More about national health care

Have you ever wondered why Liberals, known for their concern for the Environment, Over Population and Social Security also support a national health care system similar to Canada or England’s?

The time spent waiting for tests and procedures under governmental one payer health care can run from weeks, into months into longer than the rest of your life. Cancer that could have been cured with timely treatment kills up to 10,000 people in England every year.

Is it any wonder the Liberals support it. That’s 10,000 less people with a carbon footprint on the Environment. That’s 10,000 less in the world’s population or creating new people adding to the Over Population. That’s 10,000 less people collecting Social Security.

You may be lucky and only have to wait the average 3.8 weeks to obtain your ultrasound, 4.3 weeks for a CT or 10.3 weeks for a MRI. Now 10,000 may not sound like a large number unless you are among one of the numbered.

Data provided by Walter E. Williams article Do We Want Socialized Medicine? walterewilliams.com

I wrote about the failings of Nationalize Health Care for several reasons. I have always empathized with anyone who had a problem and I would try to find a solution to it. Then, as I get older, I see the possibility of these failures effecting me or someone I loved.

When you are young, you may not think that you will live forever but old age is so very far off. If you have had healthy parents then you may not have seen the ravages that age and age related illness can bring on.

Rheumatoid Arthritis is not the result of abusing your body. It is the luck of the draw. This disease can take normal hands and feet and distort them in size and shape where walking and working is impossible. There are other age-related illnesses that cause similar problems.
I heard too many stories about people from Canada coming to the US and paying for tests that were weeks or months away in Canada. There are too many stories of where the person had a tumor and would have died if he or she had waited.

There are stories of people being denied treatment because they have passed a maximum age and then they are no longer able to get the life saving treatment. In England, there is a disease of the eye that caused blindness. It is expensive. It was being denied until the person went blind in one eye. Then they would treat the other.

These stories are just urban legend until you can find documented proof that they occurred. This link will take you to a sight with actual newspaper articles telling some of the horror stories confronted by people living in countries with National Health care.

http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/socialized.html#britain

These problems may not effect you today but they will effect your loved one sometime in the near future if we are forced into Nationalize Health Care.

A Grouchy Old Man

Obama Fumblerooski

Back in the day the fumblerooski was a play made famous by the University of Nebraska against Miami in the 1984 Orange Bowl. Basically the quarterback deliberately places the ball on the ground, technically fumbling it. He then fakes like he is handing off to a back who will run to the right, and the right guard will pick up the ball and run to the left. It's misdirection at it's best.

Obama's attack on the AIG bonus's is his version of the fumblerooski. While he acts indignant and says they had no idea this was going on he is going for the real score in the other direction. This "change" we were supposed to have gotten has been more of the same but worse. "No earmarks" was his cry but 9000 went through. Now he says there won't be any more. "Bipartisan" was his promise to the republicans who voted for him but he has just pushed through the largest spending program ever without discussion or a vote. He beat up McCain for saying the fundamentals of the economy were strong. Obama said he had no economic sense but now Obama himself is saying the fundamentals are strong. His cohort Pelosi just had a meeting with illegals telling them that enforcement of existing immigration laws, as currently practiced, is "un-American." Government funded stem cell research, financing abortions overseas and a proposal to cut Veterans health benefits are all part of his change.

While Obama fakes the handoff and has everyone looking at the running back the real play is going the other way and no one seems to care. Where are the Conservatives!!!!!!!????????

OK, let's bring out in the open

We've been dancing around the religion subject in dozens of posts. It seems no one wants to step into that realm but here goes.

If you're a non-believer than looking to God or the Bible for answers doesn't make sense. If you're a believer than the Bible is your handbook and you try to follow it's guide. Many of the issues the US has have to do with whether you believe in God or not. So I think it would be a good idea to have an open discussion of things religious. Things like:

Is there a God? If so is there only one.
Evolution vs Creation
Is Jesus the Son of God?
Is the Bible true?
Is there a heaven and hell?
If so is there only one way to heaven?

