Growth Please!

70% of all job creation in this country comes from small business. Small businesses make 200,000 dollars a year or more, and they are started by people who make that same amount or more. Those people in the Democrats' books would be considered "wealthy" and want to soak them. The top 10% of earners pay 73% of the entire tax burden. The bottom 60% pay nothing as it is. GROWTH IS WHAT WE NEED NOT MORE GOVERNMENT!

A Ray of Hope

775 Days Until Barack Obama is Out of Office!

Good thing we spent all that money

Net Job Impact of Stimulus is Zero

Arrogance Isn't Attractive

The fact is, governments deal with the United States because it’s in their interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us, and not because they believe we can keep secrets. -- Robert Gates

Full Article

Quote of the Day

"Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built." -- Abraham Lincoln

Quote of the Day

‎"One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results." — Milton Friedman

Quote of the Day

"I tell you, freedom & human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people into an unbearable hell and a choking life." -- Osama bin Laden on October 21, 2001.

Quote of the Day

"One of the more obvious facts that disproves the workability of liberalism is this: if none of us individually can afford everything that he wants, then all of us together can't afford everything that everybody wants." -- Kevin Orlin Johnson

Around the Nation: Job Numbers Still Bleak

Last Friday's job numbers showing that businesses created 151,000 jobs in October gave Barack Obama fodder for touting progress, but all is not as it appears. As the Heritage Foundation's Rea Hederman and James Sherk note in explaining the two surveys released by the U.S. Labor Department, "employment fell by a net 330,000 jobs ... the number of unemployed workers grew by 76,000 ... [and t]he median length of time workers stay unemployed rose from 20.4 weeks to 21.2 weeks." In fact, the only reason unemployment stayed at 9.6 percent is that "a net 462,000 Americans dropped out of the labor force and thus do not count as unemployed."

So bleak is the actual labor landscape that more than 25 percent of adult men are neither working nor looking for work, representing the highest recorded rate in post-war years. Overall, the labor force participation rate dipped to 64.5 percent, falling by 0.2 points.

According to Hederman and Sherk, at best, the job creation numbers signal only "a tepid recovery. At this rate, it will take years for the economy to recover the nearly eight million jobs lost during the recession." But not to worry. As Joe Biden says, "No doubt we're moving in the right direction."

Reposted from The Patriot Post Digest

Quote of the Day

"In other words, pushing inflation upwards means you can have your cake and eat it too. You can spend all you like and then make the bill disappear by driving down the value of the dollar -- buying with one hand the debt your reckless spending is issuing with the other. No need to cut spending, folks, just run the printing presses." -- Sarah Palin

Protectionism

"The biggest threat for sustainable growth at present is coming from protectionism in its different forms." -- German Chancellor Angela Merkel

Past Experience

"As to whether the president 'gets it' about the midterms, it doesn't matter. As Bill Kristol has observed, Obama is not in the same position as President Clinton was in 1994. Hillarycare was defeated. President Clinton was thus free to let voters know that he had gotten the message and would never try anything like that again. And he didn't." --columnist Mona Charen

Pot and Kettle

"No one nation has a monopoly on wisdom, and no nation should ever try to impose its values on another." --Barack Obama, who despite his rhetoric is always keen to impose his "values" on everybody else, no matter what

Quote of the Day

As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron. -- H. L. Mencken in The Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920

I think that we've reached that point.

Quote of the Day

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -- CS Lewis

Quote of the Day

"In short, despite all of the flack and the arguments from a couple months ago, I am forced to conclude that the Buckley rule still seems the most sound: vote for the most conservative candidate electable. Now, I will concede that's hardly an easily applied rule of thumb like, say, 'Never try to tickle a wolverine when it's eating.' But I think reasonable people understand that electability is a perfectly valid factor to consider and not impossible to apply, either." --columnist Jonah Goldberg

She Wins the Braying Jackass Award

"Looking at what happened [Tuesday], what we heard and saw [then] is -- let's understand the message. The message was not, 'I reject the course that you are on.' The message is it didn't go fast enough to produce jobs. ... No regrets. Because we believe we did the right thing. I feel very at peace with how things have proceeded." --soon-to-be-former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)

Quote of the Day

"We make a great mistake if we believe that these results are somehow an embrace of the Republican Party. What they are is a second chance, a second chance for Republicans to be what they said they were going to be not so long ago." --Senator-elect Marco Rubio (R-FL)

Quote of the Day

"Those that put equality first and freedom second will get neither. Those that put freedom first and equality second will get a higher degree of both." -- Milton Friedman

Accomplishments

"President Obama listed his accomplishments in office on Urban Radio Tuesday. No one gives him enough credit. Barack Obama took something that was in terrible shape and brought it back from the brink of disaster, and that something was the Republican Party." --comedian Argus Hamilton

Yesterday

To be clear, yesterday was not an embrace of the Republican Party. Far from it. But it was certainly a repudiation of Barack Obama, who personalized the election around his cult of personality. He even told Latinos that they should be inspired to "punish" their "enemies" on Election Day. More important, it was a rebuke of Democrats' hard push to the left with ObamaCare, cap and trade, financial regulation, looming tax increases for all Americans and massive deficit spending.

Get out the Vote!

One of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them: It is a well known fact, that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. Anyone who is capable of getting themselves into a position of power should on no account be allowed to do the job. Another problem with governing people is people. -- Douglas Adams

The Gipper

"We are a nation that has a government -- not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the Earth. Our government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed." --Ronald Reagan

Why place blame?

"Why would anyone blame Obama for the deficit when all he did was double it?" --Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto

Foreign Money

"The Chamber of Commerce ridiculed the White House claim Friday that it funnels foreign money to GOP candidates. The president made a point he didn't intend to make. We can't allow foreign money to steal our democracy, we need it to fund our debt." --comedian Argus Hamilton

Leaning?

"National Public Radio is a monument to political correctness. Its acronym might better be thought of as 'not professionally responsible.' It is not a left-leaning organization. The Leaning Tower of Pisa leans. NPR has fallen over completely for the 'progressive' agenda. It is supine. Horizontal." --columnist Ken Blackwell

Mooned!

"In 2008 Obama promised us the moon if elected President. Instead ... gullible Americans got mooned." --columnist Doug Giles

Operation: IS THIS THE CHANGE YOU HOPED FOR?

http://hillbuzz.org/2010/10/20/operation-is-this-the-change-you-hoped-for-palm-cards/

Please check this out, feel free to assist, print some, pass them out, paste them in prominent locations.

