Wednesday, November 25, 2009

The Great Thanksgiving Hoax : The Truth About Pilgrims, Socialism and Individualism

Increasingly, the Pilgrims' lessons of hard-scrabble survival and adaptation to new conditions have given way to a New Age diversity-driven communal living fantasy. The Pilgrims were able to give thanks because they abandoned Utopian visions for reality driven toil. If you have never read Richard J. Maybury's "The Great Thanksgiving Hoax" , this is the perfect time to learn what is left out of the typical history curriculum.

The official story has the pilgrims boarding the Mayflower, coming to America and establishing the Plymouth colony in the winter of 1620-21. This first winter is hard, and half the colonists die. But the survivors are hard working and tenacious, and they learn new farming techniques from the Indians. The harvest of 1621 is bountiful. The Pilgrims hold a celebration, and give thanks to God. They are grateful for the wonderful new abundant land He has given them.

The official story then has the Pilgrims living more or less happily ever after, each year repeating the first Thanksgiving. Other early colonies also have hard times at first, but they soon prosper and adopt the annual tradition of giving thanks for this prosperous new land called America.

The problem with this official story is that the harvest of 1621 was not bountiful, nor were the colonists hardworking or tenacious. 1621 was a famine year and many of the colonists were lazy thieves.

In his 'History of Plymouth Plantation,' the governor of the colony, William Bradford, reported that the colonists went hungry for years, because they refused to work in the fields. They preferred instead to steal food. He says the colony was riddled with
"corruption," and with "confusion and discontent." The crops were small because "much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable."

How did Bradford and the Pilgrims save their community? Read Richard J. Maybury's "The Great Thanksviging Hoax" at The Ludwig von Mises Institute.

Concerned Women For America Miss The Health Care Point

Last night I received a phone call from Concerned Women for America. This is an organization that I strongly support, so I was shocked that I found myself lecturing the solicitor about the current ObamaCare legislation in the Senate.

The CWFA is, of course, making phone calls to solicit money for their lobbying efforts. Fine. Such organizations need cash to function and they call those who they believe agree with their work. Usually, I am on board with the CWFA.

The entire focus of the caller's script was on keeping abortion funding out the legislative plans to conduct a hostile takeover of the American health care industry. The CWFA recently posted an article in opposition to certain provisions in the House bill. The CWFA is unwittingly making the same mistake that Conservatives have been making for decades.

Simply put, its the liberty, stupid! If Conservatives focus on debating the rationale or legitimacy of certain elements of healthcare nationalization, they are missing the big picture. The whole notion is an assault on the individual liberty of the America people. Debating specific passages of an Orwellian 2,000-page legislative assault on the American people is asinine.

Take out abortion funding. Take out penalties for those who refuse to purchase insurance. Take out the government's ability to decide what procedures can be covered (FYI, they already do this in our so-called "free market"). We would still have a government-run health care system that will destroy individual freedom and saddle our children and grandchildren with stifling debt while eviscerating the world's best healthcare system.

It is fine to make people aware of some of the worst measures in the bill if it helps stir the blood to fight back against the Kremlin on the Potomac. However, it must be made clear to our elected officials that we are protecting liberty. They have crossed the Rubicon and we need to make sure they are stopped before further encroachments on our freedoms occur. Our future depends on it.

Sean Hannity Should Not Throw Stones About Plagiarism

Conservative talk radio is at its best when it is clever, smart, informative and dressed with zesty helping of satire. That is why Rush Limbaugh is Public Enemy #1 to Statist-Marxist-Democrats. No one does it better. Mark Levin is a great legal mind who guts Leftist legal doctrine like Sarah Palin field dressing an elk. Neal Boortz, the Talkmaster, infuriates me at times with some of his social views, but he represents Libertarianism like no other. Sirius morning superstar Mike Church has an incredible grasp of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. In fact, Church's commentaries on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitutional Convention along with other issues related to the Founding should be studied by the rest of the talk radio upper strata so that they might build a stronger foundation for their political ideology. Of course, I think at least one of the heavyweights does listen to Church, though only to steal gimmicks and not to educate himself.