For myself I was taught Darwin so I lean that way but have never really taken the time to look at anything else. I do think there is someone or something more powerful than myself but not quite sure how it all works in the big picture. Have a hard time with the truth of the Bible. Parting of seas and floods are hard to believe. Have a hard time also with the one way to heaven (if there is one). Doesn't seem right for the people who are raised in a different religion. And how do we know Christianity is the one way?

Just some thoughts. Would love to hear some logic on this subject.

Deregulation is the answer to everything (NOT)

Can someone give me example of when Deregulation has worked over time cuz I keep thinking of ..

- Enron (Energy Trading Deregulation)
- Global Crossing (SEC Deregulation)
- Big Banks(Financial Services Deregulation)
- AIG (Investment insurance Deregulation)
- Housing ( savings and loan Deregulation)


Found this on Google...
An agreement between the Clinton administration and congressional Republicans, reached during all-night negotiations which concluded in the early hours of October 22, sets the stage for passage of the most sweeping banking deregulation bill in American history, lifting virtually all restraints on the operation of the giant monopolies which dominate the financial system.

The proposed Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 would do away with restrictions on the integration of banking, insurance and stock trading imposed by the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, one of the central pillars of Roosevelt's New Deal. Under the old law, banks, brokerages and insurance companies were effectively barred from entering each others' industries, and investment banking and commercial banking were separated.

The certain result of repeal of Glass-Steagall will be a wave of mergers surpassing even the colossal combinations of the past several years. The Wall Street Journal wrote, "With the stroke of the president's pen, investment firms like Merrill Lynch & Co. and banks like Bank of America Corp., are expected to be on the prowl for acquisitions." The financial press predicted that the most likely mergers would come from big banks acquiring insurance companies, with John Hancock, Prudential and The Hartford all expected to be targeted.

Kenneth Guenther, executive vice president of Independent Community Bankers of America, an association of small rural banks which opposed the bill, warned, "This is going to begin a wave of major mergers and acquisitions in the financial-services industry. We're moving to an oligopolistic situation."

One such merger was already carried out well before the passage of the legislation, the $72 billion deal which brought together Citibank, the biggest New York bank, and Travelers Group Inc., the huge insurance and financial services conglomerate, which owns Salomon Smith Barney, a major brokerage. That merger was negotiated despite the fact that the merged company, Citigroup, was in violation of the Glass-Steagall Act, because billionaire Travelers boss Sanford Weill and Citibank CEO John Reed were confident of bipartisan support for repeal of the 60-year-old law.

Campaign of influence-buying

They had good reason, to be sure. The banking, insurance and brokerage industry lobbyists have combined their forces over the last five years to mount the best-financed campaign of influence-buying ever seen in Washington. In 1997 and 1998 alone, the three industries spent over $300 million on the effort: $58 million in campaign contributions to Democratic and Republican candidates, $87 million in "soft money" contributions to the Democratic and Republican parties, and $163 million on lobbying of elected officials.

The chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Texas Republican Phil Gramm, himself collected more than $1.5 million in cash from the three industries during the last five years: $496,610 from the insurance industry, $760,404 from the securities industry and $407,956 from banks.

During the final hours of negotiations between the House-Senate conference committee and White House and Treasury officials, dozens of well-heeled lobbyists crowded the corridors outside the room where the final deal-making was going on. Edward Yingling, chief lobbyist for the American Bankers Association, told the New York Times, "If I had to guess, I would say it's probably the most heavily lobbied, most expensive issue" in a generation.

While Democratic and Republican congressmen and industry lobbyists claimed that deregulation would spark competition and improve services to consumers, the same claims have proven bogus in the case of telecommunications, airlines and other industries freed from federal regulations. Consumer groups noted that since the passage of a 1994 banking deregulation bill which permitted bank holding companies to operate in more than one state, both checking fees and ATM fees have risen sharply.

Differing versions of financial services deregulation passed the House and Senate earlier this year, and the conference committee was called to work out a consensus bill and avert a White House veto. The principal bone of contention in the last few days before the agreement had nothing to do with the central thrust of the bill, on which there was near-unanimous bipartisan support.

