life extending medications that will be furnished by taxpayers.
Relieving these people of the burden of the consequences of their actions and placing that burden on the taxpayers of America robs the taxpayer of some of his freedoms. Confiscating private property through taxation and redistributing that private property through health care benefits is socialistic.
Is it possible in the not too distant future the health care plan will be over budget and a reduction in services will be needed to remain within the budget? Will the government tell me my waist is two inches too large and I MUST enroll in a weight loss program? Will an administrator tell me I can eat only 2,000 calories per day for the good of the nation? Will the obese be forbidden from drinking soft drinks or eating dessert? Will smoking be banned?
I would like the President to explain his definition of socialistic. Would his definition be what the average American would say is Communism? If so what would he call Communism? Our President is an intelligent man that studied Constitutional law at Harvard University. I believe he knows this program is socialistic and embraces it. Many people believe the President wants to reshape our country to mirror the Socialist countries of Europe. I tend to agree with these people.
In my high school government class I was taught the unequal distribution of goods and pay to work done is Socialism. According to our bold and arrogant President my high school government teacher was wrong.
Carl Goodson lives in Clute, TX a suburb of Houston. Mr. Goodson can be contacted at conservativeCarl@gmail.com. Mr. Goodson’s book “Letters to the editor:What is your government doing to you?” is available at Amazon.com or Barnesandnoble.com.
Just hours before the House of Representatives voted on bill H.R. 3962 The Affordable Health Care for America Act (National Health Care) President Obama conducted a televised news conference. The purpose of the press conference was to urge democrats to approve the legislation. One of the last statements he made during the press conference was to declare this bill was NOT socialistic. Why did the President feel compelled to say this? Could it be that deep down he knows this is not true and he is trying to convince himself it is true?
In America individuals have always had the right to live according to their beliefs as long as they did not infringe upon the rights of others. Along with this right was the accepted fact the individual was responsible for their decisions. In other words you are responsible for your actions.
Cigarette packages have labels warning of the consequences of smoking. Millions of adults make the conscious decision to light up knowing what the long term results to their health may be. God Bless America for providing smokers the freedom to make this decision.
Everyone knows excessive drinking will cause health problems and destroys families and relationships. God bless America for providing these drinkers the freedom to make the decision to consume alcohol.
Obesity is widely recognized as America’s greatest health issue. Some people cannot say no to food even when they know the consequences of overeating. God bless America for providing all the food these people can possibly eat.
Some people choose to lead a promiscuous lifestyle even though they know there is a significant health risk potential. Most people are aware of the hazards associated with unsafe sex practices that could lead to fatal diseases. Once again God bless America for providing these people the freedom to make this choice.
The smokers, drinkers, overeaters and promiscuous in our society are adults that have made the decision to participate in these activities even though they have been made aware of the consequences.
Now I am being told by my government my taxes will be used to pay for the chemotherapy and radiation treatments of the smoker with lung cancer. I will be forced to pay for the liver transplant for the alcoholic. All taxpayers will provide money to diagnose and treat the various illnesses and conditions that are associated with obesity. Everyone with HIV/AIDS will clamor for the expensive life extending medications that will be furnished by taxpayers.
Relieving these people of the burden of the consequences of their actions and placing that burden on the taxpayers of America robs the taxpayer of some of his freedoms. Confiscating private property through taxation and redistributing that private property through health care benefits is socialistic.
Is it possible in the not too distant future the health care plan will be over budget and a reduction in services will be needed to remain within the budget? Will the government tell me my waist is two inches too large and I MUST enroll in a weight loss program? Will an administrator tell me I can eat only 2,000 calories per day for the good of the nation? Will the obese be forbidden from drinking soft drinks or eating dessert? Will smoking be banned?
I would like the President to explain his definition of socialistic. Would his definition be what the average American would say is Communism? If so what would he call Communism? Our President is an intelligent man that studied Constitutional law at Harvard University. I believe he knows this program is socialistic and embraces it. Many people believe the President wants to reshape our country to mirror the Socialist countries of Europe. I tend to agree with these people.
In my high school government class I was taught the unequal distribution of goods and pay to work done is Socialism. According to our bold and arrogant President my high school government teacher was wrong.
Carl Goodson lives in Clute, TX a suburb of Houston. Mr. Goodson can be contacted at conservativeCarl@gmail.com. Mr. Goodson’s book “Letters to the editor:What is your government doing to you?” is available at Amazon.com or Barnesandnoble.com.
The Republican Leadership is Out of Touch With It’s Base
Why is it so difficult for Republican leaders to come to the realization that conservatism is on the rise in the United States? Judging by their recent comments it would seem the GOP’s only prerequisite for membership in the Party is a person must disagree to any degree with the Democrat Party. This attitude may have cost them two congressional seats in the recent elections.
In New York’s 23rd congressional district former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich along with the National Republican Committee endorsed the extremely liberal Republican candidate Deidre Scozzafava. Ms. Scozzafava was campaigning against Democrat Bill Owen and Conservative Doug Hoffman. The RNC spent almost one million dollars supporting Scozzafava and aired commercials against the Conservative Hoffman. Ms. Scozzafava repaid the Committee by withdrawing from the race and endorsing the Democrat Bill Owen. Mr. Owen won the contest with 49% of the popular vote to Hoffman’s 45% while Scozzafava received 6% after withdrawing. Maybe if the NRC had supported the true Conservative Hoffman he would have received the 6% Scozzafava attracted and would have been declared the winner of the election.
In California’s 10th district Republican David Harmer finished 10 points behind Democrat John Garamendi in a district that is 66% Democrat. What would the outcome have been if the Republican Committee had spent the Scozzafava one million dollars supporting Mr. Harmer? It is entirely possible the Republicans could have achieved a second victory. The Republicans instead suffered two defeats.