Yesterday, Sean Hannity went on a long diatribe about the earth-shattering and inventive concepts that are present on his website and how the rest of talk radio copies his intellectual property. Of course, it was OK since he takes it as flattery. He went on...and on...and on. That, by the way, is his most noticeable trait: the beating of a dead horse.

As Hannity droned on about his superior and "original" ideas, my mind drifted back to the summer. Soon after President Obama (and other Democrat "leaders") referred to Conservatives as "an angry mob", Mike Church began asking his listeners to make up a mob name when they called in to the show. It was funny and the callers came up with some creative ideas. Several days later, out of the blue, Sean Hannity begins running the same bit. He was so proud of comedy invention, you would think Seano Marx had just created the "knock, knock" joke. Truth was, he was just stealing a bit from another talk show host. I guess Church is what Hannity and Levin refer to as one of the "back benchers." Note to Sean: Nancy Pelosi will wear a "What Would Reagan Do" t-shirt before Mike Church will need to steal show ideas from you.

Mark Levin also devolves into the attacks on other hosts and that is unfortunate. He has been less involved in that nonsense since the success of his marvelous book, "Liberty and Tyranny." Hopefully, he realizes that he just has to do his thing and listeners will know they are hearing a keen legal mind. He doesn't need to be in a mud fight with Michael Savage. Savage has his niche and Levin has his. While he still refers to the "back benchers" he usually makes a quick comment and moves on. Hopefully, Levin will realize his work stands on its merit and that jabs at other talk show hosts are useless diversions (unless the comments are about specific comments that don't advance the cause).

When Hannity starts tooting his own horn and attacking others, it can last hours (ok, it may only seem that long). Hannity's work with the Freedom Concerts deserves praise. He does champion Conservatism over Republicanism in most cases. His radio and TV presence give him a large audience. Why the anger? Look, Sean, do your thing and don't assume you invented every talk radio bit or website feature in the marketplace. It is obvious you are not above cannibalizing others' ideas. Let's remember, the enemies are Marxist Democrats and RINO's, not competing talk show hosts.

Sunday, November 22, 2009

PajamasTV: Andrew Klavan Helps Explain The Left's Hatred of Limbaugh, Coulter and Beck

"Klavan on Culture" is one of the best regular features on Pajamas TV. Klavan takes on the Mainstream Media's hatred of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity. Very enlightening! See it here.

Saturday, November 21, 2009

Mary Landrieu Believes There Is A Difference Between Call Girls and Streetwalkers

Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu is one of those phony "conservative Democrats" who always pretends to be waffling between protecting liberty and growing the state. Most recently she has pretended to be against the Statist Democrats' desire to nationalize the American health care industry. However, she agreed to vote "yes" to the first procedural hurdle to open Senate debate on the Obama Care assault on the American people. And it only cost taxpayers $100 million. Ooops, make that $300 million. Who says? Landrieu herself, as reported on Newsbusters:

In explaining the latest Hurricane Katrina extortion, Landrieu boasted:

"Our state is still as poor as it was, if not poorer. I am not going to be defensive about asking for help in this situation and it is not a $100 million fix, it is a $300 million fix."

But, she denied that $100 million provision was the reason she had decided to vote in favor of cloture.

"I'm proud to have asked for it," Landrieu said. "I'm proud to have fought for it and I will continue to. That is not the reason I am moving to debate. The reason I am moving to the debate, as expressed - in this statement and in hundreds of statements and speeches I've given over the last year or two on this subject, which should be self-explanatory."

Well, there you go. Four years ago. a natural disaster hit the nation's most corrupt and mismanaged state, therefore all Americans must sacrifice their individual liberty. Landrieu gets to dribble $300 million of pork on the Pelican State while the rest of America gets health care treatment at the whim of Tom Daschle and Ezekiel Emmanuel.