The sticking point was the effort by Gramm to gut the Community Reinvestment Act, a 1977 anti-redlining law which requires that banks make a certain proportion of their loans in minority and poor neighborhoods. Gramm blocked passage of a similar deregulation bill last year over demands to cripple the CRA, and bank lobbyists were in a panic, during the week before the deal was made, that the dispute would once again prevent any bill from being adopted.

Gramm and other extreme-right Republicans saw the opportunity to damage their political opponents among minority businessmen and community groups, who generally support the Democratic Party. Gramm succeeded in inserting two provisions to weaken the CRA, one reducing the frequency of examinations for CRA compliance to once every five years for smaller banks, the other compelling public disclosure of loans made under the program.

The latter provision was particularly offensive to black and other minority business and community groups, who have used the CRA provisions as a lever by threatening to challenge mergers and other bank operations which require government approval. In most such cases, the banks have offered loans to businessmen or outright grants to community groups in return for dropping their legal actions. These petty-bourgeois elements have been able to posture as defenders of the black or Hispanic community, while pocketing what are essentially payoffs from finance capital and concealing from the public the details of this relationship.

The banks and other financial institutions did not themselves oppose continuation of the CRA, which they have treated as nothing more than a cost of doing a highly profitable business in minority areas. Loans tied to the CRA average a 20 percent rate of return. Financial industry lobbyists complained that they were being caught in a crossfire between the Republicans and Democrats which was unrelated to the main purpose of the bill.

The Clinton White House threatened to veto the bill if CRA provisions were substantially weakened, in response to heavy pressure from the Congressional Black Caucus and the Reverend Jesse Jackson, whose Operation PUSH has made extensive use of CRA in its campaigns to pressure corporations and banks for more opportunities for black businessmen. But eventually the White House caved in to Gramm, accepting his amendments so long as the program remained formally in place.

The White House similarly retreated on pledges that consumer privacy would be protected in the legislation. Consumer groups pointed to the potential for abuse of financial information once giant conglomerates were created which would handle loans, investments and insurance at the same time. For example: a bank could refuse to give a 30-year mortgage to a customer whose medical records, filed with the bank's insurance subsidiary, revealed a fatal disease.

The final draft of the bill contains a consumer privacy protection clause, but it is extremely weak, applying only to the transfer of information outside of a financial conglomerate, not within it. Thus Citigroup will be able to pass on financial information about its bank depositors to Travelers Insurance, but not to an outside company like Prudential. Even that limitation would be breached if there was a contractual relationship with the outside company, as in the case of a telemarketer which did work for Citigroup and was given private information about Citigroup depositors to aid in its telephone solicitations.

Threat to financial stability

The proposed deregulation will increase the degree of monopolization in finance and worsen the position of consumers in relation to creditors. Even more significant is its impact on the overall stability of US and world capitalism. The bill ties the banking system and the insurance industry even more directly to the volatile US stock market, virtually guaranteeing that any significant plunge on Wall Street will have an immediate and catastrophic impact throughout the US financial system.

The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which the deregulation bill would repeal, was not adopted to protect consumers, although one of its most celebrated provisions was the establishment of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which guarantees bank deposits of up to $100,000. The law was enacted during the first 100 days of the Roosevelt administration to rescue a banking system which had collapsed, wiping out the life savings of millions of working people, and threatening to bring the profit system to a complete standstill.

As a recent history of that era notes: "The more than five thousand bank failures between the Crash and the New Deal's rescue operation in March 1933 wiped out some $7 billion in depositors' money. Accelerating foreclosures on defaulted home mortgages—150,000 homeowners lost their property in 1930, 200,000 in 1931, 250,000 in 1932—stripped millions of people of both shelter and life savings at a single stroke and menaced the balance sheets of thousands of surviving banks" (David Kennedy, Freedom from Fear, Oxford University Press, 1999, pp. 162-63).

The separation of banking and the stock exchange was ordered in response to revelations of the gross corruption and manipulation of the market by giant banking houses, above all the House of Morgan, which organized huge corporate mergers for its own profit and awarded preferential access to share issues to favored politicians and businessmen. Such insider trading played a major role in the speculative boom which preceded the 1929 crash.