Obamacare will crumble

"Legal arguments for Obamacare's individual mandate fail the 'Alice in Wonderland' test and the duck test. In two court challenges to the law in the past 11 days and a court hearing today on a third, the Obama administration's legal position is fading faster than the Cheshire Cat. Democrats took some solace from the first case, a challenge in Michigan, because Judge George C. Steeh ultimately ruled in favor of Obamacare. Yet even though that Clinton-appointed judge refused to declare the mandate unconstitutional, he undercut the administration's key argument that the penalty for failing to buy insurance is a 'tax,' and that the mandate it enforces is allowable within the broad taxing power provided by the Constitution. 'The provisions of the Health Care Reform Act at issue here, for the most part, have nothing to do with the assessment or collection of taxes,' Judge Steeh ruled. This is so important that the federal district judge in Florida, in Thursday's preliminary ruling in the second case, spent 22 pages analyzing it. If the fine is a penalty rather than a tax, Congress' power is far less extensive. Judge Roger Vinson noted Congress repeatedly called the fine a 'penalty,' explicitly changing its description from a 'tax' that earlier versions of the bill assessed by name. Citing Alice's admonition to Humpty Dumpty that words can't 'mean so many different things' as Humpty intended, Judge Vinson concluded, 'Congress should not be permitted to secure and cast politically difficult votes on controversial legislation by deliberately calling something one thing ... [only to] argue in court that Congress really meant something else entirely.' Judge Vinson explained that no matter what Congress called it, the assessment was designed to act as a punishment, not a revenue measure. Hence, it's not a tax. His 22-page analysis is an exposition of the logic that if something is called a duck, acts like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck -- and the same goes for a penalty. The tax issue is vital because it's the Obama administration's fallback position if it loses on the first and biggest dispute, which is whether Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause not only to regulate commerce, but to force individuals to engage in specific commerce." --The Washington Times

Brady vs Quinn

An acquaintance posted this video to Facebook, which really isn't worth sharing at all, but definitely sparked some conversation.

Brady is right when he says that we have other issues in Illinois. States ought to be run more like companies - if your company is bankrupt, you don't worry about whether your employees get a new hand dryer installed in the bathrooms, you worry about getting out of debt. 

Individual people get this. Governments just never do.  

None of these so-called "equal rights" laws are neccssary, the people who oppose them are the older generation, whose children have not embraced their archaic beliefs
the opposition will literally die off 
It is inevitable.

I am not a fan of passing all these extra laws along the way, pushing for a faster change, because all those laws eventually will come back to bite everyone in the ass. Like the hate crimes definition expansion to GLBT - I don't want special rules - I want the same damn rules as everyone else.

I wonder if people will ever stop "identity voting" (race, orientation etc.) - like single-issue voting, it has really damaged our politics. People need to think for themselves.

Quote of the Day

"It's raining! I don't like it! Why hasn't Congress passed the Good Weather Act and the Everybody Happy Act? Sound dumb? Why is it any dumber than a law called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which promised to cover more for less money?" --columnist John Stossel

Quote of the Day

"Things in our country run in spite of the government, not by the aid of it." --American humorist Will Rogers (1879-1935)

Big Spenders

"A strong case can be made that the people most responsible for the gigantic deficits we face today are neither George W. Bush nor Barack Obama. The real culprits are Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Congress controls the purse strings. When Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Reid rose to their present jobs in January 2007, the deficit was $161 billion. It had been on a downward trajectory from $413 billion in 2004. Three years later, the Pelosi-Reid Congress had added $1.2 trillion to the deficit. Of course, Mr. Bush sponsored or signed into law many of these deficit-raising bills, such as the bank bailouts and effective tax rebates of 2008. But the Democratic Congress passed them. Long forgotten is the promise Mrs. Pelosi made on the day she became speaker: 'Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt.' I think future generations would like a do-over. ... For the sake of comparison, let's look at the Pelosi-Reid fiscal record over 10 years. In January 2007, the CBO projected a $379 billion surplus over the next decade. Now, after four years under Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Reid, and two years of Mr. Obama in the White House, the 2007-2016 projection is a deficit of $7.16 trillion. This deterioration of the nation's fiscal situation is arguably the worst in United States history, and it was brought to us courtesy of a congressional leadership that pledged 'pay as you go' budgeting to bring the budget into balance. It is no wonder that Americans are not eager to retain the services of these two spendthrifts as leaders of Congress." --Wall Street Journal economics writer Steve Moore

Founders

"The multiplication of public offices, increase of expense beyond income, growth and entailment of a public debt, are indications soliciting the employment of the pruning knife." --Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson

"I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious." --Thomas Jefferson

Economy

"Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself." --economist Milton Friedman (1912-2006)

The Gipper

"The ... inescapable truth is government does not have all the answers. In too many instances, government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them." --Ronald Reagan

Privacy and Rights

From a post here:

Small, Successful Battles Can Prevent Large, Losing Battles.

When it comes to rights, you don’t know in advance what battle will be important. But you do know, based on history and human nature, that a right undefended will shrivel and die. If you don’t fight for the small right, you won’t be in a position to assert the large right.

Moreover, the existence of the right of privacy is usually based on whether people have a current expectation of privacy in a certain situation. To the extent that people decline to assert their right of privacy, it slips away. Lack of vigilance by citizens begets more government power.

So, why point this out? Because all KINDS of people are flippant about their little everyday struggles with speaking out or remaining silent on all sorts of injustices or inconveniences by any number of people. These "trifles" are not just that. They're small instances where people should stand up for themselves and exercise their rights, or expect that eventually they will have to just deal with the loss entirely.

The original post is about privacy, but I'd ask that you expand on that and include much more than just your privacy rights in thinking about how you deal with your everyday life.

Quote of the Day

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." -- Samuel Adams

Debt is not the answer

"The fact is, we'll never build a lasting economic recovery by going deeper into debt at a faster rate than we ever have before. ... Inflation is the cause of recession and unemployment. And we're not going to have real prosperity or recovery until we stop fighting the symptoms and start fighting the disease. There's only one cause for inflation -- government spending more than government takes in. The cure is a balanced budget. Ah, but they tell us, 80 percent of the budget is uncontrollable. It's fixed by laws passed by Congress. Well, laws passed by Congress can be repealed by Congress. And, if Congress is unwilling to do this, then isn't it time we elect a Congress that will?" --Ronald Reagan

Liberty?

"Obama is turning us into a poster nation for financial irresponsibility. While other nations at the [G-20 conference in Toronto] were focusing on deficit reduction, Obama was haplessly urging them to join us in Keynesian spending oblivion. He told the conference that global economic recovery remains 'fragile' and implored the nations' leaders to continue deficit spending to sustain the 'recovery.' The Washington Post reports that Obama's remarks 'tempered the Group of 20's headline achievement at the summit, a deficit-reduction target that had been pushed by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the host of the meeting and a fiscal conservative.' Obama is wholly impervious to the historical record documenting the failure of FDR's pump priming during the Depression, which exacerbated rather than ameliorated the economic problems. He is similarly detached from reality concerning the failure of his own policies to stimulate growth of any kind to save his beloved public sector and thus recommends more of the same. In speech after speech, he takes credit for having launched an economic recovery in the United States and for achieving job growth. Notwithstanding his economic models that stubbornly predict such results, he can point to no empirical evidence to verify his delusional boasts. It would be bad enough if his economic policies were simply retarding our economic recovery, but they are also accelerating our trip to national bankruptcy. Yet Obama continues to press forward with his foot smashed down on the gas pedal." --columnist David Limbaugh

republished from http://patriotpost.us/

Restrict it to those that can afford it

In a bid to stem taxpayer losses for bad loans guaranteed by federal housing agencies Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, Senator Bob Corker (R) proposed that borrowers be required to make a 5% down payment in order to qualify.
His proposal was rejected 57-42 on a party-line vote because, as Senator Chris Dodd (D) explained, "passage of such a requirement would restrict home ownership to only those who can afford it."

