"Lame Duck Congress"-how lame.

Since the elections a little over a month ago, the term Lame Duck Congress has been used a lot lately. For those who don't know, it's simply a metaphor used to describe a Congress that is seeing a large turnover in membership, making the exiting members not exactly interested in doing their job properly, and more inclined to be a part of the problem instead of being a part of the solution(s). Lame Duck Congresses generally get little, if anything, done and more often than not, they do harm but delaying sometimes much needed and important legislation on their way out...

This term, and the way, and reasoning behind, how these Congress's act bothers me greatly-as it should all Americans. How do you think you would look if, you were given a 60 day notice of termination of your job, and you decided that, since you were getting fired anyway, you weren't going to even try to do your job for that last 2 months? Worse yet-what if you decided you were going to deliberately get in the way of others trying to do their jobs? Not only would you most likely be fired out right, and immediately, but you would (and should) have a snowballs chance in hell of finding employment relatively soon after. I mean, who wants to hire an employee that is going to bail on them as soon as the proverbial chips are down, and make the situation worse by doing your best to make everyone still working there, have as much difficulty as possible? But this is exactly how our elected officials act, and think, when in the situation of not being reelected to another term in office-they simply don't care, and, instead of being adults about it, they go a step further and deliberately try to impede, or kill, all legislation which they are working on in the last 2 to 3 months of their last term. Not only is it bad, and childish, politics, but it sends a message to the nation as a whole which gives the general population the sense of entitlement that they can act the same way when in similar situations-instead of trying, and persevering, they just give up because "politicians are allowed to do it, why can't I?".
To me, this is the not only the reason, but the substance, behind how the entitlement class grew to the proportions it has over the last 40 years.
Members of a "Lame Duck" Congress need to grow the hell up. They need to do their freaking jobs to the bitter end, and do them well, and justly-as the people who originally elected them to office expect. If they don't, then they deserve every bit of anger and loath the citizens of our country (and especially those who first voted for them) can dish out on them.
And the excuse of "since I'm leaving, my say doesn't really matter anymore-especially since whatever I approve of now can all be changed by those coming in" never has, and never will, fly with me. That is a cowards, and poor mans, way of thinking; and it can be directly attributed to the current state of our nations culture and economic situation...

I digress...The whole thought disgusts me to no end. In my opinion, the only thing lame about a "Lame Duck" Congress are the actions of those exiting members who, by their actions, show just how pathetically lame they are.

American political ideologies part 5: the melting pot boiling over

Of all of the political and social ideologies in America today, the 2 we hear most about are Liberalism and Conservatism. Though these 2 ideologies, in their modern form, represent, at most, 30% of our populace, there is little question that they are responsible for the direction of all legislative policy at the Federal and state levels in our country. Worse, is that this 30% is comprised of the most wealthy of our country, and therefore stand the most to gain, or lose, within any legislation.
The direction that this segment of our society tends to lead us in is as extreme a direction-on either side of the political spectrum-as it is representative of our society: whether it be the utilization of our military for "police actions" in a distant foreign nation, or the financial bail out of corporations deemed "to big to fail", our Federal and state legislative bodies have increasing written, and passed, legislation within the last decade that is disagreed with by a majority of the general public-whether they are registered voters or not. This direction is a direct result of all the aforementioned political ideologies colluding together to create chaos within our society, and providing corporate entities and special interests the "perfect storm" through which they can dictate legislative policy at the Federal and state levels: With a majority of Americans sitting on the side lines of each election cycle and the majority of those who actually participate not being associated with any strong central leadership or ideology; and Liberals and Conservatives now in control of their respective political parties, Corporations and special interest groups, lead by their lobbying arms, have taken control of our Federal and state legislative bodies with nothing more than money and the threat of pulling their support of one candidate or another.


The result is something that is obvious to most social and political observers: the American body politic boiling over with anger at career politicians who are chipping away at personal freedoms and their wallets; who are catering to corporate demands; and who are embarrassing our nation internationally as they rapidly spend America into bankruptcy while making themselves rich at the expense of the general public.
It has taken 30 or so years, but this anger has finally manifested itself into at least one popular movement-the Tea Party.


The Tea Party is widely considered a Conservative movement due to it being created and based around Conservatives who had had enough of their fellow Republicans spending habits, support of big government, and coziness with corporate special interests in D.C. Despite their obvious theological undertones, it is unfair to call the movement "conservative"-given what they support.
Conservative, at least in part, would imply some sense of preserving the status quo, which would be maintaining the system as it is being used today-with massive corporate influence and corruption at the Federal and state level. This, however, is not what the Tea Party wants: they want change, and not the socialistic change that Barack Obama has brought to the White House, and Congress, since his election. The change they want is one back to the original Constitutional principles-principles which create a small Federal government beholden to the general public. They want career politicians out of the office; they spending at the Federal level curbed dramatically; and, unfortunately, they want their religion, that of Christianity, to be the lead of all social ideals-legislatively and ethically. These beliefs could be considered more radical (and theocratic) than they are conservative, given the distance that current Federal legislative policy has strayed from the Constitutional principles our nation is supposed to be based on.
Outside of the obvious theological flaw, the Tea Party suffers from one other weakness: competition. There is none.
Since their creation a little over 2 years ago, the Tea Party has gained, and been hurt by, a lack of any counter movement against them. People have tried to rally support for a counter movement to the Tea Party, but the reality is that, to the vast majority of Americans, the Tea Party is right on many points. The only thing preventing the Tea Party from being a run away train, capable of taking back national politics for all Americans, is their insistence on believing that they are right, not because of their logic, but because of their faith, as well as their desire to make their faith the basis for all domestic social policy in America. (This contradicts their general position on the Constitution-which promotes a distinct separation of church and state. This contradiction, or hypocrisy as some would say, is obvious to many and turns them off to the movement).



Despite the Tea Party's current popularity, the bulk of Americans remain restless and angry. Seeing no eminent change in legislative ideology on the horizon, and viewing the Tea Party as little more than a band of rich elitists trying to take control of the the Federal Government away from Liberals for their own interests, to them, their vote either "still doesn't count", or remains "the lesser of 2 evils". This anger is still building, and with no outlet, and the political establishment not willing to listen or change for the better, it is destined to implode our society: America, the once great "melting pot", is boiling over...

American political ideologies Part 4: Democrats, Republicans and Libertarians.

Today, the core ideologies which were once the basis for the Democrat and Republican parties, have been high jacked by Liberalism and Conservatism, respectively. This high jacking of ideologies which nearly all Americans could identify with, has lead them to be forced into taking back seats to Liberalism and Conservatism. They still exist, but only as shadows of their former selves....