Over the past 20 years the restrictions imposed by Glass-Steagall have been gradually relaxed under pressure from the banks, which sought more profitable outlets for their capital, especially in the booming stock market, and which complained that foreign competitors suffered no such limitations to their financial operations. In 1990 the Federal Reserve Board first permitted a bank (J.P. Morgan) to sell stock through a subsidiary, although stock market operations were limited to 10 percent of the company's total revenue. In 1996 this ceiling was lifted to 25 percent. Now it will be abolished.

The Wall Street Journal celebrated the agreement to end such restrictions with an editorial declaring that the banks had been unfairly scapegoated for the Great Depression. The headline of one Journal article detailing the impact of the proposed law declared, "Finally, 1929 Begins to Fade."

This comment underscores the greatest irony in the banking deregulation bill. Legislation first adopted to save American capitalism from the consequences of the 1929 Wall Street Crash is being abolished just at the point where the conditions are emerging for an even greater speculative financial collapse. The enormous volatility in the stock exchange in recent months has been accompanied by repeated warnings that stocks are grossly overvalued, with some computer and Internet stocks selling at prices 100 times earnings or even greater.

And there is a much more recent experience than 1929 to serve as a cautionary tale. A financial deregulation bill was passed in the early 1980s under the Reagan administration, lifting many restrictions on the activities of savings and loan associations, which had previously been limited primarily to the home-loan market. The result was an orgy of speculation, profiteering and outright plundering of assets, culminating in collapse and the biggest financial bailout in US history, costing the federal government more than $500 billion. The repetition of such events in the much larger banking and securities markets would be beyond the scope of any federal bailout.

No More Earmarks?

I can criticize Pres. Obama all I want but I want to make sure that my criticism holds true for Republicans as well. I have ripped Obama for his spending during this recession and his recent budget is no different.

“The truth is, our earmark system in Washington is fraught with abuse. It badly needs reform — which is why I didn't request a single earmark last year, why I've released all my previous requests for the public to see and why I've pledged to slash earmarks by more than half when I am president of the United States of America." Barack Obama, September 22, 2008.

From the Heritage Foundation…“The omnibus bill spends $12.8 billion on 9,287 earmarks. When combined with the early 2009 spending bills ($16.1 billion spent on 2,627 earmarks), the 2009 total comes to 11,914 earmarks at a cost of $28.9 billion. This represents the second most earmarks—and the second highest cost—in American history.”

It doesn’t surprise me in the least that Obama has again “lied” to his voters and the American public, however, what surprises me is that 6 of the top 10 spenders in the senate were republicans. From what I can see, the 2nd biggest earmark spender was Mitch McConnell, who has also criticized Obama for his spending.

As Republicans, in this recession, how can you continue these earmarks? I find it a bit hypocritical on the Republicans part to say so much about how in debt we are going to be but continue the, everyone else is spending so why can’t I, mentality.

Now, maybe some of this money is needed, who knows, but I don’t think in this time that you need to be putting you name out there for how much you’ve won for your state. And Obama, you said that you would cut the earmarks in half…well, so much for that. Anyone remember “Read my lips, no new taxes?”

Some reading that supported this post:

http://www.heritage.org/research/budget/wm2318.cfm
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/03/republican_earmarks_pork.html

No-wonder-the-rich-give-so-much-to-charity

No-wonder-the-rich-give-so-much-to-charity

Other Sites

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/

http://www.politico.com/

http://www.drudgereport.com/

Slavery and the Constitution

With our current President and the talk of race and with Pook's comment I thought we should look at the issues of slavery and what the Constitution really says. No commentary, let's just deal with facts.

In 1776 the U.S. was one of hundreds of nations that had slaves. At that time there were approx. a half million slaves mostly in 4 southern states. The practice of slavery was brought to the US from Britain where it had been practiced for centuries. It was a way of life. That doesn't make it right it's just the way it was. Many of our founding fathers including John Adams, Ben Franklin and Alexander Hamilton spoke out against the practice. Many others owned slaves but as seen in their writings were conflicted about the practice.

In 1774 Thomas Jefferson in his draft to the First Continental Congress wrote "The abolition of domestic slavery is the great object of desire in those colonies where it was unhappily introduced in their infant state." By the time of the U.S. Constitution, every state (except Georgia) had at least denounced or suspended the importation of slaves.