Newt Gingrich spokesman Mr. Rick Tyler, appearing on Fox News, suggested the only way for Republicans to regain control of Congress is Conservatives must be willing to vote for moderate Republicans.
Mr. Michael Steele, the Republican National Committee Chairman, also appeared on Fox News and stated he welcomed moderates into the Republican family with “open arms”.
Former New York Governor George Pataki told Neil Cavuto he believed Moderate Republicans should be embraced by conservatives.
Many observers have noted a recent Rasmussen Reports poll that reveals 40% of Americans describe themselves as conservative while 37% claim to be moderates and only 20% say they are liberal. Did someone hide the results of this poll from Mr. Gingrich, Mr. Tyler, Mr. Steele and Governor Pataki? I believe this is still a centrist country and most of the 37% of the people that claim to be Moderates have a tendency to favor conservative positions.
If the RNC continues to support moderate or liberal candidates it is entirely possible the Democrats will retain control of Congress. Recently a BBC correspondent appearing on MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough show expressed a true conservative’s view. She said “Conservatives want to send a message to the Republican leadership. That message is Conservatives will not vote for moderate or liberal Republican candidates even if the result is a Democrat victory”. Finally someone, a foreigner at that, gets it. Mr. Steele and Mr. Gingrich should listen to her. The era of John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Olympia Snowe needs to end at the next election cycle.
Conservatives hope the Republican leadership will take note of the results of this election and realize what conservative Americans feel. The current administration in the Whitehouse has turned this country sharply to the left and Conservatives want to shift the country back to the right. Conservatives long so desperately for this turn to the right they are willing to allow Democrats short term victories to convince the Republican Party to do the RIGHT thing.
Mr. Goodson lives in Clute, TX a suburb of Houston. Mr. Goodson can be reached at conservativeCarl@gmail.com . Mr. Goodson’s book “What is Your Government Doing to You?” is available at Amazon.com.
Why is it so difficult for Republican leaders to come to the realization that conservatism is on the rise in the United States? Judging by their recent comments it would seem the GOP’s only prerequisite for membership in the Party is a person must disagree to any degree with the Democrat Party. This attitude may have cost them two congressional seats in the recent elections.
In New York’s 23rd congressional district former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich along with the National Republican Committee endorsed the extremely liberal Republican candidate Deidre Scozzafava. Ms. Scozzafava was campaigning against Democrat Bill Owen and Conservative Doug Hoffman. The RNC spent almost one million dollars supporting Scozzafava and aired commercials against the Conservative Hoffman. Ms. Scozzafava repaid the Committee by withdrawing from the race and endorsing the Democrat Bill Owen. Mr. Owen won the contest with 49% of the popular vote to Hoffman’s 45% while Scozzafava received 6% after withdrawing. Maybe if the NRC had supported the true Conservative Hoffman he would have received the 6% Scozzafava attracted and would have been declared the winner of the election.
In California’s 10th district Republican David Harmer finished 10 points behind Democrat John Garamendi in a district that is 66% Democrat. What would the outcome have been if the Republican Committee had spent the Scozzafava one million dollars supporting Mr. Harmer? It is entirely possible the Republicans could have achieved a second victory. The Republicans instead suffered two defeats.
Newt Gingrich spokesman Mr. Rick Tyler, appearing on Fox News, suggested the only way for Republicans to regain control of Congress is Conservatives must be willing to vote for moderate Republicans.
Mr. Michael Steele, the Republican National Committee Chairman, also appeared on Fox News and stated he welcomed moderates into the Republican family with “open arms”.
Former New York Governor George Pataki told Neil Cavuto he believed Moderate Republicans should be embraced by conservatives.
Many observers have noted a recent Rasmussen Reports poll that reveals 40% of Americans describe themselves as conservative while 37% claim to be moderates and only 20% say they are liberal. Did someone hide the results of this poll from Mr. Gingrich, Mr. Tyler, Mr. Steele and Governor Pataki? I believe this is still a centrist country and most of the 37% of the people that claim to be Moderates have a tendency to favor conservative positions.
If the RNC continues to support moderate or liberal candidates it is entirely possible the Democrats will retain control of Congress. Recently a BBC correspondent appearing on MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough show expressed a true conservative’s view. She said “Conservatives want to send a message to the Republican leadership. That message is Conservatives will not vote for moderate or liberal Republican candidates even if the result is a Democrat victory”. Finally someone, a foreigner at that, gets it. Mr. Steele and Mr. Gingrich should listen to her. The era of John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Olympia Snowe needs to end at the next election cycle.
Conservatives hope the Republican leadership will take note of the results of this election and realize what conservative Americans feel. The current administration in the Whitehouse has turned this country sharply to the left and Conservatives want to shift the country back to the right. Conservatives long so desperately for this turn to the right they are willing to allow Democrats short term victories to convince the Republican Party to do the RIGHT thing.
Mr. Goodson lives in Clute, TX a suburb of Houston. Mr. Goodson can be reached at conservativeCarl@gmail.com . Mr. Goodson’s book “What is Your Government Doing to You?” is available at Amazon.com.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
I can't believe the House of Representatives has passed the national healthcare bill. They seem to forget most Americans oppose this legislation. The Democrats must know a large percentage of them will not be re-elected next year. This morning before the vote our Dear Leader (Obama) had the audacity to say "This bill is not socialistic". Using taxpayer money to pay for the healthcare of non-taxpayers is the very definition of Socialism. I wonder what he would call Socialism. Communism? Conservatives must begin immediately to recognize and support candidates that will repeal the legislation that is about to be jammed down our throats.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
The national healthcare plan must be seriously flawed. Not since 1976 has a President had majority rule in congress like President Obama now has. There are fifty-eight Democrat Senators and two Independent senators (Lieberman of Conn. And Sanders of Vermont) that vote with the Democrats 99% of the time. Two of the Republican senators (Collins and Snowe, both from Maine) are so easily swayed they may as well be counted as Independent if not outright Democrats. This a minimum of sixty and in reality sixty-two votes for Democrats on any vote. In the House of Representatives the Democrats enjoy a 256 to 178 majority. Why does President Obama blame the Republicans for non-passage of the bill (H.R. 3200)? The problem can’t be Republicans, the Democrats have a majority and could pass this bill even if every Republican congressman voted against it. Why hasn’t this happened? Because even the Democrats know this is a terrible piece of legislation that should never even be considered. America is still a center-right country even if an extremely liberal man was voted into the presidency. The Democrats congress know they must eventually return home and answer to their constituency. This is what they fear most.
Monday, November 2, 2009
I believe Chris Matthews has done conservatives a great service. In a moment of clarity he is not particularly known for, Mr. Matthews asked the most important question asked to date. “Where are the poor people and the unions during the debate of Nationalized Healthcare?” Recent polling done by Rasmussen Reports suggest 86% of Americans have healthcare insurance and 68% of these people are satisfied or very satisfied with their healthcare. All people in the United States have access to emergency care through our nations great hospital system and emergency rooms. Contrary to what some would have the world believe, there are not mass numbers of people dying in American streets. Perhaps the healthcare issue is not the problem our Dear Leader (President Obama) says it is. If this is so, why does he insist it is the most pressing problem in America? Perhaps this is just one of the issues he will use to remake our country to fulfill his vision of a European style socialist country. Despite his claims to the contrary, we must not doubt that our Dear Leader is a socialist. Thank you Mr. Matthews. Maybe you have caused Americans to wake up, look around and say “This is not for us”.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of Whitehouse Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, is the Chief Medical Advisor to President Obama. Dr. Emanuel has published papers describing his “Complete Lives System”. This is a system that places a value on the productivity of a citizen which is used to determine if medical care should be extended to that person. The Complete Lives System favors medical care for those aged from about 15 to 55. Anyone younger or older may not get the expensive life saving care they may need. This is in effect, healthcare rationing to cut cost. President Obama says this is not true that everyone will be treated equally. For those that refuse to believe the present Administration will ration healthcare, look at the “Cap & Trade” bill (H.R. 2454). In the Cap & Trade legislation $900 million is allocated to train healthcare workers to handle medical conditions brought about by climate change. $900 million is a lot of taxpayer money to spend and demonstrates the administrations attitude about fellow human beings. Normally people would think this amount of spending for our citizens is commendable. Before you believe that consider the same bill allocates $5.3 billion to help animals!
In New York’s 23rd congressional district former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has endorsed The Republican candidate Deede Scozzafava for the seat vacated by John McHugh who has become Secretary of the Army. Many observers feel Ms. Scozzafava is far too liberal to be considered a true Republican. Ms. Scozzafava is a controversial candidate that supports gay marriage and abortion and also voted for tax increases and supported the Economic Stimulus Package. The result of her views is many conservatives choose not to support her. On October 16th however Speaker Gingrich offered his support. On Monday October 26th Mr. Rick Tyler, a spokesman for Mr. Gingrich, appeared on Fox News’s “Your World” with Neil Cavuto.
In the course of his appearance Mr. Tyler made several interesting comments. Mr. Tyler commended the participants of the several “Tea Parties” around the nation but noted the participants have no voice in the political process. Mr. Tyler noted the Republican Party needs to capture the energy and emotion of the Tea Parties but readily admits he did not know how this would be accomplished. Mr. Tyler also stated that as long as conservatives were voting for candidates other than Republicans the Democrats would remain in control of Congress. Mr. Tyler seemed to be suggesting that conservatives must vote for moderate Republicans to achieve change in Washington D.C…
Mr. Tyler unknowingly displayed the disconnect that exist between the Republican Party and conservative voters. There is a movement in America that is gaining in intensity and may soon become a ground swell of discontent among conservatives. Most conservative voters will not elect a liberal or even a moderate Republican. Mr. Tyler, like most Republicans I am afraid to say, has been unable to gauge the disgust many conservatives feel about the actions of the Republican Party during the past twenty years.
Mr. Tyler’s thinking is actually polar opposite of the conservative movement members thought process. The Republican Party thinks conservatives must vote for Republican candidates to achieve change. Conservatives believe Republicans must vote for conservative candidates to achieve this change. Many conservatives will vote for a third party candidate if the third party candidate is more conservative than the Republican candidate. True conservatives will do this even if the result is a Democrat winning the election. This is the only means the conservative voter has to convince Republican candidates they must be conservative or face rejection at the polls. Some conservatives are willing to go so far as to lose all 535 seats of congress to the Democrats for two years if it will convince the Republicans true conservatism is what is desired and, more importantly, sorely needed in Washington D.C..
In the course of his appearance Mr. Tyler made several interesting comments. Mr. Tyler commended the participants of the several “Tea Parties” around the nation but noted the participants have no voice in the political process. Mr. Tyler noted the Republican Party needs to capture the energy and emotion of the Tea Parties but readily admits he did not know how this would be accomplished. Mr. Tyler also stated that as long as conservatives were voting for candidates other than Republicans the Democrats would remain in control of Congress. Mr. Tyler seemed to be suggesting that conservatives must vote for moderate Republicans to achieve change in Washington D.C…
Mr. Tyler unknowingly displayed the disconnect that exist between the Republican Party and conservative voters. There is a movement in America that is gaining in intensity and may soon become a ground swell of discontent among conservatives. Most conservative voters will not elect a liberal or even a moderate Republican. Mr. Tyler, like most Republicans I am afraid to say, has been unable to gauge the disgust many conservatives feel about the actions of the Republican Party during the past twenty years.
Mr. Tyler’s thinking is actually polar opposite of the conservative movement members thought process. The Republican Party thinks conservatives must vote for Republican candidates to achieve change. Conservatives believe Republicans must vote for conservative candidates to achieve this change. Many conservatives will vote for a third party candidate if the third party candidate is more conservative than the Republican candidate. True conservatives will do this even if the result is a Democrat winning the election. This is the only means the conservative voter has to convince Republican candidates they must be conservative or face rejection at the polls. Some conservatives are willing to go so far as to lose all 535 seats of congress to the Democrats for two years if it will convince the Republicans true conservatism is what is desired and, more importantly, sorely needed in Washington D.C..
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Opt-out versus Opt-in . What is the difference? Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced the public option (government run healthcare), with a provision that allows states to opt out of participating in the program, is the best possible solution to the nation’s perceived healthcare crisis. There are some unanswered questions concerning the opt-out option. Will the citizens of states that decide to opt out be required to pay taxes, fees or penalties to support the citizens of states that decide to participate in the program? Will the citizens of opted out states become exempt from these taxes, fees or penalties? If a state opts out can they join at a later date? If a state participates can they opt out at a later date? Would citizens of participating states be required to pay higher taxes or fees because the cost of the program is spread among fewer participants? Requiring citizens of opted-out states to pay for the care of participating states is redistribution of wealth and socialistic. Allowing states to enter and leave the program would cause the citizens to have and then not have healthcare whenever the political majority in their state changes from party to party.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Both President Obama and Vice-President Biden, along with several other politicians, have been quoted as saying healthcare is a “right”. I have read, re-read and re-reread the constitution. I did see the rights that everyone is familiar with: the right to keep and bear arms, the right to a trial by jury etc.. As much as I looked, read and hunted though, I could not find an article or amendment that bestowed the right to healthcare upon me. There must be a hidden clause somewhere in there that I just can’t seem to find. I am not a fan of or listen to Rush Limbaugh but I did see an interview with him on a national news program. Mr. Limbaugh said something that rings very true: “ A right cannot be taken from an individual”. The old adage of “Whatever the government gives, the government can take” is just as true now as it has always been. Not only can the government take away healthcare, they can ration it, change it at anytime or use it for leverage to achieve other goals. NO THANKS! I will keep mine the way it is.
Monday, October 26, 2009
In New York’s 23rd congressional district former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has endorsed The Republican candidate Deede Scozzafava for the seat vacated by John McHugh who has become Secretary of the Army. Many observers feel Ms. Scozzafava is far too liberal to be considered a true Republican. Ms. Scozzafava is a controversial candidate that supports gay marriage and abortion and also voted for tax increases and supported the Economic Stimulus Package. The result of her views is many conservatives choose not to support her. On October 16th however Speaker Gingrich offered his support. On Monday October 26th Mr. Rick Tyler, a spokesman for Mr. Gingrich, appeared on Fox News’s “Your World” with Neil Cavuto.
In the course of his appearance Mr. Tyler made several interesting comments. Mr. Tyler commended the participants of the several “Tea Parties” around the nation but noted the participants have no voice in the political process. Mr. Tyler noted the Republican Party needs to capture the energy and emotion of the Tea Parties but readily admits he did not know how this would be accomplished. Mr. Tyler also stated that as long as conservatives were voting for candidates other than Republicans the Democrats would remain in control of Congress. Mr. Tyler seemed to be suggesting that conservatives must vote for moderate Republicans to achieve change in Washington D.C…
Mr. Tyler unknowingly displayed the disconnect that exist between the Republican Party and conservative voters. There is a movement in America that is gaining in intensity and may soon become a ground swell of discontent among conservatives. Most conservative voters will not elect a liberal or even a moderate Republican. Mr. Tyler, like most Republicans I am afraid to say, has been unable to gauge the disgust many conservatives feel about the actions of the Republican Party during the past twenty years.
Mr. Tyler’s thinking is actually polar opposite of the conservative movement members thought process. The Republican Party thinks conservatives must vote for Republican candidates to achieve change. Conservatives believe Republicans must vote for conservative candidates to achieve this change. Many conservatives will vote for a third party candidate if the third party candidate is more conservative than the Republican candidate. True conservatives will do this even if the result is a Democrat winning the election. This is the only means the conservative voter has to convince Republican candidates they must be conservative or face rejection at the polls. Some conservatives are willing to go so far as to lose all 535 seats of congress to the Democrats for two years if it will convince the Republicans true conservatism is what is desired and, more importantly, sorely needed in Washington D.C..
In the course of his appearance Mr. Tyler made several interesting comments. Mr. Tyler commended the participants of the several “Tea Parties” around the nation but noted the participants have no voice in the political process. Mr. Tyler noted the Republican Party needs to capture the energy and emotion of the Tea Parties but readily admits he did not know how this would be accomplished. Mr. Tyler also stated that as long as conservatives were voting for candidates other than Republicans the Democrats would remain in control of Congress. Mr. Tyler seemed to be suggesting that conservatives must vote for moderate Republicans to achieve change in Washington D.C…
Mr. Tyler unknowingly displayed the disconnect that exist between the Republican Party and conservative voters. There is a movement in America that is gaining in intensity and may soon become a ground swell of discontent among conservatives. Most conservative voters will not elect a liberal or even a moderate Republican. Mr. Tyler, like most Republicans I am afraid to say, has been unable to gauge the disgust many conservatives feel about the actions of the Republican Party during the past twenty years.
Mr. Tyler’s thinking is actually polar opposite of the conservative movement members thought process. The Republican Party thinks conservatives must vote for Republican candidates to achieve change. Conservatives believe Republicans must vote for conservative candidates to achieve this change. Many conservatives will vote for a third party candidate if the third party candidate is more conservative than the Republican candidate. True conservatives will do this even if the result is a Democrat winning the election. This is the only means the conservative voter has to convince Republican candidates they must be conservative or face rejection at the polls. Some conservatives are willing to go so far as to lose all 535 seats of congress to the Democrats for two years if it will convince the Republicans true conservatism is what is desired and, more importantly, sorely needed in Washington D.C..
If any one is opposed to Abortion they should be wary of House Bill 3200 (National Healthcare). The bill does not contain language that authorizes the payment to physicians who provide abortion services. A Republican amendment to the bill that would have expressly forbid payment for abortions was removed by liberals during committee meetings. A Liberal Congresswoman “assured” one of her constituents that abortions would not be paid for. If this were true why would the amendment been excluded from the bill? If abortions are not going to be funded leave the amendment in. Many Americans do not realize $400 million of taxpayer money is already spent on abortions performed in foreign countries. This was a practice supported by President Clinton but discontinued when George W. Bush became president. Re-instating this policy was one of the first actions President Obama took when he assumed office. If our Leaders support overseas abortions with our tax money why would they not support abortions within our borders. Recent polls have demonstrated the majority of Americans now oppose abortion. Our Leaders should respect the will of the majority. The amendment to not pay for abortions should be included in any and all health related legislation.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
I like to watch the Fox News channel every day to learn the truth about what is happening in Washington D.C… Fox News is, as they claim, balanced and fair. I also enjoy their opinion programming including Sean Hannity. I find myself agreeing with Mr. Hannity until he talks about the remaking of the Republican Party.
Sean Hannity is wrong. Every evening Mr. Hannity touts the self awakening and re-invention of the Republican Party. Mr. Hannity espouses the talking points of Republican opposition to excessive spending and government takeovers that are ruining our country. The truth is it is easy to oppose big government when you are a member of the minority party.
Beginning in 1994 and ending in 2006 the Republicans were the majority party in both houses of Congress. With the election of George W. Bush in 2000 the national debt has been on the increase and is skyrocketing like a NASA space shuttle launch under the current administration. The Republicans did nothing to slow or eliminate the increase.
Mr. Hannity correctly states the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 under President Jimmy Carter was a major contributing factor to the financial meltdown of 2008 that led to the fiasco the current Administration likes to call the Economic Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 (we call it the stimulus package). The Republicans like to say they tried to change the Community Act in 2006 but had lost the majority to the Democrats who, led by Rep. Barney Frank and Senator Chris Dodd, blocked all changes. Where were the Republicans from ’94 to ’06? Why did they not change the law while they were in the majority?
Now Governor Sarah Palin has broken ranks with the Republicans and endorsed an independent candidate in the 23rd congressional district in New York. Finally we see a politician of national stature doing the right thing. Governor Palin is endorsing Doug Hoffman to replace Republican John McHugh who resigned to become Secretary of The Army.
Governor Palin knows the time has come when candidates need to be elected based on their beliefs instead of their party affiliation. I agree whole heartedly with Governor Palin. I have voted for Republicans in every election since 1980 but I will no longer use party affiliation to determine whom I vote for. Show me a Democrat that will lower my taxes and I will vote for them. Show me an Independent that will repeal tax and spend programs and I will vote for them. Show me a Republican that will eliminate the Federal Education Department and I will vote for them.
I believe I will follow governor Palin’s lead and vote for the candidate that that best represents my beliefs and values system. It is time for Americans to begin ignoring the “R” or “D” or “I” beside a candidate’s name and vote for the person based on their beliefs and values.
Sean Hannity is wrong. Every evening Mr. Hannity touts the self awakening and re-invention of the Republican Party. Mr. Hannity espouses the talking points of Republican opposition to excessive spending and government takeovers that are ruining our country. The truth is it is easy to oppose big government when you are a member of the minority party.
Beginning in 1994 and ending in 2006 the Republicans were the majority party in both houses of Congress. With the election of George W. Bush in 2000 the national debt has been on the increase and is skyrocketing like a NASA space shuttle launch under the current administration. The Republicans did nothing to slow or eliminate the increase.
Mr. Hannity correctly states the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 under President Jimmy Carter was a major contributing factor to the financial meltdown of 2008 that led to the fiasco the current Administration likes to call the Economic Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 (we call it the stimulus package). The Republicans like to say they tried to change the Community Act in 2006 but had lost the majority to the Democrats who, led by Rep. Barney Frank and Senator Chris Dodd, blocked all changes. Where were the Republicans from ’94 to ’06? Why did they not change the law while they were in the majority?
Now Governor Sarah Palin has broken ranks with the Republicans and endorsed an independent candidate in the 23rd congressional district in New York. Finally we see a politician of national stature doing the right thing. Governor Palin is endorsing Doug Hoffman to replace Republican John McHugh who resigned to become Secretary of The Army.
Governor Palin knows the time has come when candidates need to be elected based on their beliefs instead of their party affiliation. I agree whole heartedly with Governor Palin. I have voted for Republicans in every election since 1980 but I will no longer use party affiliation to determine whom I vote for. Show me a Democrat that will lower my taxes and I will vote for them. Show me an Independent that will repeal tax and spend programs and I will vote for them. Show me a Republican that will eliminate the Federal Education Department and I will vote for them.
I believe I will follow governor Palin’s lead and vote for the candidate that that best represents my beliefs and values system. It is time for Americans to begin ignoring the “R” or “D” or “I” beside a candidate’s name and vote for the person based on their beliefs and values.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Before 1913 Americans could enjoy the fruits of their labor without fear of the government confiscating a portion of their income. The 16th amendment allowed for the taxation of income which is really private property. The authors of the Declaration of Independence called this private property “the pursuit of happiness”. The personal income tax has evolved into a program that penalizes individuals for success. The “happier” a person is the more taxes they will pay. The top 50% of earners pay 100% of all income taxes while the top 25% of earners pay 86% of all income taxes. The harder a person works the more they are penalized. This creates class warfare. The top earners feel they pay more than their share of taxes while to lower income earners feel the rich can afford to help me out. If every one paid an equal percentage of their income it would create a situation that everyone felt as if they had an interest in the fiscal well being of the nation.
The time to eliminate the personal income , capital gains, estate, alternative minimum , Social Security, Medicare, self employment and corporation taxes has arrived. According to statistics calculated by Fair Tax.org, by instituting a national sales tax of twenty-three percent, all other taxes could become a footnote in history. A national sales tax of twenty-three percent would create revenue equivalent with all current federal taxes. Some argue the sales tax would harm lower income families. This problem is solved by mailing, at the beginning of each month, what is known as a prebate check to families whose income places them at or below the poverty level. The amount of the check would be determined by the number of persons in the family. The calculations are fairly complex but an example of this would be a family of four with a household income of $26,981.00. Under the National Sales tax this family would receive a monthly check of $702.00 to offset any sales tax paid during that month. This amount would increase over time because of adjustments for inflation. This measure would stimulate the economy more than any stimulus bill could ever hope to do. No income taxes would mean Americans keep and spend their own money as they deem appropriate. Tax returns would be eliminated entirely, saving billions of dollars of waste in preparation time and fees. Just imagine all of the former IRS employees that could patrol our borders and ports to keep America safe.
How weak will the U.S. dollar get before the FED takes action. Today at closing the price of oil was about $80. The price of oil has increased dramatically over the last four months, rising almost $20 per barrel. Why would the price increase as demand slips? Oil is traded on the open markets and is bought and sold in American dollars. The FED, during Obama's administration has printed more money than at any other time during our nation's history. The over abundance of dollars coupled with our struggling economy has devalued our dollar to the point other countries are considering using a different currency as the global standard. Our government needs to stop the unnecessary spending and reduce our national debt.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Both President Obama and Vice-President Biden, along with several other politicians, have been quoted as saying healthcare is a “right”. I have read, re-read and re-reread the constitution. I did see the rights that everyone is familiar with: the right to keep and bear arms, the right to a trial by jury etc.. As much as I looked, read and hunted though, I could not find an article or amendment that bestowed the right to healthcare upon me. There must be a hidden clause somewhere in there that I just can’t seem to find. I am not a fan of or listen to Rush Limbaugh but I did see an interview with him on a national news program. Mr. Limbaugh said something that rings very true: “ A right cannot be taken from an individual”. The old adage of “Whatever the government gives, the government can take” is just as true now as it has always been. Not only can the government take away healthcare, they can ration it, change it at anytime or use it for leverage to achieve other goals. NO THANKS! I will keep mine the way it is.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Ex-Governor Mitt Romney is proving voters were correct to reject him as the representative of the Republican Party in the 2008 Presidential election. During a recent interview on the Sean Hannity show Mr. Romney said each state should devise a health plan for their citizens before a national plan was implemented. Mr. Romney argues each state would be a “laboratory” conducting experiments. The Federal Government, he says, could then take from each experiment what is successful and implement a national system. I did not know Mr. Romney was a proponent of universal health care but I do know now. Mr. Romney statement is indicative of the attitudes and beliefs of today’s Republican Party. Are there any Republicans in this world that still believe in a smaller, less intrusive, less taxing government. The Democrats are the party promoting national health care. It seems as if the Republicans feel they must also propose reform but with some differences. If the Republicans wish to differentiate themselves from the Democrats they should unabashedly oppose national health care plans. To do otherwise would confirm most conservative’s view that there really is no difference between the two major political parties.
Friday, October 16, 2009
A single payer Nationalized Healthcare system will eventually result in rationed care. Currently there are 250 million Americans with health insurance. According to the National Center for Health Studies there are under 1 million physicians in the United States or about 1 physician for every 330 people. Most of these physicians are located in the Northeast states, about 4 per 1,000 people, while the Western states only average about 2 per 1,000 people. Coupled with the scarceness of physicians is the fact that 65% of them are 45 years of age or older. Adding 50 million people to the physicians patient lists will mean, on average, each physician will have to care for an additional 200 patients. Most of these physicians will retire in 20 years or less. The proposed healthcare plan will cut payments to physicians for services rendered. Will any students want to enter the medical profession, work for less money and owe a massive amount of student loans? Probably not. A shortage of physicians together with rising cost and more patients will result in a reduction of services available to patients. An Administrator, not physicians, will decide which types of treatment will be given. Are you ready?
Thursday, October 15, 2009
There are a number of “give away” programs in the Cap & Trade legislation that most people do not Know about. The “Cash for Clunkers” program is one of these and will be with us forever. The bill would have the government provide vouchers for the purchase of energy efficient vehicles. Unlike the cash for clunkers the amount of the vouchers has not been determined. Another provision allows people who live in manufactured houses built before 1976 to get a rebate if they purchase a new manufactured house. Just like the cash for clunkers vouchers, the amount of the manufactured home rebate has not been determined. Another programs allows people that have lost their jobs due to this legislation be given vouchers to attend school for free. (We already know people who become unemployed because of this bill will receive 3 years unemployment) WOW! Lose your job and go to college for free. Sign me up! President Obama has said the coal industry will suffer. He plans to make the industrys’ expenses too high to be a viable business. I guess this means the American taxpayer will be funding coal miners educations while a lot of us cant afford to send our own kids to college.
Monday, October 12, 2009
The national healthcare plan must be seriously flawed. Not since 1976 has a President had majority rule in congress like President Obama now has. There are fifty-eight Democrat Senators and two Independent senators (Lieberman of Conn. And Sanders of Vermont) that vote with the Democrats 99% of the time. Two of the Republican senators (Collins and Snowe, both from Maine) are so easily swayed they may as well be counted as Independent if not outright Democrats. This a minimum of sixty and in reality sixty-two votes for Democrats on any vote. In the House of Representatives the Democrats enjoy a 256 to 178 majority. Why does President Obama blame the Republicans for non-passage of the bill (H.R. 3200)? The problem can’t be Republicans, the Democrats have a majority and could pass this bill even if every Republican congressman voted against it. Why hasn’t this happened? Because even the Democrats know this is a terrible piece of legislation that should never even be considered. America is still a center-right country even if an extremely liberal man was voted into the presidency. The Democrats congress know they must eventually return home and answer to their constituency. This is what they fear most.
The national Healthcare plan proposed by Senator Max Baucus will supposedly cost $83 billion per year. According to our peace award winning President there are 47 million uninsured people (15% of the population) in the United States. This plan would provide insurance to 22 million (7% percent of population) of these people while leaving 25 million (8%) without insurance. Our President wants to totally revamp the world’s best healthcare system for 7% of our population. Why? Only 50% of Americans pay income taxes. This means 157 million taxpayers will each have to pay $546 per year to insure 22 million. Senator Baucus stated the only way national healthcare will work is with shared responsibility. What has happened to the American ideal of Individual rights coupled with Individual responsibilities?
Friday, October 9, 2009
Lets see what is going on here! Over four million jobs lost since February. We now enjoy the benefits of the largest yearly deficit in the history of the country. We are reading terrorist Miranda rights. Our President travels the world apologizing for an imaginary abusive past. Our government has printed so much money foreign nations have serious doubts about the stability of the American dollar. Our President wants new legislation that will tax and spend future generations into a debt they will never be able to repay. A President that embarrasses our nation by falling flat on his face in Copenhagen trying to land the Olympics for his native city of violent Chicago. A President that claims police act stupidly because they arrest a friend of his. A President that awards white house positions to self admitted Communists. A President Israel has no faith in. A President even the French have no faith in. A Commander-in-Chief that fails to meet with the commanding General of our fighting forces. What is the reward for a President that manages to accomplish all this in 10 months? The Nobel Peace Prize! I guess no one else in the world has accomplished so much in so little time!
Thursday, October 8, 2009
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has calculated the cost of the preliminary healthcare plan put forth by Senator Max Baucus. According to the CBO the plan will cost $828 billion over the next decade and will actually reduce the Federal Deficit by $81 billion over that time span. The CBO calculates bills that are sent to them and does not make assumptions. This is probably an incorrect calculation as the plan contains $100 billion in waste and fraud elimination that has never been done before. The plan also calls for $404 billion in Medicare cuts. No politician that wants to be re-elected will ever cut Medicare spending. Medicare recipients are of an age and maturity that allows them to follow governmental happenings that will affect them. Do not believe they will allow drastic cuts in their benefits to go unopposed and politicians know this group of citizens constitutes a voting block that never fails to show up at the polling booth. This plan is in its infancy and will go through several changes before being sent to the Senate floor for approval. Conservatives and “Constitutionalist” should monitor this bills progress and vigorously oppose it. Say NO to single payer healthcare.
Senator John Kerry (D-MA) is on record as saying he favors a limited role for our military in Afghanistan. During his presidential campaign, videos surfaced that showed Mr. Kerry denouncing the way the war in Vietnam was administered. Presidents Johnson and Nixon conducted a limited war and we know the results of that war and the tremendous number of American lives that were lost. Evidently Mr. Kerry has forgotten how our military was hampered by the political whims of Washington D.C.. President Obama faces a major decision concerning the way this war will be fought. The military leaders in Afghanistan are asking for an additional 40,000 troops. President Obama must commit these 40,000 or more if needed if he is confident of victory. If the President has any doubts about our ability to achieve victory he must remove all American troops from the theater of battle. To leave American troops in Afghanistan and not provide them the resources to achieve victory would be an unconscionable and immoral act that would result in the unnecessary loss of the finest of Americans. Come on Mr. President. Commit the necessary troops or pull all of them out of Afghanistan and bring them home.
Monday, October 5, 2009
I was shopping at my local extra-large national retail store this afternoon and saw something I couldn't quite figure out. A woman with two teenagers by her side was paying for three carts full of groceries. This lady used three different food stamp cards. The three cards did not have enough credit on them to completely pay the bill. This is when something happened I could not believe (never mind the fact one person had three different food stamp cards). This lady took out of her purse a roll of money that would make a Las Vegas gambler green with envy. After the woman paid her bill and left I asked the cashier if everyone had three food stamp cards. His reply was "quite a few of them do". I paid for my purchase and proceeded to my vehicle. By coincidence the lady with the food stamp cards was parked beside me and was still loading her groceries into her vehicle. I wish I had brand new Chevy Suburban like she did! How does this happen? Why is my tax money going to a person with a roll of money and a brand new suburban?
Sunday, October 4, 2009
In 1967 a war was fought that lasted six days. The result of this war was Israel gaining control of the Sinai Peninsula, the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, Morocco, and Algeria were the losers of this war. In his address to the United Nations President Obama noted it was time for the 32 year occupation to end. The President is only half correct; He would like Israel to withdraw from these areas and discontinue the construction of new settlements. I am in 100% disagreement with this statement. Israeli citizens live with the constant threat of acts of terrorism and rockets falling out of the sky onto their homes and businesses. Our President wishes for two equal states co-existing in peace. Unfortunately many of the surrounding Arab nations do not agree with him nor do I. The Palestinian occupation of Israel must end. Let the nations that lost the six day war provide a safe place for these people in their countries. Israel has conceded land and made several accommodations in the pursuit of peace. It is time for the surrounding countries to do the same.
Senator John Kerry (D-MA) is on record as saying he favors a limited role for our military in Afghanistan. During his presidential campaign, videos surfaced that showed Mr. Kerry denouncing the way the war in Vietnam was administered. Presidents Johnson and Nixon conducted a limited war and we know the results of that war and the tremendous number of American lives that were lost. Evidently Mr. Kerry has forgotten how our military was hampered by the political whims of Washington D.C.. President Obama faces a major decision concerning the way this war will be fought. The military leaders in Afghanistan are asking for an additional 40,000 troops. President Obama must commit these 40,000 or more if needed if he is confident of victory. If the President has any doubts about our ability to achieve victory he must remove all American troops from the theater of battle. To leave American troops in Afghanistan and not provide them the resources to achieve victory would be an unconscionable and immoral act that would result in the unnecessary loss of the finest of Americans. Come on Mr. President. Commit the necessary troops or pull all of them out of Afghanistan and bring them home.
In 1912 Theodore Roosevelt campaigned on a promise of national healthcare. He lost the election. In 1945 Harry Truman, with the support of labor unions attempted to enact National Healthcare. He failed. John F. Kennedy also failed to get National Healthcare through congress. Richard Nixon proposed National Healthcare but was defeated by Water Gate. Bill Clinton asked his wife to create a comprehensive Healthcare plan and Hillary Care failed.
Now President Obama wants his bite at the healthcare pie. Five Presidents before him have tried to enact healthcare legislation and failed. There have been as many excuses why all attempts have failed as there are liberal reporters. Perhaps the main reason national healthcare proposals have failed is the American public wants to continue the virtue of self reliance and the freedom that comes with individual responsibility.
Americans instinctively know being responsible for someone else’s actions is inherently unfair and a form of Socialism. No one would expect any person to pay their neglectful neighbors speeding ticket but President Obama is asking Americans to pay their neighbors healthcare bill when that neighbor commits acts detrimental to his health.
It is only appropriate this healthcare proposal die the same death as all previous healthcare proposals.
Now President Obama wants his bite at the healthcare pie. Five Presidents before him have tried to enact healthcare legislation and failed. There have been as many excuses why all attempts have failed as there are liberal reporters. Perhaps the main reason national healthcare proposals have failed is the American public wants to continue the virtue of self reliance and the freedom that comes with individual responsibility.
Americans instinctively know being responsible for someone else’s actions is inherently unfair and a form of Socialism. No one would expect any person to pay their neglectful neighbors speeding ticket but President Obama is asking Americans to pay their neighbors healthcare bill when that neighbor commits acts detrimental to his health.
It is only appropriate this healthcare proposal die the same death as all previous healthcare proposals.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
There are pundits, politicians and former presidents claiming the opposition to President Obama's policies are rooted in racism. There are race related problems in our country, but this opposition is a reflection of the President's policies, not the color of his skin. Since he was inaugurated, Obama has shown his radical left tendencies. Obama was elected with 69 million votes; 45 million of these votes were cast by white people.On February 18, Obama'sapproval rating was 61%. On September 19, that approval rating had slipped to 49%, which is a decline of 12% ( about 15 million voters). I do not believe the 12% of voters who had a change of heart about the President's policiessuddenly became racists. I do believe they realized their belief in an inexperienced leader was misplaced. In 2008 there were 28 million registered Independent voters (21 percent of the electorate). The Independents overwhelmingly chose to vote for Obama. I would assume many of the 15 million voters who changed their mind are these Independent voters. I wonder-- Do these 15 million people like it when the Democrats call them racist? I'll bet not.
Thursday, October 1: During a Senate finance Commitee meeting about the national healthcare bill, Senator Max Baucus stated "for national healthcare to work there must be shared responsibility". Think about that. Shared responsibility. America has always been about Individual Rights and the Individual Responsibilities that are attached to those rights. Now non-smokers are being asked to be responsible for the care of smokers. People that stick to a healthy diet are being asked to be responsible for those that over eat. Non-drinkers will be told to care for those that choose to consume alcohol. The loss of individual responsibilities eventually leads to the loss of Individual Rights. In the future the public will be told what they can eat, drink or smoke all in the name of healthcare.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
H.R.676
President Obama and congress say they have strengthened language in H.R. 3200-the national healthcare plan so illiegal aliens will not recieve health benefits. What they are not saying is there is an ancillary bill in congress that allows anyone (including illegal aliens) to receive free healthcare. John Conyers (D) Michigan introduced H.R.676 which now has over 80 co-sponsors. The language in the bill states specifically that no I.D. or Social Security number need be provided when completing the application, which cannot be more than 2 pages long, for a national healthcare insurance card. President Obama is not being 100% truthful with Americans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