Senator Landrieu seems to believe that selling your integrity for $300 million is somehow more noble than giving it away on the cheap. She can call herself a call girl for the people if she likes. In reality, she is just another low rent streetwalker willing to sell something more precious than her body: the individual liberty of the American people. Hopefully, the citizens of Louisiana are not as cheap in their convictions as is Mary Landrieu.

Mark Warner and Jim Webb Support Harry Reid Over Virginia

From Norman Leahy at the Tertium Quids blog:

Warner, Webb both to vote "yes" on cloture

Both Senators Mark Warner and Jim Webb intend to vote "yes" on the cloture motion tomorrow evening that will bring Sen. Reid's health insurance bill to the floor for debate.

Warner makes it clear he's looking for a handout (though probably not in Sen. Landrieu's league...but you never know), while Sen. Webb's office could only muster a spokesbeing, who says he'll vote "yes," too.

So...the debate will come, the taxpayers' checkbook will be opened wide and votes will be traded like shiny marbles on the Senate floor. It's just grand.

Hopefully, Virginians have caught on to the sad fact that Mark Warner and Jim Webb are not old-style "conservative Democrats." In fact, you have a better chance finding a Yeti than finding a "conservative Democrat" in the U.S. Senate. Warner and Webb are both dutiful stooges who answer to the Statist Democrat leadership and Democrat special interests.

Warner and Webb, like most politicians, assume the dumb masses have short memories and will forget all about their involvement in the Kremlin on the Potomac's takeover of the American health care system. Neither is up for reelection in 2010. Webb faces the voters in 2012 and Warner in 2014. Keep these traitorous actions filed away and when these Quislings ask to have their membership in Klub Kongress renewed send them to the unemployment line.

Friday, November 20, 2009

Palin-Palooza Heading For Roanoke; The Haters Snark Away

Former Alaska governor and vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin will sign her new book "Going Rogue: An American Life" at the Valley View Mall Barnes and Noble bookstore this Sunday at 10:00 am. If the early stops are any indication, expect a huge crowd for Palin's appearance. Palin is the hottest political superstar in America and she will inspire a long line of early risers to be in place waiting when wrist bands at handed out at 6:00am to insure a place in the autograph line.

Of course, not everyone loves Sarah Palin. Friday's Roanoke Times featured an article about the highly-anticipated event and also included a list of "do's and dont's" that Barnes and Noble has been handing out to folks who purchase the Palin book. It is certainly not uncommon for such events to have certain requirements. For instance, Barnes and Noble requires that you purchase the book at their store (or from their online store) for the privilege of getting it signed. Hardly unusual. A wristband system will be used to place a finite number on the autograph line. In addition, there are other rules in place to facilitate a smooth and fast-moving line.

However, The Roanoke Times, being a Leftist rag, placed a snarky "explanation" of the rules in the middle of the page containing the continuation of the main story while placing the "just the facts" version of the rules in the bottom right corner of the page. The oh-so-clever Dan Casey dedicated his junior high wit to an "analysis" of the rules. For example,

* Line passes/wristbands will be handed out on a first-come, first-served basis beginning at 6 a.m. Sunday. Translation: Get your butt out of bed early if you want to see Sarah.

* You must be present in order to get a line pass/wristband. Translation: You can't get one the day before, so skip church!

* You must present your ORIGINAL Barnes & Nobel or receipt for "Going Rogue" in order to get a line pass/wristband. Translation: Tickets for Sarah's appearance are $17 plus change (and tax). You cannot bring your receipt from Walmart, where the book costs $14.50. So don't even try, cheapskates!

Do any of those requirements seem shocking? Sounds like the way most high-traffic events are managed.

* One line pass/wristband will be issued per person. Translation: If you've purchased two copies and a friend wants to come along, make sure you get separate receipts.

* A maximum of two copies of "Going Rogue" will be signed per person. Translation: Please buy more, but don't expect much, OK? Her hands will already be aching from the Rochester, N.Y., signing Saturday night.

* No memorabilia will be signed -- only the book, "Going Rogue." Translation: This is to sell books, you dummy. She will not sign the caribou sausage you brought home from that Alaska cruise but are afraid to eat, so don't even ask.

These are the types of limits that are common for an event that will draw a large and eager crowd. After all, this book was a best-seller long before it was released and Sarah Palin is a very popular lady. Maybe Dan Casey should try to arrange a Nancy Pelosi book signing (yes, she released a book earlier this year--I think it is in the top 80,000 on If the Speakerette holds a book signing the crowd will be so sparse that San Fran Nan will likely be able to join you at Panera Bread for breakfast.

Leftist clowns will continue to attack Palin, whether out of jealousy, ignorance or fear. She may or may not be presidential material, but she does represent the values and ideals that embody America at its best. Those values are alien to Statist Leftists. Real America gets Sarah Palin.

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Conservative Women and the Liberals Who Hate Them

Leftist/Statist Democrats so desperately want the Republican Party and Conservative movement to be a white dude's club that ethnic minorities and women who escape the Democrat plantation are treated as traitors. Leftists are much more threatened by liberty-lovers such as Clarence Thomas and Sarah Palin than they are by radical Islamic terrorists. The Islamo-fascists just want to kill Americans, but Thomas and Palin are a threat to Democrat identity politics which is the primary method by which they achieve and wield power.

Doug Patton has a great piece on Human Events about the Left's pathological hatred of ideological "traitors."

"The Rise of the Conservative Woman" by Doug Patton

Monday, November 16, 2009

Pelosi and Obama Have Contempt For the Constitution...And You

Dr. Walter E. Williams is one of America's greatest thinkers, but his column "Constitutional Contempt" is not a deeply thought opinion piece. Just horrifyingly accurate! Dr. Williams' premise is a very obvious point that, sadly, not enough Americans seem to get.

At Speaker Nancy Pelosi's Oct. 29th press conference, a CNS News reporter asked, "Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?" Speaker Pelosi responded, "Are you serious? Are you serious?" The reporter said, "Yes, yes, I am." Not responding further, Pelosi shook her head and took a question from another reporter. Later on, Pelosi's press spokesman Nadeam Elshami told about its question regarding constitutional authority mandating that individual Americans buy health insurance. "You can put this on the record. That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question."

Suppose Congress was debating a mandate outlawing tea-party-type protests and other large gatherings criticizing Congress. A news reporter asks Nancy Pelosi where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to outlaw peaceable assembly. How would you feel if she answered, "Are you serious? Are you serious?" and ignored the question. And what if, later on, someone from her office sent you a press release, as was sent to CNS News, saying that Congress has "broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce," pointing out that demonstrations cause traffic jams and therefore interferes with interstate commerce?

Speaker Pelosi's constitutional contempt, perhaps ignorance, is representative of the majority of members of both the House and the Senate. Their comfort in that ignorance and constitutional contempt, and how readily they articulate it, should be worrisome for every single American. It's not a matter of whether you are for or against Congress' health care proposals. It's not a matter of whether you're liberal or conservative, black or white, male or female, Democrat or Republican or member of any other group. It's a matter of whether we are going to remain a relatively free people or permit the insidious encroachment on our liberties to continue.

Where in the U.S. Constitution does it authorize Congress to force Americans to buy health insurance? If Congress gets away with forcing us to buy health insurance,
down the line, what else will they force us to buy; or do you naively think they will stop with health insurance? We shouldn't think that the cure to Congress' unconstitutional heavy-handedness will end if we only elect Republicans. Republicans have demonstrated nearly as much constitutional contempt as have Democrats. The major difference is the significant escalation of that contempt under today's Democratically controlled Congress and White House with the massive increase in spending, their proposed legislation and the appointment of tyrannical czars to control our lives. It's a safe bet that if and when Republicans take over the Congress and White House, they will not give up the massive increase in control over our lives won by the Democrats.

It isn't just that the Radical Left of the Democrat party believes in jamming statism down America's throat. The Radical Left controls the Democrat party and a Radical Leftist is President of the United States. So-called moderate Democrats or "blue dogs" are much closer to the Statists than they are to the Constitution. Ditto the Republican party. If allowed, many Republicans will pursue the siren song of the Statist's utopian dreams, but in "conservative" doses.

If Americans want to keep their liberty, they will begin to fight political battles from that standpoint. Death panels and publicly-financed abortions are sideshows and diversions from the real threat. Our constitutional republic and the protections provided by such a government are under siege. I don't care if the health care bill is 2,000 pages or two sentences. If the result is diminished freedom, the rest is mere detail.

Read the rest of Dr. Walter Williams' "Constitutional Contempt" at The Patriot Post.

Obama’s Swelling Ego - The Boston Globe...This President Knows No Shame

President Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama has an ego that would shame Narcissus. My guess is Obama's iPod is filled with Obama speeches. The ego that ate liberty reached a new level of self-congratulation on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. From Jeff Jacoby in the Boston Globe:

PRESIDENT OBAMA was too busy to attend the celebrations in Germany this week marking the fall of the Berlin Wall 20 years ago. But he did appear by video, delivering a few brief and bloodless remarks about how the wall was “a painful barrier between family and friends’’ that symbolized “a system that denied people the freedoms that should be the right of every human being.’’ He referred to “tyranny,’’ but never identified the tyrants - he never uttered the words “Soviet Union’’ or “communism,’’ for example. He said nothing about the men and women who died trying to cross the wall. Nor did he mention Harry Truman or Ronald Reagan - or even Mikhail Gorbachev.

He did, however, talk about Barack Obama.

“Few would have foreseen,’’ declared the president, “that a united Germany would be led by a woman from [the former East German state of] Brandenburg or that their American ally would be led by a man of African descent. But human destiny is what human beings make of it.’’

All this time I thought the fall of the Berlin Wall was a symbol of man's desire for freedom and the culmination of a decades-long fight against Soviet domination of eastern Europe. It was the result of American Presidents like Truman, Kennedy, and Reagan drawing lines in the sand against Moscow's repressive regime. The courageous efforts of Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Pope John Paul II, Lech Walesa and others who loved liberty took form in the sledgehammers wielded by young Germans.

Now I know the truth: the fall of the Berlin Wall was just another blip on the radar signaling the coming of The One. Have you no decency, sir?

Obama’s swelling ego - The Boston Globe

Posted using ShareThis

Monday, November 9, 2009

Ralph Peters' "Fort Hood's 9/11" And The Mounting Evidence That A Terrorist Attack Took Place

Ralph Peters wrote a strong piece in the New York Post that makes clear that the tragedy at Fort Hood was a terrorist attack.

This was a terrorist act. When an extremist plans and executes a murderous plot against our unarmed soldiers to protest our efforts to counter Islamist fanatics, it’s an act of terror. Period.

When the terrorist posts anti-American hate-speech on the Web; apparently praises suicide bombers and uses his own name; loudly criticizes US policies; argues (as a psychiatrist, no less) with his military patients over the worth of their sacrifices; refuses, in the name of Islam, to be photographed with female colleagues; lists his nationality as "Palestinian" in a Muslim spouse-matching program, and parades around central Texas in a fundamentalist playsuit — well, it only seems fair to call this terrorist an "Islamist terrorist."

But the president won’t. Despite his promise to get to all the facts. Because there’s no such thing as "Islamist terrorism" in ObamaWorld.

And the Army won’t. Because its senior leaders are so sick with political correctness that pandering to America-haters is safer than calling terrorism "terrorism."

And the media won’t. Because they have more interest in the shooter than in our troops — despite their crocodile tears.

It has been truly disgraceful watching and listening while excuses and justifications are made for this piece of human refuse, Nadal Malik Hasan. This vile subhuman has made it clear he is an enemy of the United States while drawing a paycheck from its taxpayers and maintaining employment despite an ever-growing list of "red flags" that should have resulted in this murderer's expulsion from the military. Some of his actions prior to the killings were deserving of criminal investigation.

Political correctness is an epidemic that kills. Hasan maintained his position because no one wanted to be seen as an anti-Muslim bigot. Speaking for myself, I would much rather be called a bigot while protecting the lives of fellow Americans than kick the can down the road in the name of diversity and allow the "diverse" killer to murder American soldiers. Those who knew of Hasan's vitriol towards America and heard his incendiary language while staying silent should be held responsible for these deaths.

It seems that every hour more information is coming to light. Hasan was involved with a radical cleric who is tied to al Qaeda and U.S. intelligence officials knew about it.

Major Hasan’s 10 to 20 messages to Anwar al-Awlaki, once a spiritual leader at a mosque in suburban Virginia where Major Hasan worshiped, indicate that the troubled military psychiatrist came to the attention of the authorities long before last Thursday’s shooting rampage at Fort Hood, but that the authorities left him in his post.

“There was no indication that Major Hasan was planning an imminent attack
at all, or that he was directed to do anything,” one senior investigator said. He and the other officials spoke on the condition of anonymity, saying the case was under investigation.

Whether or not Hasan announced his plans to commit mass murder or not is immaterial. If individuals in the U.S. military are involved with radical Islamists and expressing sympathy for suicide bombers, they need to be removed from the armed forces. There is an ocean of difference between an individual disagreeing with government policy and actively supporting our enemies. Should the United States have inducted Nazis into the World War II marines? Maybe we should have allowed Viet Cong to camp out at Fort Bragg.

The mealy-mouthed reaction to Hasan's lunatic rantings begs the question, "how many more Islamist would-be murderers are in the U.S. military?" If Muslim soldiers are involved with radical mosques and openly endorsing jihad against the American infidels they should be removed or imprisoned. I doubt that patriotic Muslims would disagree with such a policy. They are as endangered by the semi-human extremists as are we "infidels."

Sunday, November 8, 2009

Congressman Mike Pence Defends Freedom In The Face Of The Marxist Health Care Takeover

Indiana Congressman Mike Pence defines the stakes in the fight against the Democrats' attempt at a hostile takeover of the American health care industry.

Folks, it ain't over. The fat lady ain't even warming up, but the Statist/Marxist/Progressive Democrats have moved an inch closer to the totalitarianism that their leadership desires. The passage of the Pelosi version of ObamaCare should wake up Americans to this violent attack on individual liberty.

Now, two things must happen. First, intensify the fight against ObamaCare in the Senate. There are already nervous Democrats in the Senate and it is highly unlikely Harry Reid can muster 60 votes to prevent a filibuster. Can 10 Democrats be convinced to uphold their oath of office? Maybe. However, forcing Harry Reid to employ procedural shenanigans to pass this monstrosity will add to the pressure on Dems in 2010. Call your Senators. Email your Senators. Even if the Senate version passes, it is different than the House bill. A conference bill will still have to be put together, meaning that House members will have to cast another vote. That means Real American has more time to makes its voices heard.

Secondly, keep an eye on November, 2010. Democrats who voted to strip American citizens of individual liberty in health care matters and who risk destroying jobs and economic growth in order to carry out a Marxist ideology must pay a price at the ballot box. The Leftist health care and cap-and-trade bills are attacks on the Constitution and the American people. The perps must pay with the loss of their jobs.

This is no time to rest in Real America. The fight is only beginning. Our future and our children's futures depend on our willingness to fight the traitors and tyrants in our midst.

Friday, November 6, 2009

Arizona Congressman John Shadegg Offers Common Sense Health Care Reform Alternatives

Democrats seem to believe that a lie becomes a fact if repeated often enough. The lie that has been at the heart of the Leftist Democrats' defense of their hostile takeover of the American health care system goes something like this: "Well, if Republicans had any ideas we would listen, but they just want the status quo." President Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama has repeated the Big Lie ad nauseum as he plots his unconstitutional usurpation.

Today's Wall Street Journal features an op-ed by Arizona congressman John Shadegg is which the dedicated defender of the Constitution clearly refutes the Big Lie. First, Shadegg defines the problem:

It is true that many Americans cannot find affordable health coverage. However, it is the government-imposed barriers that make coverage expensive, especially for the working poor in America. Fixing these problems would cost the taxpayer absolutely nothing, yet congressional Democrats refuse to consider these no-cost solutions.

The already high cost of insurance is often increased by excessive state regulations. States have passed more than 1,800 benefit mandates, requiring insurance companies to cover services from hair prostheses (wigs) to infertility treatments to acupuncturists to massage therapists. These state mandates raise the cost of insurance, which, in turn, increases the number of Americans who are priced out of the health-insurance market.

You may be thinking, what if I don't need a hair prosthesis or infertility treatments? Tough luck. Instead of having a choice in coverage you do need, you'll likely be paying for health insurance at an exorbitant cost to cover things you may never use or desire.

Contrary to what the Statists would like you to think, Big Government has been at the heart of the problem. The high costs in health care are not a function of the free market. They are largely the result of over-regulation. The Leftist Democrat solution? Let's have even more regulation and interference. Shadegg proposes a different path:

The solution: Allow American families to purchase health coverage across state lines. According to a study by the University of Minnesota, 12 million more Americans would be able to buy coverage if this simple solution were enacted into law.

Another no-cost solution? Give Americans the option to take the cash their employer uses to purchase health care and let them buy a plan on their own. If they are happy with their current plan, let them keep it. If not, let them take their business elsewhere and buy their own health coverage. This would force the insurance industry to innovate and control costs, or face losing
business to companies that do.

Americans should also be able to purchase their health insurance on the same tax-advantaged basis as their employers. If your employer purchased health insurance on your behalf today, he would be able to do so with pre-tax dollars. However, in today's market, if you go it alone, you won't get any tax incentive to purchase your own health care. This would be a simple remedy to our still antiquated tax code, which favors big government and punishes individuals.

Allowing insurance portability and fixing the tax code is just a cost-savings start. How about enacting restrictions on runaway medical malpractice litigation such as pre-litigation review panels and loser-pay provisions for frivolous suits? Making any one of these changes to our health-care system wouldn't cost taxpayers a single cent and could save us billions over the long

These ideas considered separately or enacted together will reduce costs for those who have health-insurance coverage and enable others to afford it. The savings could be used to fund high-risk pools for individuals with pre-existing conditions, and to provide tax credits and vouchers so no American goes without basic health coverage.
Conservatives have pushed many of these ideas for years with Democrats fighting tooth-and-nail against any reform that doesn't give government greater power over our lives. The ideas presented by Congressman Shadegg (none are new--Conservatives have talked about these for years) would reduce health care costs and enable more Americans to be able to purchase their own policies. One additional reform not mentioned in Shadegg's essay is to allow small businesses, members of organizations and other groups to create pools that could help spread the risk and lower costs.

But rather than consider these common sense proposals, congressional Democrats are insisting we push through a new trillion-dollar government controlled scheme.

Proponents of ObamaCare can't cite one shred of evidence that giving politicians and Washington bureaucrats more power and control will produce better quality health care or lower costs. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office admitted it has had no time to study exactly how much the bill will increase premiums for average Americans—something it routinely does for health-care legislation that is moving through Congress.

Does anyone believe the billions in new taxes as well as hundreds of pages of new rules and regulations being proposed will lower the cost of health care in America? But not knowing how much this will harm families didn't stop Congress from advancing one of the most sweeping pieces of legislation our nation has ever seen. That's scary and irresponsible.

Why aren't we trying, or even debating, these no-cost solutions that insert choice into the health-care reform equation? Before Congress acts and passes an expensive, untested, new health-care system, the American people need to be heard.

The answer is simple. Power and ideology. Government solutions, even if they solve nothing, make the state more powerful. The Democrat Party is now dominated by Marxists who, despite all evidence to the contrary, believe that only the state can deliver the services needed by a people. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and their fellow travelers are extremists and they will stop at nothing to control every aspect of how you and I live. After all, the government always knows best.

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Sarah Palin is "Going Rogue" In Roanoke on November 22

Put it on your calendar (from The Roanoke Times)...

Palin book tour to include Nov. 22 stop in Roanoke

Former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin plans to swing through Roanoke to tout her new book.

By Katelyn Polantz

Sarah Palin will visit the Barnes & Noble bookstore at Valley View Mall Nov. 22 as part of the promotional tour for her book "Going Rogue: An American Life."

The former Republican vice presidential candidate's appearance will be at noon, a HarperCollins spokeswoman said. She didn't know if Palin would appear along with her family members, who traveled with her on the campaign trail last year.

To handle the expected crowds, the Valley View store will hand out wristbands to fans at 6 a.m., said Deanna Lemburg, Barnes & Noble's regional community relations

Palin's last visit to the Roanoke Valley, for a presidential campaign rally in October 2008, drew a crowd estimated at 16,000 to Salem Stadium. Since then, her celebrity status hasn't diminished: "Going Rogue" has an announced first printing of 1.5 million copies and has been at or near the top of's best-seller list for weeks.

The book, which "imparts Palin’s vision of a way forward for America," the publisher says, will go on sale Nov. 17.

My advice: get there early! The Palin campaign rally in Roanoke was a madhouse and Sarahcuda is as popular as ever. She is a strong, accomplished, intelligent woman who has run businesses, run governments and raised a family. She is the true embodiment of real feminism. But, since she isn't a Marxist or radical opponent of traditional culture she is hated by Big Media, Big Entertainment and so-called "liberals." You see, women should only speak if they are Democrats and believe in the state as the center of all activity.

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

It Is A Great Day to Be A Conservative

The Conservative Republican sweep in Virginia and the GOP win over Jon Corzine in New Jersey made November 3 a turning point in the political fortunes of Conservatism in America. Not the Republican Party per se, but Conservatism. The three Virginia winners are all solid Conservatives and even Chris Christy in New Jersey is solidly Conservative on most issues.

This was also the first referendum on the Obama/Pelosi/Reid version of "hope and change." Big Media will attempt to downplay this fact, but it is inescapable. The Tea Party movement and the summer town halls all played a role in Tuesday's outcomes. These were votes for responsible government, not taxes, bailouts, and handouts.

Big Media will point to the Democrat win in the upstate New York congressional race as proof that Conservatism has been marginalized. The truth is just the opposite. Disgraced GOP nominee DeeDee Scazzafalla's endorsement of the Democrat candidate exposed the so-called "moderate" for what she and her ilk are: trojan horses who are simply misaligned Leftists. Conservative leaders across the country, for the most part, showed that they would support an independent over a RINO. No more Arlen Specters or Olympia Snowes. Doug Hoffman's loss was the result of party in-fighting and those who felt that outside forces influenced Scazzafalla's withdrawal. In the long run, Conservatives have shown that they must provide an alternative not an echo.

In one year, the entire House of Representatives and approximately one-third of the Senate will be up for re-election. What will happen? November 3, 2009 may well have been the preview for Election Night, 2010.