However, like politics today there are opposing sides and when it came time for the final draft of the Constitution compromises were made. The southern states wanted the slaves counted as "whole" persons so they could keep their House seats (up to 40% of the population in many states were slaves). The northern states wanted to penalize the slave practice by not counting them and thus make the practice less attractive. The 3/5's of a person was the compromise. Compromise #2 was that after 1808 no more slaves could be brought in. This was the compromise between abolishing it then to never ending it.

The term slave and slavery were kept out of the Constitution and as Madison's notes state the delegates "thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men".

There is no doubt slavery was indeed the imperfection that marred the American founding. Those who founded this nation chose to make practical compromises for the sake of establishing in principle a new nation dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. In 1837 John Quincy Adams said "Never from their lips was heard one syllable of attempt to justify the institution of slavery. They universally considered it as a reproach fastened upon them by the unnatural step-mother country and they saw that before the principles of the Declaration of Independence slavery, in common with every mode of oppression, was destined sooner or later to be banished from the earth."

So the slavery compromises included in the Constitution can be understood to be compromises needed to establish a new nation rather than a surrender of principle. But in the end it took a bloody civil war to bring about the original intention of the Constitution by many of it's founders. How you view this country will ultimately color how you view this issue of slavery. Was slavery a US institution established and practiced by a majority meant to dehumanize another race for economic gain or was it a long held world practice that came to our land with deep roots that took the lives of many men to overturn? Reading many of our founders notes I choose to believe the latter. Slavery was never meant to be the law of this land.

Liberal Hypocrisy?

Maybe I'm a mind numbed robot or have my head too far up the conservative behind but I hope someone can explain something too me. The current administration and their groupies continue to tell us that we can't be all we can be without the government. Government controlling our health, our finances, our schooling and our retirement. We are told we should give up our individual rights for the good of the collective. Then how does it make sense that these are the same people who tell us a woman has the right to her body and all that goes on with it? They say we should not interfere with a woman's right to choose (abort).

So as I see it: The government will tell us what to eat, what doctor to see, how much we can earn, what car we can drive and where we can pray but it's hands off to tell a woman she can't abort. Someone show me the light.

What is the role of government?

Here's a question posed by Anonymous on the Rush thread. I figured I'd leave it an open column with no comments...let's see what everyone thinks.

Islamic mortgages

In the land of equality and opportunity for all it is great to see that The Land of 10,000 Lakes is coming to the aid of the religion of peace. Islamic law forbids, except under certain circumstances, interest to be paid. So the state that voted for Al Frankin now is promoting Islamic mortgages. The home price is raised and fees are paid up front. Raising the home price is supposedly to act as if interest was paid. Isn't that wonderful!

What can we look for next?

Islamic hospitals where men are treated by men and the women get treated in the basement.

Judge Hussein's divorce court where a women can literally lose her mind.

McAllahs fast food which only serves Yak and slurpies. And our favorite.

Family Feud the Islamic version where one family member tries to sneak over to the other families side and blow himself up.

It's nice to be so inclusive of a religion that wants to kill you.

Let's take a break!

Let's all take a breather and remember what life was like before we cared about all this crap!



Ok...now back to reality. Kind of reminds me of Obama...bouncing from one issue to the next, not really knowing what he's doing!

We need more Pook's!

Poor Pook is all by himself on this blog, minus a few posts by GiveOaChance. I don't know how many people are reading this blog, and out of those, I have no idea how many have opposing views. It's been great reading these comments and I'd really like to see more! Anybody can post comments, don't be scared...we don't know who you are. Somebody get Pook's back...he's going down hard!

Are food, healthcare and shelter a right?

At gettingfoddstamps.org the headline is Getting food stamps. It's your right. If you meet the guidelines you may be entitled to them under the law but is it a basic human right? Squatters across the country are trespassing in vacant homes and setting up shop. They have been told that the home is not being used so they should not be denied shelter. Illegal immigrants come acroos the border for medical care because it's their right to be healthy.