Against Guns?

"I know that more guns means -- hold onto your seat -- less crime. How can that be, when guns kill almost 30,000 Americans a year? Because while we hear about the murders and accidents, we don't often hear about the crimes stopped because would-be victims showed a gun and scared criminals away. Those thwarted crimes and lives saved usually aren't reported to police (sometimes for fear the gun will be confiscated), and when they are reported, the media tend to ignore them. No bang, no news. This state of affairs produces a distorted public impression of guns. If you only hear about the crimes and accidents, and never about lives saved, you might think gun ownership is folly. But, hey, if guns save lives, it logically follows that gun laws cost lives. ... Today, 40 states issue permits to competent, law-abiding adults to carry concealed handguns (Vermont and Alaska have the most libertarian approach: no permit needed. Arizona is about to join that exclusive club.) Every time a carry law was debated, anti-gun activists predicted outbreaks of gun violence after fender-benders, card games and domestic quarrels. What happened? John Lott, in 'More Guns, Less Crime,' explains that crime fell by 10 percent in the year after the laws were passed. A reason for the drop in crime may have been that criminals suddenly worried that their next victim might be armed. ... McDonald v. Chicago is the big one, and the Supreme Court is expected to rule on that [this] week. Otis McDonald is a 76-year-old man who lives in a dangerous neighborhood on Chicago's South Side. He wants to buy a handgun, but Chicago forbids it. If the Supremes say McDonald has that right, then restrictive gun laws will fall throughout America. ... [S]triking down those laws will probably save lives." --columnist John Stossel

Repost: AZ lawmaker takes aim at automatic citizenship

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37719777

Have to say, this is a long time coming. If your parents are criminals, you shouldn't be handed citizenship on a silver platter.

Quote of the Day

“Whether Barack Obama is simply incompetent as president or has some hidden agenda to undermine this country, at home and abroad, he has nearly everything he needs to ruin America, including a fool for a vice president” — Thomas Sowell, in a column for RealClearPolitics, 6/8/10

Worth reposting!

Did we ever need political parties?

Quote of the Day

"To push BP out of the way would raise the question, to replace them with what?" -- US Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen

Quote of the Day

“The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” -- Bertrand Russell

Liberal Writers on Conservative America

It is with feelings of deep regret that I observe the political animosity daily growing up between American citizens. Great curiosity has been awakened of late with respect to the rhetoric of hope and change, and the press has dispersed volumes of supporting media throughout the Republic; but they seem intended to diffuse error rather than knowledge; and so successful have they been, that, notwithstanding the constant intercourse between citizens, there is no politics concerning which the great mass of the public have less pure information, or entertain more numerous prejudices.
American politics are the best and the worst in the world. Where no motives of pride or interest intervene, none can equal it for profound and philosophical views of society, or faithful adherence to Liberty and Equality; but when either the interest or reputation of their own politics comes in collision with that of another, they go to the opposite extreme, and forget their usual probity and candor, in the indulgence of splenetic remark, and an illiberal spirit of ridicule.
Hence, their opinions are more honest and accurate, the more closely the politics described. I would place implicit confidence in a Liberal's description of social engineering; of minority policies; of expanding role of government; or of any other Leftist ideals which others might be apt to picture out with the illusions of their fancies. But I would cautiously receive his account of his immediate political opponents, and of those with which he is in habits of most frequent derision. However I might be disposed to trust his probity, I dare not trust his prejudices.
It has also been the peculiar lot of our country to be visited by the worst kind of politicos. While men of philosophical spirit and cultivated minds have been sent from universities to ransack the Constitution, to penetrate Bill of Rights, and to study the manners and customs of conservative American families, with which she can have no permanent intercourse of profit or pleasure; it has been left to the broken-down news media, the schemers, the wandering movie-maker, the not-for-profit agencies, to be her oracles respecting America. From such sources she is content to receive her information respecting a country in a singular state of moral and physical development; a country in which one of the greatest political experiments in the history of the world is now performing; and which presents the most profound and momentous studies to the honest statesman and the philosopher.
That such media should give prejudicial accounts of conservative Americans, is not a matter of surprise. The themes it offers for contemplation, are too vast and elevated for their capacities. The Conservative character is yet in a state of fermentation: it may have its frothiness and sediment, but its ingredients are sound and wholesome; it has already given proofs of powerful and generous qualities; and the whole promises to settle down into something substantially excellent. But the causes which are operating to strengthen and ennoble it, and its daily indications of admirable properties, are all lost upon these purblind observers; who are only affected by the little asperities incident to its present situation. They are capable of judging only of the surface of things; of those matters which come in contact with their private interests and personal gratifications. They miss some of the snug conveniences and petty comforts which belong to an old, highly-finished, and over-populous state of society; where the ranks of useful labor are crowded, and many earn a painful and servile subsistence, by depending on the very caprices of government indulgence. These minor comforts, however, are all-important in the estimation of narrow minds; which either do not perceive, or will not acknowledge, that they are more than counterbalanced among us, by great and generally diffused blessings.
They may, perhaps, have been disappointed in some unreasonable expectation of social equality. They may have pictured America to themselves an El Dorado, where gold and silver abounded, and the citizens were lacking in sagacity, and where they were to become strangely and suddenly rich, in some unforeseen but easy manner. The same weakness of mind that indulges absurd expectations, produces petulance in disappointment. Such persons become embittered against the country on finding that there, as everywhere else, a man must sow before he can reap; must win wealth by industry and talent; and must contend with the common difficulties of nature, and the shrewdness of an intelligent and enterprising people.
Perhaps, through mistaken or ill-directed hospitality, or from the prompt disposition to cheer success, prevalent among conservatives, those media-types may have been treated with unwonted respect in America; and, having been accustomed all their lives to consider themselves the creme of good society, and brought up in a grand feeling of liberal generosity and superiority, they become arrogant, on the common boon of capitalist prosperity; they attribute their success to the simplicity and greed of common citizens; and underrate a capitalist society where there are really no artificial distinctions, and where, by any chance, such individuals as themselves can rise to consequence.
One would suppose, however, that information coming from such sources, on a subject where the truth is so desirable, would be received with caution by the consumers of the press; that the motives of the media, their veracity, their opportunities of inquiry and observation, and their capacities for judging correctly, would be rigorously scrutinized, before their evidence was admitted, in such sweeping extent, against a conservative nation. The very reverse, however, is the case, and it furnishes a striking instance of human inconsistency. Nothing can surpass the vigilance with which Liberal critics will examine the credibility of the Conservative who publishes literature about very foundations of our country. How warily will they compare the details of Constituional history, or the description of the Constitutional father's lives; and how sternly will they censure any inaccuracy in these contributions of curious knowledge, while they will receive, with eagerness and unhesitating faith, the gross misrepresentations of coarse and obscure writers, concerning the character of a Conservative with which their own success is placed in the most important and delicate proximity. Nay, they will even make these apocryphal volumes text-books, on which to enlarge, with a zeal and an ability worthy of a more generous cause.
I shall not, however, dwell on this irksome and hackneyed topic; nor should I have adverted to it, but for the undue interest apparently taken in it by my countrymen, and certain injurious effects which I apprehend it might produce upon the national feeling. We attach too much consequence to these attacks. They cannot do us any essential injury. The tissue of misrepresentations attempted to be woven round us, are like cobwebs woven round the limbs of an infant giant. Our country continually outgrows them. One falsehood after another falls off of itself. We have but to live on, and every day we live a whole volume of refutation.
All the writers of press united, if we could for a moment suppose their great minds stooping to so unworthy a combination, could not conceal the Conservative's rapidly growing importance and matchless abilities. They could not conceal that these are owing, not merely to physical and local, but also to moral causes--to the political liberty, the general diffusion of knowledge, the prevalence of sound, moral, and religious principles, which give force and sustained energy to the character of a people, and which in fact, have been the acknowledged and wonderful supporters of their own national power and glory.
But why are we so exquisitely alive to the aspersions of the mainstream media? Why do we suffer ourselves to be so affected by the contumely they have endeavored to cast upon the Conservative nation? It is not in the opinion of Liberals alone that honor lives, and reputation has its being. The world at large is the arbiter of a nation's fame: with its thousand eyes it witnesses a nation's deeds, and from their collective testimony is national glory or national disgrace established.
For ourselves, therefore, it is comparatively of but little importance whether the mainstream media does us justice or not; it is, perhaps, of far more importance to itself. It is instilling anger and resentment into the bosom of a youthful nation, to grow with its growth, and strengthen with its strength. Every one knows the all-pervading influence of the mainstream media at the present day, and how much the opinions and passions of mankind are under its control. The mere contests of the sword are temporary; their wounds are but in the flesh, and it is the pride of the generous to forgive and forget them; but the slanders of the pen pierce to the heart; they rankle longest in the noblest spirits; they dwell ever present in the mind, and render it morbidly sensitive to the most trifling collision. It is but seldom that any one overt act produces hostilities between two ideals; there exists, most commonly, a previous jealousy and ill-will, a predisposition to take offence. Trace these to their cause, and how often will they be found to originate in the mischievous effusions of mercenary writers, who, secure in their closets, and for ignominious bread, concoct and circulate the venom that is to inflame the generous and the brave.
I am not laying too much stress upon this point; for it applies most emphatically to our particular case. Over no nation does the press hold a more absolute control than over the people of America; for the universal education of the poorest classes makes every individual a reader. There is nothing published in America on the subject of our country, that does not circulate through every part of it. There is not a calumny dropt from a Liberal pen, nor an unworthy sarcasm uttered by a Liberal statesman, that does not go to blight good-will, and add to the mass of latent resentment. Possessing, then, as the Liberals do, the fountain-head whence the literature of the language flows, how completely is it in their power, and how truly is it their duty, to make it the medium of amiable and magnanimous feeling--a stream where the two ideals might meet together and drink in peace and kindness. Should they, however, persist in turning it to waters of bitterness, the time may come when they may repent their folly. The present amicability may be of but little moment to them; but the future destinies of the country do not admit of a doubt; over those of in the press, there lower some shadows of uncertainty. Should, then, a day of gloom arrive--should those reverses overtake them, from which the proudest empires have not been exempt--they may look back with regret at their infatuations, in repulsing from their side a nation they might have grappled to their bosom, and thus destroying their only chance for real friendship beyond the boundaries of their own politcal circles.
There is a general impression in mainstream media, that the conservate people of the United States are inimical to social justice. It is one of the errors which have been diligently propagated by designing writers. There is, doubtless, considerable political hostility, and a general soreness at the prejudices of the mainstream press; but, collectively speaking, the prepossessions of the press are strongly in favor of Liberalism. Indeed, at one time they amounted, in many parts of the Union, to an absurd degree of bigotry. The bare name of honoured publications was a passport to the confidence and hospitality of every family, and too often gave a transient currency to the worthless and the ungrateful. Throughout the country, there was something of enthusiasm connected with the idea of the freedom of the mainstream media. We looked to it with a hallowed feeling of tenderness and veneration, as the land of our forefathers' liberties--the august repository of the rights and liberties of our Constitution--the birthplace and mausoleum of the sages and heroes of our paternal history. After our own country, there was none in whose glory we more delighted--none whose good opinion we were more anxious to possess--none toward which our hearts yearned with such throbbings of warm consanguinity. Even during the wartime, whenever there was the least opportunity for kind feelings to spring forth, it was the delight of the generous spirits of our country to show that, in the midst of upset, they still kept alive the sparks of future friendship.
Is all this to be at an end? Is this golden band of kindred sympathies, so rare in nations, to be broken forever?--Perhaps it is for the best--it may dispel an allusion which might have kept us in mental vassalage; which might have interfered occasionally with our true interests, and prevented the growth of proper national pride. But it is hard to give up the ties! and there are feelings dearer than interest--closer to the heart than pride--that will still make us cast back a look of regret as we wander farther and farther from the each other, and lament the waywardness of the Liberal that would repel the good judgements of a Conservative citizenry.
Short-sighted and injudicious, however, as the conduct of the mainstream press and Liberals may be in this system of aspersion, recrimination on our part would be equally ill-judged. I speak not of a prompt and spirited vindication of our country, or the keenest castigation of her slanderers--but I allude to a disposition to retaliate in kind, to retort sarcasm and inspire prejudice, which seems to be spreading widely among Conservative writers. Let us guard particularly against such a temper; for it would double the evil, instead of redressing the wrong. Nothing is so easy and inviting as the retort of abuse and sarcasm; but it is a paltry and an unprofitable contest. It is the alternative of a morbid mind, fretted into petulance, rather than warmed into indignation. If the Liberals are willing to permit the mean jealousies, or the rancorous animosities of politics, to deprave the integrity of the mainstream press, and poison the fountain of public opinion, let us beware of the example. They may deem it their interest to diffuse error, and engender antipathy, for the purpose of checking their loss of power: we have no purpose of the kind to serve. Neither have we any spirit of jealousy to gratify; for as yet, in all our rivalships with Liberals, we are the rising and the gaining party. There can be no end to answer, therefore, but the gratification of resentment--a mere spirit of retaliation--and even that is impotent. Our retorts are never published in the mainstream press; they fall short, therefore, of their aim; but they foster a querulous and peevish temper among our writers; they sour the sweet flow of our early literature, and sow thorns and brambles among its blossoms. What is still worse, they circulate through our own country, and, as far as they have effect, excite virulent national prejudices. This last is the evil most especially to be deprecated. Governed, as we are, entirely by public opinion, the utmost care should be taken to preserve the purity of the public mind. Knowledge is power, and truth is knowledge; whoever, therefore, knowingly propagates a prejudice, wilfully saps the foundation of his country's strength.
The members of a republic, above all other men, should be candid and dispassionate. They are, individually, portions of the sovereign mind and sovereign will, and should be enabled to come to all questions of national concern with calm and unbiassed judgments. From the peculiar nature of our relations, we must have more frequent questions of a difficult and delicate character, than with any other,--questions that affect the most acute and excitable feelings: and as, in the adjustment of these, our national measures must ultimately be determined by popular sentiment, we cannot be too anxiously attentive to purify it from all latent passion or prepossession.
Opening, too, as we do, an asylum for strangers every portion of the earth, we should receive all legal immigrants with impartiality. It should be our pride to exhibit an example of one nation, at least, destitute of national antipathies, and exercising, not merely the overt acts of hospitality, but those more rare and noble courtesies which spring from liberality of opinion.
What have we to do with national prejudices? They are the inveterate diseases of old countries, contracted in rude and ignorant ages, when men knew but little of each other, and looked beyond their own boundaries with distrust and hostility. We, on the contrary, have sprung into national existence in an enlightened and philosophic age, when the different parts of the habitable world, and the various branches of the human family, have been indefatigably studied and made known to each other; and we forego the advantages of our birth, if we do not shake off the national prejudices, as we would the local superstitions, of the old world.
But above all let us not be influenced by any angry feelings, so far as to shut our eyes to the perception of what is really excellent and amiable in the American character. Let it be the pride of our Conservative writers, therefore, discarding all feelings of irritation, and disdaining to retaliate the illiberality of Liberal authors, to speak of the nation without prejudice, and with determined candor. While they rebuke the indiscriminating bigotry with which some of our countrymen admire and imitate every thing in the mainstream, Liberal press, merely because it is popular, let them frankly point out what is really worthy of approbation. We may thus place the truth before us as a perpetual volume of reference, wherein are recorded sound deductions from ages of experience; and while we avoid the errors and absurdities which may have crept into the page, we may draw thence golden maxims of practical wisdom, wherewith to strengthen and to embellish our national character.
*Note about the above: The original words above were penned by Washington Irving. I've paraphrased and edited to make them more relevant to today's society. He truly wrote about the nasty and deprecating attitude of English authors regarding Americans. But the same evil which gave power to their pens now actuate the splenetic venom of modern Liberal media, which permeates film, newpapers, periodicals, and literature.*