It may surprise many to learn that the Democrat and Republican parties were both born of the Anti Federalist party, which lasted into the first quarter of the 19th century. Essentially, the Anti Federalists were those who opposed the Constitution on the grounds that it would create an Aristocracy within the national legislature (particularly in the Senate), which would shut out state and individual rights, eventually leading to a large, corrupt and tyrannical central government comprised of an elite class of businessmen and industrialists-something not very far from where our national government is today.
Of greater irony, is what the Democratic party used to stand for: states rights, following the Constitution to the letter (after it was amended in 1791 with the Bill of Rights, many of the fears the Anti Federalists had concerning the original document were laid to rest), and they opposed a national-or central-bank to go along with their dislike and distrust of the wealthy.
Compare their original beliefs and policies to what they are today, and the only similarity is their apparent dislike of the wealthy: controlled by the Liberal extremists of their party, Democrats have all but given away states rights and attempt to subvert the Constitution and the Bill of Rights every chance they get, by loosely interpreting the Constitution through the "necessary and proper" clause as decided in Maryland vs. McCullough in the early 19th century...

The Republican Party was formed in the mid 19th century, just prior to the outbreak of the Civil War. Formed of Anti Slavery activists and disenchanted members of the Whig Party, the core ideals mirrored those of the Democrats: a support of states rights and a strict following of the Constitution. It strayed from the Democrats at the issues of a central bank, favoring the wealthy in legislation, and, the obvious, anti slavery position they held.
Like the Democrats, the Republicans have strayed far from their original beliefs due to its so called 'conservative base': giving up on states rights and attempting to interpret the Constitution along its theological doctrine, despite the Constitution being explicit about a separation of church and state...

Unlike today, where most of the electorate see their presidential and congressional choices as a decision between "the lesser of 2 evils", the Democratic and Republican parties had real legislative ideological platforms to stand on. Historically, politics and politicians have always come at a price to society relative to how they are viewed by the general populace, but for most of our first 150 years of existence, neither party, or the ideologies they were born of, would consider taking national positions on obvious social issues-issues our Constitution clearly and distinctly leaves to the States to legislate; but over the last 75 years, both parties have allowed themselves to be taken over by the fringes of their ideologies-Liberals and Conservatives-which have progressively screamed louder that it is, in fact, the job of the Federal Government to legislate social policy and limit the personal decisions which individuals have a right to make; they have allowed them to dictate the direction of their respective parties ideologies-directions which have on constitutional grounds, despite what the average American may think.
As a result of this high-jacking of their political platforms by Liberals and Conservatives, the main stream Democratic and Republican political ideologies-those which represented the vast majority of Americans and dominated our political landscape for generations-are all but dead in America, not because of societal or ideological evolution, but, more seemingly, out of the desire for power over the people, at the expense of the people.
Today, the Democratic and Republican parties survive in name only-mere shadows of themselves, with neither being truly representative of the principles which they were originally founded on, and neither truly having the best interests of our nation, or our people, at heart...

American political ideologies part 3: Independents, Moderates, and the Silent Majority

Independents, Moderates and the (so called) Silent Majority all share a similar attitude towards politics, and politicians, in general: all view the political establishment as being corrupt and not to be trusted. All 3 also share many of the same basic ideologies, relative to the legislation that the Federal and State levels of government should be involved in. Their primary differences lie in their actions, and not in their beliefs...

When you get down to it, there is not much difference between a Moderate and Independent, but just 25 years ago, so called "independents" didn't exist in America as a political ideology. That all changed in the presidential election of 1992 when billionaire businessman Ross Perot decided to run for president with no party affiliation. Needing to get on the ballot of every state in the union, the "Independent" party quickly formed around Perot. But, possessing no real political agenda, or platform, other than an anti establishment attitude, the "party" has never been able to gain any real political power despite it being representative of the vast majority of Americans beliefs and political attitudes.

Independents and Moderates tend to believe in a persons right to choice on all issue's; they prefer the small central government that the founding fathers intended by the creation of our Constitution; the strict following of our Bill of Rights-particularly that of the separation of church and state (the primary reason why most stay away from joining the Republican party); and in their right to keep what they are capable of earning. Because this ideology represents aspects of Liberalism and Conservatism the term "Moderate" is applied to this ideology, as it is seen as an attempt to moderate and pacify both sides of the political spectrum. The term seems to strike a cord of weakness with the post Vietnam generations, which is what allowed for the term "Independent" to be coined in the early 90's-a term which implies the strength of a person to stand on their own, with their own beliefs and to make their own, sometimes educated, decision's regarding issues that affect the greater society around us. It seems that the primary difference between Moderates and Independents is that Independents lack any central platform or unity-each takes pride in their "independence" on issues, where as Moderates are willing to adopt some form of a combination of the current platforms of Democrats and Republicans, as a basis for their political decision making.

For Independents, the lack of unity results in them having little, to any, influence in the actual process of legislation because so few people who run as Independents are able to make it to a State or National office. For Moderates, the indecisiveness leads to the perception of being "wishy washy" on the various social issues that take precedence during any given campaign cycle, making them look weak to those who would otherwise see their general platform as being logical...

The Silent Majority refers to that segment of Americans which do not exercise their right to vote. Generally speaking, it is a rarity when more than 50% of eligible Americans turn out to vote in any Presidential election year-hence the term "silent" majority. (Even in years where more than half of Americans turn out to vote, once that number is divided between the 2 political parties and Independents, by percentages, those who didn't vote outnumber those who did when taken as a group). With almost always more than half of Americans not turning out to vote, and thereby expressing their opinions on matters of public interest, elected officials can easily ignore the wishes of almost half of our country. This in turn allows for the mass corruption that appears rampant in all levels of public office.

By and large, the Silent Majority have many of the same beliefs as Moderates and Independents do, the difference is that they have been disenfranchised by the "establishment": they believe their vote doesn't count and that they are powerless to effect any change to a governmental system which they feel is not truly representative of them, due, in large part, to the influence of corporate America and special interest groups-which they see as possessing all the political power and influence in America (at the same time, many of these people are the very same who scream the loudest, and quickest to blame politicians for their financial troubles-a hypocrisy which rivals those of Liberals and Conservatives). Unfortunately, the politicians in power all over our country have done little, if anything at all, to help alleviate the feelings of the Silent Majority: between the voting scandals of both of George W Bush's elections, the obvious corruption of Congress by foreign and domestic corporations, and a seating president whose citizenship has yet to be properly validated, the Silent Majority have more reasons than ever to stay "silent".

The primary difference between the Silent Majority and Moderates/Independents seems to be education: most of the silent majority have no formal education outside of high school, where as Independents and Moderates possess some type of education beyond that of a high school diploma, whether it be some collegiate level courses, or the completion of trade schooling of some kind. This apparent difference points to the importance of being further educated after the completion high school: as citizens of any society, one of the most important things we all do, relative to each other, is our cumulative participation in electing those public officials who will legislate our society...

American political ideologies part 2: Conservativism and the Tea Party

As with modern Liberalism, Conservatism in America also suffers from an identity crisis of sorts. In short, to conserve something means to preserve what exists or what used to exist. Certain aspects of American Conservatism fit this simple definition, others, however, do not, and can be said to be just as radical-if not more so-than those of modern liberalism...


As near as can be deciphered, what Americans call Conservatism today was born during the early Vietnam war era as a counter to the hippie generation's "free love" movement. So called "conservatives", wanted to protect and preserve the family unit and religious beliefs which they saw as being under attack by the hippie generation's attitudes towards sex, drugs, relationships and their general laissez fair attitude toward life. Though initially evolved under good intentions, and with the best interests of all at heart, Conservatives quickly infiltrated the Republican party, taking over their political platform and using their influence as the "older" generation to install a theocratic political agenda within a party whose original basis was the protection of the government which our Constitution created and the free market capitalistic economy which gives all of those who live and work in America the chance to be financially successful.

However, Conservatism suffers from 2 fatal flaws, which turn off the vast majority of people in America: It's insistence on basing all of its social ideology on the Christian moral code and the hypocrisy which this causes with its positions regarding the Constitution and Capitalism.

Religion, of any type, is little more than a subversive form of collectivism. Under any religious doctrine, the main goal is obedience to its "teachings" through the fear that not doing so will lead to a painful life and-especially-afterlife. Due to its collectivist end game, and that it takes force-of some kind-to convince people to obey the teachings, all religions are anti humanistic at their core: i.e. it is human nature to seek liberty, independence, and to find its own individuality-not only from other people and governments, but from anything which seeks to "control" or shape it in an image that is not of its own design.
Under the Christian religious doctrine, individuality-which is supported and encouraged, by design, in both our Constitution and economic system-is, in many ways, prohibited. Things like making choices for yourself, which others may find morally reprehensible, are strictly forbidden: a persons right to do what they want with their body (abortion, tattoo's, piercings, drug usage), the use of non manufactured drugs, homosexual relationships, controlling how you die, should you be in a situation to do so, and many more issues that are personal in nature, are all frowned upon or strictly prohibited-not because these decisions are physically, mentally, or emotionally unhealthy, but because they say they are. The Conservative desire to influence decisions at the personal level is so strong (because their beliefs are right and yours is wrong) that they allow it too dictate their national domestic policy: favoring national legislation which prevents all Americans from being allowed to even have the option of making such personal decisions for themselves.
This theocratic, Napoleon like complex to "do things our way or no way at all", is as radical a belief system as can be found and is in direct conflict with their position on our Constitution and economy-positions which are logical and, without question, in the best interests of all Americans. Their religious position vs. their Constitutional position is particularly baffling given the strict separation of church and state guaranteed within the Constitution itself...


Conservatives support a small Federal Government-as originally designed (pre 17th amendment) by our Founding Fathers; they also support as little regulatory controls over our economy and as few taxes as possible, so as to allow as many people the best opportunity at financial success, through which a person is able to achieve the most personal and individual liberty. However, the only way they could ever accomplish their ideal of installing their Christian doctrine as the backbone of all social and domestic policy in America, would be through an expansive Federal Bureaucracy and strict regulatory control of our economy-to the point that our economy would be more Socialistic, than Capitalistic and our society would be controlled via a strict theological doctrine that would require dictatorial leadership to enforce.
This obvious hypocrisy, combined with the religious message they are intent on sending out every time they speak, present Conservatives as stuffy-old-rich-guys with too much time and money on their hands, who fear any movement towards a progressive future and want to control America...

Today, Conservatism has had something of a resurgence through a movement known as the Tea Party. The Tea Party got its start a little over 2 years ago after Conservatives saw their parent party-the Republicans-straying farther and farther from the Constitution via their (apparent) support of a large federal bureaucracy and their (apparent) distancing from the core Christian values which this "conservative base" of the Republican party, takes credit for.
The Tea Party's message has been one based around original Constitutional principles, anti political establishment, a return to a small federal bureaucracy and limited taxes. It is a message that has rung true with many Americans-regardless of sex, sexual orientation, age, ethnic background, or socio-economic status. However, the Tea Party movement embodies the same hypocrisy which Conservatives have historically held: combining their theological doctrine with their political and economic beliefs.
Though seemingly tempered within the Tea Party movement-most likely due to its broader socio-economic and ethnic make up-the Conservative control of the Tea Party places its theological message at, or near, the roots of all of its positions. Every chance it gets, the Tea Party makes it known that their base values are still those of the Christian religious doctrine and that their beliefs are the right and only way to live ones life by. The result is the same as with traditional conservatism: the vast majority of logical, and rational, thinkers are turned off by the undertones of the "my way or the highway" rhetoric found in what is otherwise a very solid, and easy to embrace, political ideology.

America sends a message to Obama-but is it the right one?

I think that it is fair to say that a message was sent to the Democratic party and, specifically, Barack Obama in last nights elections: that we will no longer tolerate the huge spending, big government, socialist ideal which he and his party are putting forth as the solution to our nations problems.

Republican governors were elected in New Jersey and Virginia, soundly defeating their Democratic rivals; and in Maine a law that had yet to be enacted giving Gays the right to marry in that state was defeated. These decidedly Conservative results come thanks too a large percentage of Independents turning out to vote, apparently in an effort to show that they don’t believe in the Obama administration’s idea of “change” for our country.

My question is: Is it the “right” message?

This sudden change of ideological direction in these 3 states worries me because our legislative leadership in Washington D.C. has been suffering from the “pong” effect for far too long now: meaning, our national legislative and decision making has been moving from one ideological extreme to the other-a trend that is destroying our nation.

America needs an ideological middle ground leadership to move forward into the future: leaders who will keep their decision making logical and based on the facts at hand; leaders who will leave the social policy to State and local legislation. Leaders who will-dare I say it-be smart with our money; leaders who won’t mortgage our children’s future, and their grandchildren’s future-without even having a real plan to create economic stability for near future-much less the long term one. In sum, we need leadership with not just intelligence and common sense, but also the long range foresight required to put American in a good economic place for the future, and right now, we don’t have any such leader available to us.

What the electorate did yesterday was voice their displeasure at the current leadership by turning to the only other “viable” option available to them: the Republican Party, and, by extension, a Conservative agenda. This, I think, is a knee jerk and premature reaction to the far left, Socialistic Liberal agenda being pushed on us currently by D.C. and the Obama administration-a reaction which I feel is just as bad for the future America.

2 questions that need to be asked-of all issues.

With the nation becoming more and more politically polarized because of the desires and demands of the Liberal movement for more and more Socialist policy by the Obama administration, a realization about people, and how they think, has become apparent to me...

In the world of Journalism there are a set of criteria for which all stories are based; they are 6 questions: Who, What, Where, When, Why, and How. Two of these represent the most basic of all starts to forming any sort of philosophy and/or opinion about a topic: Why and How.
As I sit back, watch, and sometimes comment, on all that is happening in American politics today thanks to the overt Socialistic policies of the Obama administration, it has become very obvious to me that those who support these policies fail to ask these 2 fundamental questions; it is not just those that support these policies who fail to ask these questions, but those on the other side-that of the so called "Conservative" movement.
It is obvious to me that these 2 questions are never asked due to the proposals put forth by all parties as solutions to the various problems we face in America today.
Take the current health care "crisis" and the solutions for it being proposed as examples.
The current proposals include 2 dominant "solutions": a government "option" and/or a "commission" to establish some form of universal standards for providing health care. Neither of these proposals address what is wrong with our current health care system; such as the outrageous costs of malpractice insurance for doctors and what is termed "preventative" care or medicine. These are just 2 of many things which are responsible for the escalating costs of health care and insurance in our country, and 2 things which no plan currently in front of Congress (that I know of) addresses.
Sure, a current plan does away with insurance companies from declaring people ineligible for preexisting conditions, but it took the nation as a whole to scream about the first bill (known as Obamacare) not covering this very relevant and poor practice on the part of our health insurers. Regardless, demanding that insurers can deny coverage for preexisting conditions and creating a "government health insurance option" will do nothing to control the increasing costs of health care.

In these "solutions" for health care can be easily seen lacking the 2 questions of Why? and How?

If it had been asked, "Why does health care in our country cost so much?"; and the correlary, "Why is the cost of health insurance rising disproportionately to wages and inflation?", real explanations would have been found which would not have included either of the 2 primary "options" for "fixing" this "crisis" that are currently before our Congress.
Further, after asking Why?, our Congressional leaders would have then been able to ask to ask How do we fix it? and would have been able to find concrete solutions to the problems they found once they asked "why'"?

These 2 questions shouldn't just be limited to the current health care debate-they need to be asked of all issues we face, and yet they are not-particularly by those who are on the side of "liberalism". This is obvious to me because if you ask these 2 questions of every issue, they lead to the where the problem originate's, and therefore lead to solutions that fix the problem at its root causes-not in solutions which simply brush over the cause by giving "hand outs" after the effects of the cause have been felt.

Before we can solve anything, we must ask "Why"; that will lead us to "How"; which will lead us to the best solutions for all our country's problems. This is why, I believe, our Federal Government, in particular, always fails to provide any sustainable solutions to our nations problems.
I can only hope that one day this changes, and our national Congressional leaders learn to ask these 2 most important questions of every issue, but given the current political climate and social divisions within our country today, it's hard to see when that day may come.

Is Obama driving a wedge between American's?

This is a question that may shock some-after all Barack Obama has only been our President for 9 months. But given all that has taken place with Tea Party’s, demonstrations at Town Hall meetings, and other “counter” movements to Obama seemingly starting every day, it is one that begs to already be asked: is Obama dividing our nation? Perhaps, even, irreparably?

For many, this is an absolutely ludicrous question to ask of a president whose predecessor was one of the most hated in our history. But an argument could be made the George Bush brought us together as one as a president has never before: early in his first term he did it through the patriotism we all felt following the 9/11 attacks; and from the midway point of his 2^nd term on, he did so through the universal hate and anger we all felt towards a man whose politics and cronyism had made us the global “bad guy”-hated by nearly every nation on Earth.

But, this isn’t about any defense of what George Bush did-there is no defense for him-no this is about Obama, and what he is doing to us now.

Obama’s policies are, without question, Socialist; and to all American’s who have awoken to this, Socialism is not what America represents. And, despite what Liberals and Democrats would like to have the global community think, Socialism is not an ideology supported by most American’s.

The proof of this can be found in Obama’s and Congress’s approval ratings since Obama was elected.

Two weeks after Obama was elected he enjoyed as high as a 76% approval rating in a CNN poll, and Congress a 39% approval rating in a Fox News poll.

Eight and a half months later? Fox News’ most recent poll has Obama’s approval at 49%-the lowest it has been since his election; and Congress? The same day Obama got his lowest approval rating, so did they, with a pathetic 24% of American’s approving of how our Congressional leaders are conducting their jobs.

(The Congressional approval rating is just as important as Obama’s because Congress is currently controlled by the same party that Obama is from, and, as President, Obama is that parties unanimous leader so long as he remains president).

Needless to say, most American’s are not happy-and I am one of them.

We are not happy that Obama has socialized 2 of America’s Big 3 auto’s; we are not happy that as part of his health care reform he is trying to force a government option on us (therefore attempting to Socialize that industry); we are not happy that he has pandered to our enemies and refuses to help the U.N. enforce sanctions against North Korea and Iran; we are unhappy that he is not keeping his word in Afghanistan, and seems ready to allow it to become another “Vietnam”; we are unhappy that he is saddling our children, our children’s children, and their children, with $100’s of thousands of debt each before they are born; we are unhappy that he was awarded something (the Nobel Peace prize) without earning it; we are unhappy that he seems to be tearing apart all that was once great about America and that there are nearly 50% of us out there gullible enough to buy into his rhetoric.

Obama ran on a platform of “Change you can believe in”, but for many of those who voted for him, the platform wasn’t supposed to start with the destruction of all that was American first; that platform wasn’t believed to be capable of dividing America so decisively that people who have never voted before, much less attended at town hall style meeting, appeared at Town Hall meetings all over America to get into the faces of their representatives and demand that they stop Socializing American industries. And, as I see it his ideologies, and his policies, are driving a wedge between all Americans: on one side are those who still believe in the traditional American values of hard work, self reliance and responsibility, and a small Federal Government; and on the other are those who want the easy way out-the way of Big Government intervention and control, the way of a Universal Equality that can only be achieved by Government controls and Dictatorship.

I know which side I stand on, do you?

The illiterate U.S. Congress

In case you missed it last week, a few stories made news stations which told what many American’s already knew-that members of Congress do not read the legislation they are attempting to make into law.

Where this sudden “enlightenment”, last week, about members of Congress not actually reading the bills they are supposed to sign into law came from I don’t know, but it can perhaps be traced back to an interview conducted last Friday with Senator Thomas Carper, a Democrat out of Delaware.

In this interview, Carper states that, in commission, bills are written in “plain English” (i.e. laymen’s terms), but when they come up for vote they are written in “legislative language. Amongst his many comments while discussing what is apparently health care legislation, he goes on to say that he understood little to nothing of the verbiage of the bill as it was written for law, and believes that no one else could understand it either. He also implies that he doesn’t believe anyone who says they can understand these bills-as they are written before Congress-is lying to themselves and anyone who asks them directly. In case you don’t believe me, you can find the portion of the interview which I reference here: http://michellemalkin.com/2009/10/02/democrat-sen-tom-carper-read-the-bill-are-you-kidding-me/.

Of course, this begs me to ask a lot of questions such as Why are our members of Congress not able understand “legislative language”? Isn’t this the job we have hired them for?; and How do they expect anyone to be able to obey, follow and enforce a law which they themselves do not understand?; or If legislative language is so hard to understand, why are bills written in it to begin with?

Further, if our Congress is writing legislation in a manner which they can’t understand themselves, then isn’t it a natural assumption that these people aren’t qualified to do the job we have hired them for and, even more importantly, fail to understand the job which they are supposed to do?; and Why aren’t they simply written in the “plain English” under which they are originally written in while in committee?

(This last question could possibly be answered by saying “it’s for legal purposes and enforcement”, to which I would say bull shit: If there is a law that says “you can’t pee on the side of a public building”, there are no legal or enforcement justifications for why those 10 simple words are rewritten into 30 confusing ones for the adoption of the law. In fact, the only reason I can think of is that legislatures intentionally write these laws so that the vast majority of people cannot understand them. Why this would be, I can only suppose and form conjecture on, but seeing as how there is no other logical reason for our national, state and local laws to be written in such a confusing manner, I am left with no other explanation than that it is done intentionally so that government corruption can always exist in a manner which is hard at best, and impossible at worst, to discover and eliminate).

Of all the questions I could pose, the most troubling to me is assumption to be drawn about our elected officials’ ability to do their job. It’s a serious assumption that deserves to be addressed: if Congress doesn’t even understand these bills as they are written, how can we assume that they even understand the basic requirements of their job?

One thing that must be clarified is that this isn’t restricted to just those members of Congress who are Democrats; it is obvious that Republicans (and the lone Independent) have this problem too-otherwise, why would we have proposed legislation like H.R. 3200 (i.e. Obamacare) proposed by John Dingle of Michigan make it out of a bipartisan committee?

As it just so happens, unlike most-including, apparently, our members of Congress-I can understand “legislative language”, this of course doesn’t help those who can’t because even in the effort of explaining these pieces of legislation to people, important aspects of them are lost; and despite those earlier posed questions this all leads to the most important ones of all: How is it that we, the American public, the ones who are supposed to live and conform to these various laws and legislative members; how is it that we have not only allowed ourselves to elect Representatives and Senators who fail to understand the laws they have written but also allowed so many of them to stay in office for so many years?

Obama's first loss-but Rio does deserve it..

It's most likely not His first, but i think it's His biggest loss so far-Obama not convincing the IOC that their host city should be Chicago for the 2012 games; so that Obama has a place to "celebrate (his) election" and, I'm sure, so that he can show the world "how far we've come" during his administration...Now i suppose if "you" agree with "his" idea of what the responsibilities of the Federal Government should be, then you want His policies in place, and because there are enough supporters of his opinion out there, he thought it was a slam dunk. Not so...Besides, Rio and South America finally have their chance and hopefully they will do it right.

Too bad for Obama...Guess he wasn't as popular overseas as everybody, including himself, thought he was. It will be interesting to see what his foreign policy towards Brazil will be like in the future, after what will probaly be an entertaining media "field day" that will get us no where and only seek to muddy the picture even more.
Unfortunately, lost in all of this will be Rio De Janiero, which, even based on my limited knowledge, deserves to have it's "day in the sun". What Beijing did for the '08 games was amazing-it literally changed a culture-with 5 times the population the Chinese are only just now learning about Capitalism, and then there is India, in some ways much farther along than China is.
Brazil, and South America are largely forgotten about.
Rio is one of the Worlds largest cities and has much in the way of culture to offer...But I digress...I'm gonna sit back and enjoy what I'm hoping will be an entertaining show.

Backhanded compliments for Obama

I have to say that I was a little impressed with some comments made by Obama earlier this week before the general assembly of the U.N. in New York.
Obama actually had the balls to come out and say what many of those who stand against him belie;f; in sum he said that other nations needed to learn to take more responsibility and control over their own problems and to stop relying and expecting help from the U.S. for them.
I say this only impressed me a "little" because if it had come from any other President before GWB I would have did back flips of joy and screamed from the roof tops; but, after hearing the way in which Mr. Obama said these things, andd given his blatant socialistic tendancies, it makes me wonder...
If you have ever studied philosophy and/or economic and political theories, then you may know that history has proven that to enforce socialism and socistic policies a dictatorship is necessary; and
if you listen closely to the way in which Mr. Obama says these things to the U.N. general assembly you can hear the dictator in him come out.
It's the way in which he emphasizes his words-he emphasizes the "us" in his statements and not the "them"; he emphasizes the "effect" and not the "cause". Now, perhaps this is just my own perceptions relative to our current president-after all it is no secret that I am, to put it mildly, suspicious and critical of his policies-but instead of being able to praise him for a well spoken, and much needed to be said, point before the U.N., I am forced to wonder if we are finally starting to see the dictator in Obama coming out.
Whether we are seeing this side of him or not, only time will tell. For now I will guardedly give Obama a high five and a job well done for standing up to the beggers of the U.N.

Rock Star Obama shows up at Town Hall meeting in New Hampshire

It amazes me how much politicians can lie.

I just wasted an hour of my day watching the Obama Town Hall meeting in New Hampshire and what I saw and heard was the "Rock Star" in Mr. Obama come out and spew nothing but a bunch of lies. I watched as the Rock Star said that everything people speaking out against H.R. 3200 are saying a bunch of “lies and myths”. Does Mr. Obama take us to be ignorant, illiterate fools? Does he actually think this is a “conservative vs. liberal” issue? Is Mr. Obama unable to see that many-if not most-of these people, showing up at these Town Hall meetings are independents who do not like the direction in which our country is going or the ridiculous amount of intrusion this bill provides for into our daily lives?

I don't know if Mr. Obama believes in these things, but the Rock Star I saw on TV this afternoon apparently does.

The lies that Mr. Obama spread about made me sick. One of the bigger ones was his saying that he didn’t believe that anyone but ourselves “should be able to choose their own health care options”, but that is not what his bill says. In his words, he calls the government plan another health care “option”, but that is not what it is. H.R. 3200 rewrites-from top to bottom-what sort of coverage we are allowed to have and if you don't believe me then read it for yourself.

Mr. Obama says that it is his intention to provide a healthcare “option” to people that we citizens can afford, but to still have the freedom to choose which option we want. He says that all his bill does is to provide a low cost option-but that is not how H.R. 3200 is written.

H.R. 3200-what we commonly call Obamacare-establishes a health insurance exchange through which the Federal Government determines what health insurance plans meet their criteria for membership. The plan blatantly leaves out what will happen to those insurances which do not “qualify” for the exchange but goes on to say that those businesses which continue to carry non-qualifying plans will be taxed an additional two to six percent depending upon gross payrolls.

Mr. Obama further said that Medicare recipients and seniors have nothing to fear from Obamacare, but that is not what the bill says. The bill makes it very plain that coverage for seniors is going to be limited and that for H.R. 25 to work Medicare, at least in part, will have to be absorbed into the new government “option”.

As if all of these lies weren’t enough, Mr. Obama continues to claim that his plan will not increase our federal budget or deficit, to which I ask how? How is it possible that the Federal Government is going to provide a “government option” to healthcare which, apparently, will be provided (i.e. paid for) by the Fed without it increasing our deficit?

Even worse was the tone Mr. Obama seemed to take throughout his Town Hall address towards those who have vociferously spoken out against “his” plan. He talked about these people as if they either had no clue what they were talking about or had no business speaking. To make matters worse, Mr. Obama spoke of these people with an attitude that bespoke of an “us vs. them” mentality-i.e. Liberals vs. Conservatives.

Mr. Obama, don't you not get it? Do you not get that those who believe in the Constitution; that those who believe in the principles of which our great nation were founded; that those who believe in small government; that those who believe in taking responsibility for themselves do not want this plan? Do you not see that these people far out number those who do want or like your health insurance “option”? Further, Mr. Obama, do you not see that all of these people are not just conservatives or republicans, but are independents and individuals such as myself?

I digress…

One thing I believe that we can all agree on, however, is that we do need health insurance reform in our country, but that doesn’t mean that we need a “government provided option”-which is obviously what the Liberals and the democratic party take it to mean, and, unfortunately with our “rock star” president what we could end up with isn’t reform, but more government intrusion into our daily lives than we want.

Arlen Specters Town Hall meeting in Lebanon, PA

It would be nice if I knew what was going to be worth watching and what wasn’t as it relates to what is on TV regarding political issues, this is why I rarely watch channels like Fox News, HLN or CNN early in the morning because, to be frank, not only are they boring, but they lack any real substance to their reporting at those times (true, they lack any real substance 99.9% of the time, but its particularly noticeable to me early in the day). So it was to my great surprise when I stumbled upon a town hall meeting on CNN (and Fox News) for Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania.

Let me just say that I learned a lot.

I learned that our elected officials are NOT as smart or INFORMED as many of those who elected them to office.

I learned that, at least in the case of Mr. Specter, there should be an age limit as to how old are elected officials should be.

I learned that there is quite a lot of anger in our nation right now as to how the Obama administration is running things in our country and that that anger seems to cross all political ideologies, socio-economic and age groups.

I also learned Mr. Specter is a first rate politician-answering questions without really answering them and deflecting things which he didn’t understand without letting anyone know that he didn’t understand them-which is why, I’m sure, that Mr. Specter has been in Congress for as long as he has.

During this particular Town Hall meeting, Specter allowed only 30 people to ask questions of him. Of those 30 the best wasn’t a question per se, but more of a statement. This gentleman asked Mr. Specter if it were possible to make it public who writes these bills because, in the case of the current health care proposal before the house, they do not seem to be very American. This same gentleman also asked Mr. Specter to propose that, if American citizens really wanted Federally subsidized health care, that it be put on the ballot in 2010. Needless to say, Mr. Specter was unable to properly respond to this man, he did however say that he would take the idea of putting health care on the ballot referendum for people to vote on en mass in 2010. Personally, I’m not keeping my fingers crossed.

What surprised me more than anything else, while watching this meeting, was how uninformed Mr. Specter was. It was obvious from the first question that Mr. Specter had absolutely no idea what the language is which makes up what we call Obamacare. It was amazing to me that, as question after question was fired at Mr. Specter regarding this legislation, he had no real response to them-at least not one based on fact or policy. As a result he was left with no other recourse but to agree with these people-that they were right and that he wasn’t going to support any bill which apparently said the things which this bill does.

In sum, watching the Town Hall meeting in Lebanon, PA this morning was quite the realization for me as to how poorly informed our Congressional leaders are.

There is a larger Town Hall meeting scheduled for later today in Maine, this one involves Mr. Obama himself, and he is expected to address many of the same issues which were brought up at Mr. Specter’s meeting-particularly those on the health care bill. If I can, and if it is televised, I will be watching and will have my say later…

Saying goodbye to the Obama platform of "change we can believe in"

I don’t always catch everything which goes on in the news, and fortunately I have a good group of friends who are always willing to pass things along to me which I may have missed.

Such was the case earlier today when I received an email from a friend of mine pertaining to a yahoo news story which was published online yesterday detailing a “back door” deal that Mr. Obama made with lobbyists of the Pharmaceutical industry. The story details how Obama worked a deal out with “Big Pharma’s” chief lobbyist, a Billy Tauzin, in which the Fed would forgo Medicare drug price bargaining and allowing the importation of cheaper pharmaceutical drugs from Canada in exchange for $80 billion in cost savings (apparently on pharmaceuticals for Medicare) and financial backing of the “pro reform campaign”.

This deal between Obama and Tauzin apparently took place late last week but since then House Democrats have gotten a little peeved at Mr. Obama and forced him to back off on the deal-somewhat.

Regardless of whether or not this “deal” actually happened, I would like to know about that change which Mr. Obama promised us when he ran for president. Wasn’t one of the positions under his platform of “change” that he wouldn’t be bullied by the lobbyists in Washington? That he wouldn’t allow them to influence any of his policy making decisions? That he wouldn’t “play old school political games” (or something similar)?

It has been obvious to me, at least, from the beginning of Mr. Obama’s presidency that his version of “change” was not one that I agreed with. I am definitely no conservative, but I am no liberal socialist either-which is exactly what Mr. Obama is and which is why I refuse to call him “President” on principle. Our President is supposed to represent the majority of the opinion in our country, and as time has gone on Obama has proven time and time again that he does not represent the majority in our country. In fact, the more time that passes the more and more people I encounter who voted for Mr. Obama but who now regret their decision as they continue to see how socialist Mr. Obama really is. At least as his socialist policies were concerned, we could legitimately say that Obama was all about “change”. But now we can say that he is a liar too, because his form of change was supposed to be about not playing partisan politics and not pandering to special interests and lobbyists, but here we have Obama working a major deal with one of the most powerful lobbyists in Washington to secure support for his healthcare package commonly known as Obamacare…

So much for “change we can believe in”, particularly since it’s now obvious that Obama doesn’t even believe in that garbage himself.

The economic "recovery"??

So, tell me: do you think the recession is over? Do you think that our economy is beginning its recovery process? Further, do you think the so called “economic stimulus” package, which Barack Obama so highly touted in the first 100 days of his presidency, has anything to do with the positive economic signs we have seen lately?

Personally, I think the answers to these questions are all incomplete-as of right now that is.

The reason for the optimism is a result of several positive pieces of economic news to come out this week. Firstly, the DJIA had its best July ever (as a proportionate percentage of growth), going from just over 8000 points to over 9000 to start off August. Next came some better than expected news from the housing sector and losses, and earnings for that matter, which beat Wallstreet expectations. All this combined with a jobs report today which showed that, for the first time in a while now, the national unemployment rate went down-from 9.5 to 9.4%.

That whopping .1% may not seem like a whole lot to you (or me), but it is a huge improvement considering how many jobs that we, as a nation, have been shedding over the last 2 years or so. But, the real question here is, have we finally turned the corner on the recession? Are we finally working our way out of the worst economic crisis that our nation has faced since the great depression?

I happen to follow the global economy pretty closely, and what I see so far is promising, but not that promising and I surely wouldn’t go as far as the news media have been the last 2 days with it in saying that the recession is all but over with.

I think the best news that we have gotten out of the last week is that most of the world’s largest stock indexes are up for the year. Further is that the industrial economies of India and China continue to grow at healthy rates. These things, I think, are much more important than what is happening domestically as it relates to turning our economy around because our economy is tied too deeply into the global economy today to think that we, alone, could pull ourselves out of this recession.

That brings us to my 2^nd question: has the Obama stimulus package had any effect? To this I have to give a resounding no.

Barely 10% of the $100’s of billions which Obama promised have made it into our economy, and even that which did went into state public works projects which only provide temporary employment at best. In fact, many municipalities are wondering where the money is that Mr. Obama promised them. The most successful part of his stimulus package-the Cash for Clunkers program-is basically tapped out, and, for me, raises some serious concerns as to the future value of certain cars which we currently are driving. Beyond these 2 things, most of this money is sitting there, waiting to be spent-which is where I’d rather see it.

If all this money manages to make it out into our economy, then these positive signs we have seen lately will be nothing more than a brief lapse; a proverbial calm before the storm of what is to come within our domestic economy, because where is that money coming from? Literally, it is coming from no where. It is being printed based on nothing by the Fed. Therefore, releasing it all into our economy would do nothing but cause massive inflationary pressures that would in turn cause further company closures and job losses.

No, I for one am going to hold some reservations about this supposed “economic turnaround”. What we have seen this week are good things, and hopefully they will provide some temporary peace of mind and hope to many of those out there looking for work or worried about losing their jobs. However, until I see more realistic signs of the economy improving (brisk new home and durable goods sales, moderate but steady gains on Wallstreet and the other major indexes, and a steady lowering of the unemployment rate) then I’m only willing to so far as to say that this is a sign that perhaps the recession as bottomed out, but, nothing more.

Super Bill (Clinton) to the rescue!!!!

It happened so fast you could have blinked and missed it. Even more surprising is how fast it was quickly worked over and then silenced on, leading me, at least, to wonder: what exactly did he do?

What I am referring too is the release of Journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee this past Wednesday after being held for nearly 5 months in North Korea, on suspicion of illegally entering the country, by President Kim Jong Il. Their release came at the hands of former President Bill Clinton, whose presence was requested by leaders in North Koreas capital Pyongyang, to help end the political standoff with Washington over the release of the 2 reporters.

No matter how you view the situation-e.g. whether Ling and Lee were guilty of the crimes they were accused of-I find it very interesting that of all the people Jong Il wanted in North Korea to mediate with was Bill Clinton. Further, I found it amazing how fast Clinton succeeded in obtaining the release of the 2 reporters-it seems as if he had gotten their release the minute he landed in North Korea for negotiations.

So what did he give them in return? Well, we have no idea and since the story died nearly as soon as the women returned home, and Clinton is quoted as saying he cannot talk about what was discussed or what the terms of their release were, one still has to ask, not only what that price was, but was it too high?

Whether or not these women were unfairly held by the North Korean government is beside the point, particularly if the price of their release was something along the lines of the technology needed to launch an intercontinental ballistic missile-which would be too high a price in my opinion.

In all likelihood, Clinton offered something he couldn’t guarantee, which makes me even more nervous seeing as how North Korea is an official nuclear power now and is actively-and defiantly-seeking the technology mentioned above to create a long distance delivery system for the nuclear devices the international community believes them to have, which would make North Korea a threat to nearly every major country on the planet and a bigger worry given their suspected covert support of international terrorists groups like Al Qaeda. Therefore, if Clinton did in fact offer something he couldn’t deliver on, then all this will do is provoke the North Koreans even further, which, if I haven’t said it enough, is more than a little scary.

Analyzing "Obama-care"

In my previous post I picked 10 accusations made against what has come to be known as Obama-care and compared them to the exact verbiage within the bill that they are drawn from. After doing so, I have also had a chance to better look over this bill and analyze it for myself.

In a word, I am scared-particularly after hearing on a national news program today that Mr. Obama intends to push this bill through with or without the support of the Republican party.

What scares me is that, on close analysis there is both covert and overt intent on the part of our current congressional and presidential leaders to control us and our lives from birth to death. Not only does this bill have the feel of personal control over our daily lives, but it also explicitly looks to direct involve the Federal Government into both our Health Care system by telling us how much and what kinds of care we can have under this bill, and by attempting to reset the standard of health care both by what small and medium sized businesses will offer to their employees and the level of services and care provided under the plans which will be available outside of “Government Healthcare”.

Worse still is that the Fed looks to punish those businesses who do not take on the Government plan by taxing them between 2-6% of their gross payroll’s and further punishing those healthcare providers who do not adjust their plans to comply with the standard set by the Government or which do not join a so called “Health Insurance Exchange”, the purpose of which is, at best, hard to understand.

Regardless of how you feel about our Federal Government becoming even further involved in our Healthcare systems, one of 2 things are going to happen to businesses if this bill makes it through Congress and becomes law: Firstly, if businesses choose to keep their own health insurance, thereby taking on up to an additional 6% tax on their gross payrolls, their prices are going to have to increase to cover that new expense.

For businesses who choose to take the Government option, they can be assured of losing their best employees due to what will be, without question, a far inferior health care plan for themselves and their family. This could also result in many people simply avoiding being employed by companies whose healthcare is that of the federally provided variety because it won’t be too long before it’s known that “Obama-care” is barely care at all.

As far as the bill itself goes, it has many terrible aspects to it.

Healthcare under this bill is limited to only $10,000 per year per family or $5000 per year for one person. Considering that a fracture to just about any limb of the body could max this coverage out in just one visit to the hospital, it’s more than obvious that this plan is horribly inefficient. Compounding the issue of coverage is that under this plan, those doctors and hospitals which are deemed as “eligible” providers are not allowed to invest in or expand upon the places which they work; doctor’s wages are also set to some degree under this plan. These 2 things combined will force young, would-be doctors, into other fields due to the financial incentives being stripped of the profession-e.g. who is going to want to spend 10 years of additional schooling and not be able to be properly reward themselves once they are finished, all the while acquiring $10’s of thousands in debt. This scenario will eliminate the best and brightest among us from ever pursuing a career as a doctor, thereby dumbing down the profession and, in the long wrong, making our health care the worse for it.

Even the auspices under which this bill came into being were false: that our health care system is failing, too expensive, and that nearly 40 million Americans cannot afford health care. As always, the truth wills out in these situations and once the numbers were broken down, the reality of it is that only 10-12 million Americans cannot “afford” health care, and of those who do have health care, a recent study found that 80% of them were happy with the quality of the care they receive.

As for the cost of our health care, there is little question that there is a problem there, but that is more due to the fact that it is law that hospitals provide care to anyone who walks into an emergency room-which they have health insurance or the money to pay or not-and the chronic suer-suee problem we have in this country forcing idiotic lawsuits on people whose insurers end up paying the costs for and then passing that expense down to their policy holders. It’s needless to say that there are better ways to confront the cost of health care in our country than to have the Fed get more involved in “the game”, so to speak.

Then of course there is the cost-which is pointless to bring up because everyone knows that, as a nation, we simply cannot afford the mass providing of Federally subsidized health care.

In sum, “Obama-care” is a horrible idea. Fortunately, most people are aware of the horrors which await us if this bill some how passes and American’s all over the country are speaking out against. The problem right now is that our so call President seems hell bent on passing this bill. Just today it was reported that he will get this bill passed with or without the approval of Republicans. Not only does this speak to a man drunk with power, but also to one on the verge of dictatorial leanings, and if this turns out to be the case with Mr. Obama, then this health care bill is only the beginning of our problems.

The facts about 10 accusations of "Obama-care"

All of us have gotten at least one email lately about how bad the current federally funded health care plan before Congress is right now, commonly known as “Obama-care”. Most mass media outlets gloss over the negatives in this bill-which appear to be many-and the only legitimate attempt at pointing out even a few of the negatives came in the form of a Yahoo news piece about 2 weeks ago which listed 5 “changes” that we will be forced to accept if Obama-care passes.

As my friends and family all know, I in no way support this health care bill-not so much for what is contained within it, but more because the Fed has no business even attempting such a thing (I mean, come on, look at the mess Medicare is). However, a problem I am having with all of these emails is that they are full of opinion and very light on facts. They all make some very wild claims about what could happen if Obama-care passes without giving us the exact verbiage within the bill which leads them to draw these rather extreme conclusions.

Well, being the inquisitive person that I am, and always wanting to know the facts before I make any formal opinion on anything, I took it upon myself to find out exactly what the proposed healthcare bill says regarding 10 of the more extreme suppositions being drawn from Obama-care.

So here goes, 10 of the crazier suppositions in these emails we are all getting, measured up against the language within in the bill they are drawn from so that you can decide for yourself exactly what “Obama-care” will do to our economy and our healthcare system.

1. The Fed will have to ration our Healthcare.

Common sense and our Federal Governments past as to how business savvy (cough, cough) they are should tell us that this is an inevitability, so it’s not unfair to assume that this is going to happen at some point. Regardless, the exact verbiage relating to this can be found on page 29 of the bill. It says that there is an annual limitation defined as: Part A “The cost-sharing incurred under the essential benefits package with respect to an individual (or family) for a year does not exceed the applicable level specified in subparagraph; B) The applicable level specified in this subparagraph for Y1 is $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family. Such levels shall be increased (rounded to the nearest $100) for each subsequent year by the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index (United States city average) applicable to such year.

The plan goes on to further define this, and only makes it sound worse. Regardless, I don’t know about you, but it sounds to me as if the max any family can spend on healthcare a year is $10k and for a single person it’s $5k. This sounds worse than rationing to me, but you can decide for yourself.

2. You will have no choice in what benefits the Fed will choose for you.

Beginning on page 42, section 142, the bill establishes a commissioner whose duties include “Qualified Plan Standards”. No where does the bill say that you have no choice in what benefits you can have, but it does blatantly imply that the Fed will choose what benefits you are entitled too.

Based on everything else found in this bill, however, the supposition is easy to draw that they you wont have any say in the choice of what health care options you will have.

3. A “Healthcare Exchange is being created to bring all health care plans under government control.

The establishment of this so called “exchange” starts on page 72 of the bill. Although nowhere within its early verbiage does it say anything about bringing all other health care plans under its control, if you read on you can see how, in the future, this may be the intent behind creating this so called “exchange”.

4. Healthcare will be provided to all non U.S. residents, whether here legally or not.

This is just downright wrong and is what lead me to actually do the research myself. At the bottom of page 50 of the bill is a section titled “Prohibiting discrimination in health care”. The first part of this section says “Except as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.”

You can take this for how you want, but it does sound as if you are a provider of governmental health care you cannot prevent someone from getting health “care” for any reason what so ever.

5. Doctors will be told by the Fed what they can make.

This is actually true. If you read the bill, it specifies on page 127, sub section B “preferred physicians” will receive payment at a “rate established under section 223 (without regard to cost sharing)” as being paid in full for their services. Sub Section C goes on to say that “non-preferred” physicians “agree not to impose charges (in relation to the payment rate described in section 223 for such physicians) that exceed the ratio permitted under section 1848 (g)(2)(c) of the Social Security Act.

I didn’t take a look at the referenced section of the SSA but I did take a look at section 223 of the bill. This section pretty much says that the Secretary in charge of overseeing implementation and collection of the fees and rates has the power to set these rates based on the rates, but that they must be based on the established rates already found in Medicare parts A and B.

6. Employees of the Fed Healthcare Administration will have unlimited access to all Americans financial and personal records.

This is, without question, one of the scarier accusations of all the emails we are getting about this bill. Here is what the healthcare bill says about this on page 195: “IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, upon written request from the Health Choices Commissioner or the head of a State-based health insurance exchange approved for operation under section 208 of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, shall disclose to officers and employees of the Health Choices Administration or such State-based health insurance exchange, as the case may be, return information of any taxpayer whose income is relevant in determining any affordability credit described in subtitle C of title II of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. Such return information shall be limited to (i) taxpayer identity information with respect to such taxpayer, (ii) the filing status of such taxpayer, (iii) the modified adjusted gross income of such taxpayer (as defined in section 59B(e)(5)), (iv) the number of dependents of the taxpayer, (v) such other information as is prescribed by the Secretary by regulation as might indicate whether the taxpayer is eligible for such affordability credits (and the amount thereof), and (vi) the taxable year with respect to which the preceding information relates or, if applicable, the fact that such information is not available.

Fortunately this doesn’t say that anyone who works for the Healthcare Administration can look into our personal finances whenever they want and for any reason they want too, but it does say that they can if they are given the authority too by their superiors and under specific guidelines. Those guidelines, however, aren’t really that specific as you can see and could be easily exploited.

7. Doctors and hospitals are prohibited from investing and/or expanding the facilities in which they work.

This is freakish but completely true. For brevity at this point I won’t go into the specific verbiage the bill goes into, but over pages 316-320 it specifically says that from the day this bill is implemented both Doctors and hospitals can no longer reinvest or continue to invest in their own institutions. You can only assume that this is because the intention of this bill is to make it so that every healthcare facility in the country becomes the sole and explicit property of the Federal Government.

8. There is a restriction as too how many “special needs” people can be on the plan.

Page 354 starts with section 1154, called “Extension of Authority of Special Needs”. The first sub heading of this section is called “Plans to restrict enrollment”.

Enough said.

9. The Fed will plan out “end of life” for all senior citizens.

This is another scary thing which was passed around in the emails and beginning on page 425 with section 1233 of the bill, is titled “Advance care planning consultation. Again, for brevity I will leave it to you to read this section, but it leaves you without a question as to the intent of this part of the bill.

10. The bill effectively ends both Medicare and Medicaid.

No where in the over 1000 pages of this bill will you find anything about the elimination of either of these programs. However, the bill makes it very clear in several places 2 things about both of them: firstly that different aspects of the bill are going to be based, at least in part, on aspects of either or both Medicare and Medicaid. Secondly, the bill does very little to differentiate between this program and Medicare and Medicaid. In the case of Medicaid, the bill explicitly says they plan to force everyone on to Medicaid who is eligible-whether they want Medicaid or not. The bill also says the same for seniors.