For years rights advocates have tried to push their agenda in these areas. In 2004 An investigator for the United Nations Commission on Human Rights cited the US for "a range of violations" in a "dire reality" of "human rights denial" in the area of housing. Philip Mangano, who was the executive director of the federal Interagency Council on Homelessness said "It may very well be this wrong of homelessness will lead us to establish the right to housing. That would be consistent with our history of righting wrongs in this country, like slavery, and then creating rights afterward."

What right does the US or any government have to tell us that we owe a home, food or healthcare to someone else? Was this how our founding fathers saw the job of government? I wish someone could show me where those rights are laid out. Even as a Christian I would have a hard time finding the passages that would lead me to that conclusion. We are to help the needy but that does not mean we are to give to government so they can decide who is needy. We as individuals are to take the task upon ourselves of feeding and caring for the less fortunate.

If the government can make up rights that are not in our founding papers how long until the things that matter to you will be taken away or given to someone else? Elections do matter!

Is Rush bad for the GOP?

Drudge Headline: White House plots Limbaugh Coverage.
James Carville says he wants Rush to keep talking.
RNC head Steele says Rush's rhetoric is "incendiary and ugly."

So is Rush hurting the GOP? The majority of conservatives would say NO. Is Rush good for the liberal conservatives, NO. Will Rush scare away those who have no convictions. YES. Is the GOP a party that has it's values based on polling data or are it's values based on moral convictions which don't change over time?

The sad part of all this is: The Democrats and media are more afraid of a college drop out talk show host than GOP members of Congress. I think this says more about the state of the GOP than it does about Rush. Rush has the ability the inspire us. He himself is a success story. He is living the American dream and articulates the thoughts and beliefs of millions. Admittedly he has had some personal issues but who hasn't? Certainly not those bad mouthing him.

When Rush says he hopes the Obama plan fails anyone with half a brain knows what he is talking about. Obama's restructuring of America into a socialist state could possibly help in the short term but long run it is devastating. Allowing Government to tell us where our kids can go to school, what doctor we can see and how much money we can make is not the American dream our ancestors worked and died for. Once we allow Government to intrude into our lives we can't get them out. Those looking for quick solutions are narrow minded and selfish. They don't want to pay the price for their and governments mistakes. They are taking the handouts and leaving their kids and grand kids to pay the bill. Buy now and pay later!

How is Rush's statement any different then Reid's and Pelosi's about we support the troops but not the war? Rush supports America just not the direction it's heading. Reid called President Bush and idiot. It amazes me how blind society is. Give them what they want and they are kept fat, dumb and happy. It's like the boiling frog story.

So is Rush bad for the GOP? Not the GOP I want! I'm willing to lose a few battles to win the war. It may not always be easy, it may not be pretty but it's what is right for our future and our kids future. If I have to give up my convictions to make my life easier than I become a selfish, despicable human being who is just wasting oxygen and taking up space. I was born to be better than that.

Is Obama actually hurting the poor?

Didn’t Pres. Obama campaign on helping the poor and middle class citizens in this country? We saw person after person telling their sad story and asking how the government is going to help. Well, I guess the answer is to decrease the amount donated to charities which the poor may rely upon.

Obama has now stated that he wants to reduce the deduction percentage for charitable giving for those “rich” couples making over $250,000. That may be a great way to bring more money into Washington, but at the expense of the people that he campaigned to help?

The Indiana University Center on Philanthropy sees a sizable negative impact from the proposal.

President Obama's tax proposals -- including a limit on charitable giving deductions that could be taken by America's wealthiest people -- could cause giving by America's wealthy to drop by several billion dollars a year, according to estimates released today by the Indiana University Center on Philanthropy.

The center looked at how the proposals Mr. Obama released on Thursday would have affected giving based on 2006 data showing how much taxpayers deducted for charitable contributions. It said that if Mr. Obama's tax plan had been in effect, Americans with incomes of $250,000 or more would have decreased their giving by 4.6 percent or nearly $3.9-billion. People at that income level claimed more than $81-billion in charitable gifts in 2006...

... In a statement, Patrick M. Rooney, interim director of the Indiana center, said he worried about the effect of the tax change at a time when the downturn in the economy has put a squeeze on many donors and the charities they support.