Remember November

You have our strongest encouragements to sign up: http://remembernovember.com

Quote of the Day

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." -- Samuel Adams

Tolerance is a Two-way Street

It has been declared that we should all tolerate other opinions and points-of-view. A proper liberal education compiles the various studies in mathematics, science, language, and history to provide the worthy student a glimpse in to the complexities and the simple principles of man and civilization. A man truly does not gain wisdom and thereby tolerance until his learned knowledge is tempered by his experiential knowledge. Thus we have the most youthful or the perpetually college-bound minds who can be the most easily manipulated by ideals free from all the constraints of practicality. The experienced individuals, who have borne responsibilities and suffered the inequities of life, recognize the challenges inherent in a successful life.

But not all people respond to these challenges in like fashion. There are those who feel their losses and setbacks are not the nature of the struggle but the evil conspiracy of evil men. Failed individuals always have recourse to the conspiracies to cover their failures, and they have the truly evil men who take advantage of it. Thus we have two major groups of experienced people who take on the challenge of life and suffer through it and those people who blame their failures and the natural inequities on others. Ask yourself; where do you lie?

Maybe Walmart can fix it?

1. Americans spend $36,000,000 at Wal-Mart every hour of every day.
2. This works out to $20,928 profit every minute!
3. Wal-Mart will sell more from January 1 to St.  Patrick's Day (March 17th) than Target sells all year.
4. Wal-Mart is bigger than Home Depot + Kroger + Target + Sears + Costco + K-Mart combined.
5. Wal-Mart employs 1.6 million people and is the largest private employer, and most speak English.
6. Wal-Mart is the largest company in the history of the world.
7. Wal-Mart now sells more food than Kroger & Safeway combined, and keep in mind they did this in only 15 years.
8. During this same period, 31 supermarket chains sought bankruptcy.
9. Wal-Mart now sells more food than any other store in the world.
10. Wal-Mart has approx 3,900 stores in the USA of which 1,906 are Super Centers; this is 1,000 more than it had 5 years ago.
11. This year 7.2 billion different purchasing experiences will occur at a Wal-Mart store.  (earth's population is approximately 6.5 Billion.)
12. 90% of all Americans live within 15 miles of a Wal-Mart.

You may think that I am complaining, but I am really laying the ground work for suggesting that MAYBE we should hire the guys who run Wal-Mart to fix the economy.
This should be read and understood by all Americans - Democrats, Republicans, EVERYONE!!
To all 535 voting members of the Legislature, It is now official you are ALL morons:

• The U.S.  Post Service was established in 1775.  You have had 234 years to get it right and it is broke.
• Social Security was established in 1935.  You have had 74 years to get it right and it is broke.
• Fannie Mae was established in 1938.  You have had 71 years to get it right and it is broke.
• Freddie Mac was established in 1970.  You have had 39 years to get it right and it is broke.
• War on Poverty started in 1964.  You have had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor" and they only want more.
• Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965.  You have had 44 years to get it right and they are broke.
• The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil.  It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before.  You had 32 years to get it right and it is an abysmal failure.

Depending on Failure

Just the other day, I was reading an interesting online article. It was written well (save one spelling error) and related a relationship problem between a conservative and a liberal who had been friends for many years. Though an interesting read, I found the first six comments even more illuminating. Combining the theme of the blog and the responses, I have come to some conclusions about both the black population of the U.S., the Leftists, and their role in the forthcoming socialist playground.
Both depend on redirecting blame for failure to someone else. In each of the cases, the supporters of socialism or the supporters of racial equality both assume that the cause of their failures come from an outside source. While the groupthink may spout some platitudes about racial equity or social justice, I am now certain that the individual in these groups is vitally certain that they are unimpeachable in their actions and all failures must come from some mysterious evil force.
Ergo, a black man will believe in the power of racism, while still deperately trying to enforce a racial discrimination in the workplace, and the socialist believe in the power of social justice, while still seizing the possessions and the hardwork of the successful. Both of these are contradictions in their desire and implementation, yet the individual will irrationally defend any contradictory action in fear of or in hopes of some solution to their failure. Eventually, though, they become inured to the sensation of failure and simply become minuature defenders of their failure without taking any real individual steps to secure success. They join the group and try to garner the sensation of success through others, usually rock star presidents and over-funded "non-profit" groups helping the exhalted disadvantaged. With failure being supported and excused from primary school to university to non-profit group, how can we possibly expect to turn the ship of state towards a universally successful capitalism? Major changes have always required major sacrifices.

Obama, are you listening?

"I want to speak to you this evening about my highest duty as president: to preserve peace and defend these United States. ... One cannot sit in this office reviewing intelligence on the military threat we face, making decisions from arms control to Libya to the Philippines, without having that concern for America's security weigh constantly on your mind. We know that peace is the condition under which mankind was meant to flourish. Yet peace does not exist of its own will. It depends on us, on our courage to build it and guard it and pass it on to future generations. George Washington's words may seem hard and cold today, but history has proven him right again and again. 'To be prepared for war,' he said, 'is one of the most effective means of preserving peace.'" --Ronald Reagan

Tax Day Tea Party, Daley Plaza, 2010

National Cell Phone Reform Act

"A few weeks ago, The New York Times ran an editorial noting the amazing fact that, by the middle of this year, there will be an estimated 6.8 billion people on Earth -- and 5 billion will have cell phones! ... How did that happen without a Democrat president and Congress using bribes, parliamentary tricks and arcane non-voting maneuvers to pass a massive, hugely expensive National Cell Phone Reform Act? How did that happen without Barney Frank and Henry Waxman personally designing the 3-foot-long, 26-pound, ugly green $4,000 cell phone we all have to use? How did that happen without Obama signing the National Cell Phone Reform bill, as a poor 10-year-old black kid who couldn't afford to text-message his friends looked on? The reason nearly everyone in the universe has a cell phone is that President Reagan did to telephones the exact opposite of what the Democrats have just done with health care. Before Reagan came into office, we had one phone company, ridiculously expensive rates and one phone model. Reagan split up AT&T, deregulated phone service and gave America a competitive market in phones. The rest is history. If you can grasp how inexpensive cell phones in a rainbow of colors and wonders like the iPhone could never have been created under a National Cell Phone Reform Act, you can understand what a disaster ObamaCare is going to be for health care in America." --columnist Ann Coulter

Quote of the Day

"Every so often, I read something written by other people that I wish I had written. For instance, Thomas Paine observed over two centuries ago: 'To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, is like administering medicine to the dead.' In 21 words, Paine perfectly summed up the frustration faced by a conservative every time he attempts to debate an issue with a liberal." --columnist Burt Prelutsky

Quote of the Day

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." --author and philosopher Ayn Rand (1905-1982)

Only Fill out One

Americans are told that information gathered in the census will never be used against them and the House of Representatives, in a Census Awareness Month resolution passed March 3, proclaimed that "the data obtained from the census are protected under United States privacy laws." Unfortunately, thousands of Americans who trusted the Census Bureau in the past lost their freedom as a result.

In the 1940 Census, the Census Bureau loudly assured people that their responses would be kept confidential. Within four days of the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Census Bureau had produced a report listing the Japanese-American population in each county on the West Coast. The Census Bureau's report helped the US Army round up more than 100,000 Japanese-Americans for concentration camps (later renamed "internment centers").

In 2003-04, the Census Bureau provided the Department of Homeland Security with a massive cache of information on how many Arab Americans lived in each ZIP Code around the nation, and which country they originated from — information that could have made it far easier to carry out the type of mass roundup that some conservatives advocated.

Instead of viewing census critics as conspiracy theorists, the nation's political leaders should recognize how their policies have undermined public faith in government, all the census really needs to know is how many people live at each address. Citizens should refuse to answer any census question except for the number of residents.

A Letter from a Congressman

Dear Friends,

Following the House of Representatives vote on H.R. 3590, the Senate Health Care bill, I want to provide you with an update on this important issue facing our state and country. I support more centrist reforms to lower health care costs but oppose the Senate bill. I want to tell you why.

More Centrist Reforms Were Rejected

I strongly support reforms to lower the cost of health insurance and cover Americans with pre-existing conditions. That is why I authored the Medical Rights and Reform Act, H.R. 3790. Under our centrist Reform Act, we cover Americans with pre-existing conditions and advance three major reforms:

1. The Medical Rights Act: Under our bill, Congress shall make no law interfering with the personal decisions that you make with your doctor,
   
2. Lawsuit Reform: By applying the lawsuit reforms (recently eliminated in Illinois) similar to successful California reforms, we could reduce defensive medicine, saving over $200 billion annually, and
   
3. Granting Americans Interstate Rights: Our bill grants the right to all Americans to buy health coverage from any state in the union, especially if you find a plan that is less expensive or more flexible for your family or small business. This improves choice and competition for each American.

Unfortunately, the Congressional leadership did not permit a debate on our bill. Instead, the House was only allowed one vote on the health care bill adopted by the Senate. I opposed this bill but it passed by a vote of 219 to 212 and will shortly be signed into law by the President.

Senate Health Care Bill Overview

Under the Senate bill, the Congress will increase spending by $1.2 trillion, including $940 billion for new subsidies, $144 billion for new mandates, $70 billion to administer the bill and $41 billion in unrelated spending. To attempt to pay for the bill, Congress will raise taxes, cut Medicare and borrow a historic amount of money. To pass the Senate, the bill also included the “Louisiana Purchase”, “Cornhusker Kickback” and “Gatoraide” that advantaged Louisiana, Nebraska and Florida over the people of Illinois.

Raising Insurance Premiums on Illinois Families

While the American people overwhelmingly want to lower health insurance costs, the bill increases costs because it requires Americans to buy health insurance that include new mandates for coverage. According to the Administration, individual insurance premiums will increase by 10% for over 600,000 people in Illinois. On average, Illinois individuals currently pay $2,499 annually for insurance. Under the bill, costs will go up at least $150 a month to a level of $4,299 annually.

On March 4, the Chicago Tribune reported that for “more than half-million consumers in individual health plans, base rates will go up from 8.5 percent to more than 60 percent.” The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office reported that the bill’s provisions that double the tax on health insurers, drug makers and medical devices will all be passed on to patients in the form of higher health costs and rising insurance premiums.

Raising Taxes on Illinois Families

The bill imposes 12 new federal taxes, imposing over $500 billion in new payments to the government, including over $23 billion in taxes on the people of Illinois. Among the new taxes was a new “Individual Mandate Tax” (IMT) of $2,250 per household or 2% of household income. The bill increases the Medicare payroll tax and does not adjust this for inflation. Therefore, like the infamous Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), the new Medicare tax will soon reach most middle class families as inflation pushes more Americans into its bracket.

The bill also increases the capital gains tax. Most economists worry that too many businesses plan for the short-term, hurting long-term economic growth. That is why investments which are held for longer periods of time pay a lower capital gains tax. The Senate bill reverses this wise policy by imposing a new 3.8% tax on capital gains, raising the rate from 15% to 23.8% by 2013.

Raising Taxes on Illinois Small Business

Half of all people employed in Illinois work in a small business and over 80% of job losses during this Great Recession have been from small business employers. Nevertheless, this legislation requires the federal government to levy a new $52 billion tax on small businesses, even though unemployment now tops 12% in Illinois. The bill begins a new $2,000 tax on small business with over 50 employees. Over 21,600 small businesses in Illinois could be subject to this new tax. This tax applies to part-time as well as full-time workers. The follow-up Reconciliation Bill also includes an unprecedented extension of the Medicare tax to all non-wage income.

Putting Illinois Jobs at Risk

Both Americans for Tax Reform and the Heritage Foundation estimated that the new taxes and Medicare cuts in the bill would cost over 600,000 job opportunities per year or an estimated 26,042 fewer Illinois jobs. The bill also has a number of budget gimmicks to hide spending. Once the Social Security Trust Fund, long-term health care and student loan gimmicks are removed, the bill adds $755 billion to the federal deficit or $2,460 in new debt for each man, woman, and child.

Here is a look at the estimated national job losses under the bill:

Sector	Jobs
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting	-5,441
Mining	-5,478
Construction	-43,316
Manufacturing	-105,229
Wholesale trade	-47,663
Retail trade	-84,339
Transportation and warehousing	-36,806
Utilities	-5,271
Information	-26,342
Financial Activities	-77,269
Professional and business services	-132,596
Educational services	-32,102
Leisure and hospitality	-49,682
Other services	-46,564
Total	-698,098

Cuts to Senior Health Care in Illinois under Medicare

The legislation stands for the principle that we should cut senior health care under Medicare to fund a new entitlement spending program. Over 40 million seniors depend on Medicare for their health care. Under the Senate bill, the federal government would cut over $500 billion from Medicare. This includes cutting over $200 billion from Medicare Advantage, cancelling the Medicare choice of over 120,000 Illinois seniors.

Here is a summary of the top Medicare cuts:

Medicare Advantage	-$202	Billion
Home Health	-$39	Billion
Medicare Part B	-$25	Billion
Hospital DSH Payments	-$25	Billion
Medicare Part D	-$10	Billion
Medical Imaging	-$1	Billion
Preventative Services	-$700	Million
Durable Medical Equipment	-$1	Billion
Power-Driven Wheelchairs	-$800	Million
Hospice	-$100	Million
Medicare Improvement Fund	-$20	Billion
Medigap	-$100	Million
Total Medicare Cuts	-$523	Billion

Increasing the Debt of Illinois

Under the federal Medicaid program for the poor, states must pay half of all costs. As you know, the State of Illinois has one of the highest deficits of any state, totaling over $12 billion. Spending on the Illinois Medicaid program rose 65% from $8 billion in 2001 to $13 billion in 2008 to now cover 2.4 million people. Under the Senate Health Care bill, Illinois would have to cover an additional 400,000 people, adding an additional $1 billion to the state’s deficit over five years.

Health care under Medicaid is already deteriorating. Over 9,000 doctors in Illinois refuse to accept Medicaid patients (28% nationwide), in part because it takes Illinois over 100 days to pay for services.

Expansion of the IRS

About the only jobs created by the legislation would be at the IRS. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the IRS would need to hire over 16,000 people – over 700 just in Illinois -- to audit the American people and impose the new taxes and mandates of the bill. New IRS agents would verify if you have acceptable authority, fine you up to 2% of your income for failure to prove that you have purchased “minimum essential coverage,” confiscate your tax refund and conduct audits. Under the bill, nearly half of the new individual mandate taxes will be paid by Americans earning less than $66,150 for a family of four

Conclusion

I voted against this legislation because it costs Illinois jobs, raises taxes and deepens the debt our children must one day pay. Unfortunately, the bill passed the House and is ready for the President’s signature into law. I wish that a more modest set of reforms could have been approved that did not have such harsh consequences for our economy.

In the coming days, I will outline policies and legislation that will reduce spending, lower the debt and prevent new taxes on the American people. While we did not prevail in this contest, I will continue to work and ensure a strong economy and bright future for every Illinois citizen.

Please feel free to forward this email along to other interested constituents or post it on your Facebook, Twitter, or MySpace pages. As always, do not hesitate to contact me at 847-940-0202 or via my Web site should issues of concern to you come before the Congress.

Very truly yours,

Mark Kirk
Member of Congress

Quote of the Day

"It's raining today...because our founding fathers are weeping." -- Rep. Tom Price from Georgia

Health is not a right

Health is not a right, it is a personal responsibility. Health care is not a right, it is a commodity. Health insurance is not a right, it is a financial risk management tool. Those who try to equate the Constitutional right of 'life' with health, heath care, health insurance have got it completely wrong. The Constitution does not guarantee that the federal government will provide you with life. Instead it guarantees that the federal government will not take life away from you. Unless the government has done something to your health that resulted in the loss of your life, then you have no claim against the government, or a right to its monies (which come from taxes). If you fail to take personal responsibility for your health (proper diet, exercise, life style, etc.), that isn't the government's fault. It's your fault and you should bear the burden. If, for some bizarre reason, you can find a Constitutional requirement for providing health insurance to every citizen of this nation, then haven't we been violating the Constitution for nearly the first 130+ years of its existence?

This deserves reposting ...

MY HEALTH CARE PLAN
by Ann Coulter
March 17, 2010
http://anncoulter.com/cgi-local/printer_friendly.cgi?article=359

Liberals keep complaining that Republicans don't have a plan for reforming health care in America. I have a plan!

It's a one-page bill creating a free market in health insurance. Let's all pause here for a moment so liberals can Google the term "free market."

Nearly every problem with health care in this country -- apart from trial lawyers and out-of-date magazines in doctors' waiting rooms -- would be solved by my plan.

In the first sentence, Congress will amend the McCarran-Ferguson Act to allow interstate competition in health insurance.

We can't have a free market in health insurance until Congress eliminates the antitrust exemption protecting health insurance companies from competition. If Democrats really wanted to punish insurance companies, which they manifestly do not, they'd make insurers compete.

The very next sentence of my bill provides that the exclusive regulator of insurance companies will be the state where the company's home office is. Every insurance company in the country would incorporate in the state with the fewest government mandates, just as most corporations are based in Delaware today.

That's the only way to bypass idiotic state mandates, requiring all insurance plans offered in the state to cover, for example, the Zone Diet, sex-change operations, and whatever it is that poor Heidi Montag has done to herself this week.

President Obama says we need national health care because Natoma Canfield of Ohio had to drop her insurance when she couldn't afford the $6,700 premiums, and now she's got cancer.

Much as I admire Obama's use of terminally ill human beings as political props, let me point out here that perhaps Natoma could have afforded insurance had she not been required by Ohio's state insurance mandates to purchase a plan that covers infertility treatments and unlimited ob/gyn visits, among other things.

It sounds like Natoma could have used a plan that covered only the basics -- you know, things like cancer.

The third sentence of my bill would prohibit the federal government from regulating insurance companies, except for normal laws and regulations that apply to all companies.

Freed from onerous state and federal mandates turning insurance companies into public utilities, insurers would be allowed to offer a whole smorgasbord of insurance plans, finally giving consumers a choice.

Instead of Harry Reid deciding whether your insurance plan covers Viagra, this decision would be made by you, the consumer. (I apologize for using the terms "Harry Reid" and "Viagra" in the same sentence. I promise that won't happen again.)

Instead of insurance companies jumping to the tune of politicians bought by health-care lobbyists, they would jump to the tune of hundreds of millions of Americans buying health insurance on the free market.

Hypochondriac liberals could still buy the aromatherapy plan and normal people would be able to buy plans that only cover things like major illness, accidents and disease. (Again -- things like Natoma Canfield's cancer.)

This would, in effect, transform medical insurance into ... a form of insurance!

My bill will solve nearly every problem allegedly addressed by ObamaCare -- and mine entails zero cost to the taxpayer. Indeed, a free market in health insurance would produce major tax savings as layers of government bureaucrats, unnecessary to medical service in America, get fired.

For example, in a free market, the government wouldn't need to prohibit insurance companies from excluding "pre-existing conditions."

Of course, an insurance company has to be able to refuse new customers with "pre-existing conditions." Otherwise, everyone would just wait to get sick to buy insurance. It's the same reason you can't buy fire insurance on a house that's already on fire.

That isn't an "insurance company"; it's what's known as a "Christian charity."

What Democrats are insinuating when they denounce exclusions of "pre-existing conditions" is an insurance company using the "pre-existing condition" ruse to deny coverage to a current policy holder -- someone who's been paying into the plan, year after year.

Any insurance company operating in the free market that pulled that trick wouldn't stay in business long.

If hotels were as heavily regulated as health insurance is, right now I'd be explaining to you why the government doesn't need to mandate that hotels offer rooms with beds. If they didn't, they'd go out of business.

I'm sure people who lived in the old Soviet Union thought it was crazy to leave groceries to the free market. ("But what if they don't stock the food we want?")

The market is a more powerful enforcement mechanism than indolent government bureaucrats. If you don't believe me, ask Toyota about six months from now.

Right now, insurance companies are protected by government regulations from having to honor their contracts. Violating contracts isn't so easy when competitors are lurking, ready to steal your customers.

In addition to saving taxpayer money and providing better health insurance, my plan also saves trees by being 2,199 pages shorter than the Democrats' plan.

Feel free to steal it, Republicans!

COPYRIGHT 2010 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK
1130 Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106

Quote of the Day

"The more we come to rely on government, the fewer freedoms we will enjoy. Government will start dictating what we can own, eat and drive, how much of our money they will let us keep, how we run our businesses, how many -- if any -- guns we can own, and what we may and may not say. Oh, wait! They are already doing that. To preserve freedom we must fight for it." --columnist Cal Thomas

Quote of the Day

"Nothing is more essential to the establishment of manners in a State than that all persons employed in places of power and trust must be men of unexceptionable characters." --Samuel Adams

Quote of the Day

"[Barack Obama failed to sell a health care reform plan to American voters] because the utter implausibility of its central promise -- expanded coverage at lower cost -- led voters to conclude that it would lead ultimately to more government, more taxes and more debt." --columnist Charles Krauthammer

Quote of the Day

"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." --James Madison

Quote of the Day

"The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals... It does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government... It is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government." --philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand (1905-1982)

How many ...

How many years of "education" do you need to learn to hate your country? How many great men of superior qualities must be impugned before you lose all faith in the foundations of your country?

Quote of the Day

"We can't reduce taxes until we reduce government spending, and I have to point out that government does not tax to get the money it needs; government always needs the money it gets." --Ronald Reagan (1911-2004)

Quote of the Day

"The president dismisses his lack of success by claiming he has not communicated his message enough. Really? I don't care how many news conferences you have, how many speeches you give, or how much money you spend on public relations, if the dog food is bad, the dogs won't eat it." --former Oklahoma Congressman J. C. Watts

Quote of the Day

"The Weather Channel reported Thursday that last week's ice storms in the South knocked out electricity in some areas for a week. Oklahoma has a firewood shortage because the trees are all frozen. People are staying warm by burning Al Gore's books." --comedian Argus Hamilton

Quote of the Day

"It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." --Thomas Jefferson

Identify/Disarm Liberal "Debate" Tactics

It is a rare characteristic to be absolutely uninterested in the judgment and opinions of your fellow man. (Those fortunate few are either psychotic, vain, or completely comfortable and confident with themselves. You can judge for yourself where most fall in this spectrum.) Otherwise, humans always try to find some agreement to feel reassured that our own opinions and thoughts are cogent and accurate with others' perceptions. As a result, we discuss, argue, and debate. 

We all know someone who loves to win debates. They'll stop at nothing to win a point in a debate. They are very manipulative, and unfortunately we often can be manipulated by these tactics. It takes great effort to develop an understanding, but it can be worth that effort.

 

Part of what confounds understanding of each other has to do with language and debate tactics. Personally, we strive to speak as clearly as possible about a subject and avoid digressions which would muddle everything. These master debaters, they will try everything to win, and there are some tactics which we'd like to illuminate and discuss. 

People, like cattle, run in herds of similar quality. Their opinions are true, and they need only turn to a fellow nearby to be reassured. Under those circumstances, you could debate, employ logic, and scream until apoplexy, and the recipient of your efforts will only low or bleat whatever contradictory nonsense similarly lowed and bleated by his peers. Cattle diverging from the herd get cut down by predators. When you can distract a "perfectly normal beast" and he's a particularly smart animal, you might be able to begin some basic discussion and here are some standard, instinctual responses.

 

(1) State complete contradictions using large words and without blinking.

Don't be distracted by this one. Large words are often a shield for the ignorant. If you re-word the contradictions in smaller words in a commonsense colloquialism you might be able to hit a human response.

(2) Re-define large words to suit your meaning.

As stated in (1), large words can be used by the ignorant in their hope that you equal their ignorance. When you show a clear understanding of the definition, they'll devolve the discussion to word definitions and stop actually discussing the idea at hand. Don't be diverted. Reduce the conversation to small words and hope you don't have to worry about the definition of "is".

(3) Make use of experts, statistics, and other "well-known" facts to support the position.

The beast is calling back to his herd for help. It's hard to come prepared with enough facts to combat other facts. Unfortunately, facts don't do the job; you need to interpret your facts. As a result, you use your experts to fight his experts. This doesn't work. Don't let it get this far. Use every day experiences and translate the idea.

(4) Attack anyone of value who is the foundation of the opposing side.

Ignore these attacks as though they didn't happen. If you respect someone and their judgment, don't let it show!

Remember, the key to good debate is not obliteration, but understanding. If your opponent begins to exhibit signs of slash-and-burn-win-at-all-costs tactics, it may be a signal that intelligent debate is not possible, and the situation becomes axiomatic. "Never debate a fool for the audience won't know who he is."

Consider This

If Democrats are for the poor and downtrodden and if Republicans are only for the rich guys... That means that the Democrats want MORE poor and downtrodden to vote for them and the Republicans want MORE rich people to vote for them. Which country do you want to live in?