"Tax incentives do stimulate more giving," Mr. Rooney said, "and the challenges facing the nonprofit sector in 2009 suggest that this might be a good time to provide additional incentives, rather than reduce the value of the tax deduction for high-income households, so that the donors with the greatest capacity to give have more reasons to do so."

Does the GOP need the black vote?

Much has been said lately about black America. We have a black President, a black Attorney General and the RNC has it's first black leader. There is no doubt that blacks are making great strides in society today. Instead of finally coming to terms with our past and moving on it seems the media focus has been even more on race than in the past. Because of this the evil Republicans are being grilled about their programs aimed at minorities. How much are they giving to minority causes, how many programs are they cutting that will benefit minorities? Is it possible for the GOP to keep it's core values and cater to the minority population?

If it's core values are smaller government, pro 2nd Amendment, anti abortion and lower taxes than I don't think it's possible to give blacks what the Democrats will give them. That being said do we need their vote to get Republicans elected? I don't think so. Do we want to include all races in the party? Yes, but not at the expense of our morals. No matter what we have promised the black population in the past we still only pull about 10% at the most in an election.

Lets look at numbers. Blacks currently are about 15% of the population and Hispanics slightly more. Asians are 5%. Whites are around 70%. The numbers don't add up because there is some cross over in the demographics. In 2050 it is estimated Whites will be 46%, Blacks still 15%, Hispanics 30% and Asians 10%. I don't think we can continue to bend over and give everything to the black community only to have them turn around and vote for a Democrat. We need to stick to our principals and win them over because they want to live the American dream.

Our money and time would be better spent wooing the Hispanic population which is more religious and less inclined to look to government to solve their problems. Hispanics live more conservatively and family is more important to them. The road back to power does not go through the black community but the Hispanic.

Napolitano tells Texas to suck it up!

Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano told Congress on Wednesday that she will study Texas Gov. Rick Perry's request for another thousand troops to guard the border. She stated that violence had not spread far enough north to warrant a plan drawn up by the Bush administration. She also said "We do not want to militarize the border".

Why the heck not!! How far north does the violence have to get? To Dallas? Ciudad Juárez, a town right across the border from El Paso had 2000 killed last year from drug gangs. Phoenix is now the kidnapping capital of the U.S. thanks to illegals and the drug trade. Gang members dressed in fatigues frequently cross the border or exchange shots with U.S. Border Agents. The Tucson sector of the Border Patrol has reported a record number of assaults on US Border Patrol Agents. In 2005 then Governor Napolitano issued a state of emergency in AZ due to border violence. At that time she declared it was the fault of the U.S. Government and their lack of action. It's amazing how moving to D.C. suddenly changes everything. Typical politician!

If we have murder, kidnapping and the violation of U.S. laws at an increasing rate isn't this a problem? We fight half a world away to preserve the American way of life shouldn't we do the same when the problem is at our back door?

Is lack of money really the problem?

People seem to believe the mantra that there isn't enough money to handle our spending. Is the problem really not enough money?

In looking at the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) numbers for the past couple decades lack of money does not seem to be the problem. Revenue to the Government doubled from 90-2000 while discretionary spending also doubled. Social security payments increased 65% and Medicare and Medicaid more than doubled. From 2000-2008 (projected) revenue increased 25% but discretionary spending once again doubled. Social security increased 50% and Medicaid and Medicare went up 2 and a half times. The government continues to collect more each year so money is not the problem how they spend it is. Instead of arguing over how to get more money why don't we/they spend more time on spending it wisely.

The savior is here

From Drudge:

"Obama vows to increase number of soldiers...
Obama vows to seek cure for cancer 'in our time'...
Obama says bank bailout may cost more than expected...
Obama promises universal EDUCATION THROUGH COLLEGE...
Obama promises universal health care... "

And we're going to cut the deficit in half in the next 4 years. Hello 75% tax rate 'cause apparently we're not stopping the spending!

"House Democrats propose $410B spending bill. "
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/House-Democrats-propose-410B-apf-14450221.html

Lets keep it coming!

Speaking of Healthcare...

Found a great article about the direction that Healthcare is heading.

"Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan"

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs