Once again, Barack Obama has declared war against the American people. He threatened it during his campaign of 2008 and began as soon as possible upon taking over the Oval Office to force a so-called health care program on us whether we wanted it or not. Well, we’ve told him, just as we’ve told you, we do not want it. And we don’t want it in spades!

It has never been about health care anyway. It is not even about insurance reform or regulation. It is about power and taxation. It is about Obama and his now socialist-democrat party taking control of the United States of America and running it to suit themselves. The change he promised was clear enough to many of us. His hope has been and still is to change the United States of America from a constitutional republic backed by a capitalist economic system into a socialist dictatorship backed by a communist economic system. His goal has been exposed as a goal of transferring the ownership of all commerce to the federal government as demonstrated by his actions with the banks and the automobile manufacturers. He will never stop there.

Through his planned control of "carbon emissions" and the enormous taxation that will come along with it and the forceful takeover of the entire medical care delivery system will give him complete control over every aspect of American life. It will destroy our economy. It will bankrupt our nation. And once with that great power over us, God only knows what it will take for us to regain our freedoms.

He once accused Republicans of spreading the rumor that ObamaCare was a Bolshevik plot. I asked then and I ask now, if not a Bolshevik plot then what?

You must scrap ObamaCare! Any version! Call it HillaryCare. Call it Health Care. Call it Insurance reform. It is none of those. It is a blatant attempt by Obama and the Democrat party led by Pelosi and Reid to permanently take over the United States of America’s means of production and sole provider of services to the American people.

Any problem we now have with the delivery of health services in this country was brought about by foolish moves on the part of Congress. Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans’ medical services, unreasonably exorbitant retirement programs and special medical services for members of Congress and government employees has burdened our medical care facilities and staff with rules, regulations and costs which make it impossible for the system to survive.

There has never been a problem created by government that government could or would fix. Just like the ill-conceived grand-daddy of all programs, Social Security, they were all created out of ignorance and wishful thinking. Just like every socialist program in every place it has been tried and just like communism where it has been tried, they all fail. Denying the failure and deluding ourselves into thinking we can spend, tax and borrow our way out borders on insanity if not total ignorance.

If you want to correct the problems which have developed within our health care system, identify the problems. Do the detective work necessary to reveal the causes for the problems and make appropriate corrections to the individual problems. Do it opening for the eyes and ears of the American people. Make the correction with legislation which is short, concise and easily understandable. And do them one at a time, so that we can evaluate the expected results, estimate any costs and find reasonable means to pay for them without borrowing more money from people who only want to hurt us.

Americans do not want the government running businesses. Americans do not want the government financing housing, or cars, or electricity, or food, or medical care. We want the government to perform its duties as specifically set forth in the Constitution and then get out of the way so that Americans can run America!

As a pro-life citizen, I adamantly oppose any healthcare reform bill’s mandated coverage of, and funding for, abortions - thus forcing me to pay for abortions through my tax dollars. But what does that matter? I am against the government’s mandated coverage of and funding for tonsillectomys or setting broken bones or giving shots. That’s what doctors are supposed to do, not congressmen or congresswomen.

As a taxpaying citizen, I am outraged that my tax dollars would be used to pay for a murderous act to which I am morally opposed such as abortion. But I am equally outraged that my tax dollars would be used for any other extra-constitutional purpose the government chooses. There is no constitutional basis for the United States government to run the health care system of this nation.

Barack Obama further embarrassed us by the recent efforts to hide the real agenda of ramming ObamaCare through behind bogus "bi-partisan" meetings. Why Republican members of Congress even attended, I’ll never know. Obama did exactly what we expected. Ran, the meeting like a monarch, had his staff pick up a few relatively unimportant items that he could say he agrees with and call it bi-partisan. He proves times and again how stupid he thinks Americans are.

The Pelosi-Reid combine have made it clear all along that Congressional leaders intended to pass ObamaCare with or without bi-partisan support by using the budget reconciliation process, another violation of the constitution.

Please, listen to us this time. Scrap existing plans and start over with a series of plans that are constitutionally based, moral and with far less government intrusion. Lobby and vote against any government mandated health care program. The people have shown in Virginia, New Jersey, Massachuset and now Texas that we will vote against any legislator who does not listen to us while serving inside Washington, DC. We want our country back!

This morning I listened to more lies from Obama. I watched as he used eight pens to sign his name to a document which will commit us to at least hundreds or thousands of dollars more spending, borrowing and the attendant debt and debt service costs which will go along with it. I couldn’t help but notice that the advance news about the new Debt Commission was in conflict with the Obama’s announcement.

Early I listened as Fox News told me that the commission would have 2 chairmen, appointed by Obama, 8 Democrats selected by the Democrat party and 6 Republicans selected by the Republican party. The total? 16. A total of 14 votes would be required to reach agreement.

Okay, let’s see. That’s 9 liberals and 7 possible conservatives. In order to prevail at anything the Democrats would need to persuade five Republicans to switch over to vote with the liberals to win. The conservatives would have to change the minds of 7 liberals to carry their view in the commission. Tough enough.

But when the man reading the Teleprompters entered the room he said the commission would be made up of the two men he had already selected as chairmen, FOUR others picked by him, 6 selected by the Democrats and 6 selected by the Republicans.

The make up now is 11 Democrats and 7 republicans. The big announcement a few days ago was that we needed a bi-partisan solution to the ever-growing national debt. Again today, in his opening remarks he repeated the need for bi-partisanship in the makeup and function of the commission. But in less than 48 hours the Democrat’s power in the commission grew from 9 to 11. The Republican’s share remained at 7. Strange how the Democrats always need such great advantages in numbers in order to promote bi-partisanship.

Now the Republicans, if they actually agree to serve on the commission, will be forced to muster a change of mind and heart of SEVEN liberals to accomplish their goals while the Democrats will need only three changes in GOP thinking to have their way. Take careful note that in changing the makeup of the commission, Obama blatantly increased the burden of the Republicans and lessened the necessary votes the Democrats need to prevail. He did it by giving the Democrats additional voting power while leaving the Republicans where they were.

I am not surprised that the Democrats would have an advantage. After all, they own the House of Representatives and require the services of only one turncoat Republican to control the Senate again. But it is the un-balanced and unfair way he goes about it that stands out now.

That brings us to what should be the first question. Why do we need this commission? Where is the constitutional authority for it? Who, in our government, should be doing this work?

There are likely numerous opinions as to whether any commission is needed or not, but the question is better answered by the next one. "Where is the constitutional authority for it?" There is no constitutional authority for establishing such a commission. The task assigned to it by its creator is a legislative one. Obama has no legislative power he can rely on to pass laws, to create a body to pass laws, or to direct a body to tell Congress what laws to pass or how to pass them.

That is done by the constitution.

The U.S. Constitution grants certain legislative power to the U.S. Congress and reserves the rest to the States and to the people. Check it out for yourself. Read the Tenth Amendment. The office of President has only the power to enforce federal laws and to operate the military establishment in time of war.

He has no power to create, recommend, push for or pass laws. That’s it. He just doesn’t have the power. All powers not delegated to the Federal government by the constitution are reserved to the States and to the people of the country, its citizens. Creating a budget is something the office of the president does in order to let Congress know how much money they will need to operate the administrative branch of the government for the coming year.

Although almost every person who occupies the position of president always expands the government by creating new departments and making the existing ones larger, no president has the right or the power to make laws. Creating the department of Energy was a giant mistake and none of the "laws" laid down by it has any valid constitutional basis. This new attempted monstrous takeover of health care in America is completely without constitutional authority. First because that power was not delegated to Congress and secondly because the President does not have the power to make any law what-so-ever.

But a few weeks back, Obama, upon being told that the U.S. Senate refused to set up this so-called bi-partisan commission to study and make recommendations about what to do with the financial deficit and crushing debt the country is now saddled with, simply said that it didn’t matter. He said he would just go around Congress and appoint the commission himself by executive order, otherwise known as a dictatorial act. That is what he did this morning.

So, the news pundits all sit around talking about the makeup of the commission, how much it will cost, how long it will operate and when will its results be made known to us, Obama has torn another piece out of the constitution. We have lost more of our liberties.

Well, who should be tending to this matter? Congress! According to the constitution, the House of Representatives should originate all spending bills and appropriations. It is the job of Congress to study the problem. To find solutions. To suggest, to create laws, to levy taxes to do, in fact, everything that this new commission is being charged to do. They are in fact being hired by Obama to take over some of the work of Congress. Keep in mind that none of us get to have anything to say about who gets "elected" to the commission, what the commission is authorized or charged to do, how long it is to serve or to establish any oversight of the commission’s work. The only limitation the commission will have is what Obama says they should do.

There is no constitutional authority for it!

By the way, the whole point is that we are spending too much money. Right? Right. Okay. What then are we doing but creating another great expense. Another need for money to operate the commission? It will need staffing, offices, transportation expenses, recreational retreats in the Bahamas to rest after all the hard work they will be doing. How much will that cost? I have no way of knowing but I can guess now that it will be at least hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions. But more importantly, how will that help our debt problem?

The Energy Department mentioned above? It had a specific purpose: to reduce our dependancy on foreign oil. Here we are 32 years later, their budget is now 24.2 Billion US dollars annually. Are we less dependant on foreign oil? Who should have taken action on the reduction of our dependancy on foreign oil? Right. Congress. But, no, Jimmy Carter took care of that - without constitutional authority to so do. And today we continue to spend almost a hundred billion dollars on that failed department every four years. How long will this new Commission last? And when will it be morphed into a new cabinet level department? And more importantly - what will be the result?

Well, I can probably tell you that. They will not agree to reduce spending. They will recommend new taxes. First step, if not already taken by a gutless Congress, the elimination of the Bush tax cuts. Then increases in the federal income tax. He has already promised greatly increased taxes against the "rich" and will doubtless add the "new rich," formerly known as the "middle class," to the punitive income tax brackets. And finally a consumption tax. To make sure we know what we’re talking about here, read that as Federal Sales Tax.

It can be suspected that the commission will either remain silent on or recommend against drilling for domestic oil and gas and there can be no question as to Obama’s intention to create more so-called Green jobs, thereby immediately expanding of the Department of Energy. Think 30 billion annually instead of the paltry 24.2 we are spending now.

The end result will be a further depression of the oil industry, huge reductions in growth investment into other industries, a falling stock market and inflation headed toward Carter years’ levels.

It is easy to tell what a duck will do. It will sound like a duck, act like duck and look like a duck. That’s because it is a duck. Neither will it be difficult to predict what Obama’s new commission will do. It will sound socialist, it will act socialist and its results will look socialist. Because Obama is what he is. He will never change. And even with the strongest willed conservatives now in the Republican party, they simply can’t win. The cards are stacked against them. Bi-partisan indeed.

The end goal will be destroy private enterprise and to increase the size of government. Obama must see himself at the end of his second term getting ready for his third inauguration. Because by that time, our constitution will only be a memory. They don’t obey it now. And although we have started, too few of us are active. Too few of us are willing to stand up to them. Too many of us only put our fight into words and are unwilling to take the fight to the streets.

Don’t get me wrong. I still believe we can win. But it will take many more of us than we have now. And it will take a great awakening among the voting public. They must recognize the differences between voting in the primary elections and voting in the general election. The soul of the party is won or lost in the primary election.

Remember the 2008 elections? We lost that election in the primary. When R.I.N.O. John McCain became the GOP candidate, the general election became a waste of time. We had some strong conservatives in the race. We had those who believe in our constitution, who believe that it means what it says, not what some judge thinks it aught to say. But they were all cast aside when the party leaders agreed on McCain.

This time, our work is already upon us. If we don’t get control of the precincts now, Progressives, R.I.N.O.s and other liberal Republicans will control them again in 2010 and 2012.

If you see a fight looming between Republicans, R.I.N.O.s, Progressives and Independents within the GOP, remember that the fight must take place during the primary election process. We must come out of the primaries with conservative, constitutional originalists as precinct chairpersons, as delegates to state conventions, and as candidates for national office. We fail therein, we fail again in the general election in November.

And please don’t kid yourself. You are not going to elect a Tea Party candidate as president in 2012. Remember Ross Perot. Third parties in America always split the conservative party and pass the victory to the liberals. Dream all you want, but throw your weight around where it counts. For conservatives, that is within the Republican party. But it must happen during the primary. Otherwise, Obama will continue to dictate his decisions to us and we will continue to bow and scrape before him.

Let me try to put this all in order. It began with an e-mail I received. It was a copy or duplicate or repeat, whatever you wish to call it of many I had received over the years. The subject of the e-mail happened to be sort of a pet peeve of mine. Pet peeve because I agree with the sentiments of the mail but neither the purpose of nor the justification for it.

Activists, all of us, have numerous issues we push from time to time. So it’s not at all unusual to receive copies of certain items or repeat mailings of some. This is one of those. Thousands, maybe millions of mailings of it may go around the internet for a few months and then die off for a while.

Then, like Lazarus, it’s called back to life and begins going around again.

I always try to check everything out before forwarding onto others. I’m not perfect and have let some slip through I wish I had checked more thoroughly. Some I don’t want to send because they are not true, accurate or factual. Some I don’t send because I don’t agree with them. And many times I’m caught in the middle, not knowing whether to "send on or delete" as they say. Usually that happens when the mail is partially true and partially false or it’s one that there is some good element to it, in my opinion, but it is not totally worthy of consideration for other reasons.

This is one of the latter. As I said, I agree with the sentiments, but I do not agree with the purpose because the goal is to take action which violates the U.S. Constitution.

First let me show you the e-mail, in its entirety. To make sure you can see it as a stand alone item, a sample of the original e-mail will be shown within double brackets. Like this: {{xxx}}. It’s reference line reads: "Bet You’ll Send It!!"

{{68% will send this on...

BET YOU'LL SEND IT!!

I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG,
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,
AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS,
ONE NATION UNDER GOD,
INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL!

Some versions add, "And tell the other 14% to sit down and shut up!"
If you agree, pass this on, if not, delete.

PLEASE KEEP THIS GOING, EVEN IF
YOU HAVE PASSED IT ON BEFORE!!}}

End of original e-mail.

Though I had seen it many times in the past I still worried about it this time. I received three or four copies of it from various corespondents. I once again found myself locked in the middle or agreeing and not agreeing with the message. I finally decided to compose a rebuttal of sorts. The next following section is a copy of my response to the original mail. It is set apart from the rest of this article with this kind of brackets: [[xxx]].

[[No. I won't forward this on. In spite of the best efforts I could come up with and in spite of the fact that I am politically conservative, religiously Christian and strongly pro-American, I can't seem to get through to many of you. Of all the arguments conservatives should not jump into, this is the leader. If you are Christian or otherwise religious AND you are patriotic and/or otherwise love America, YOU ARE ON THE WRONG SIDE of this argument if your position is as stated above! If it sounds as though I'm yelling it's because I AM!

The following is a copy of an e-mail I sent out over three years ago. I am leaving portions of the headers so you can see the dates. Since then I've let many of these "I'll bet this was a surprise to NBC" letters slide, but I just can't do it anymore. Please read the following with an open mind (for a change).

----- Original Message -----
From: Gordon Smith
To: CRonC@CGLOBAL.NET
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 8:45 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: I'll bet this was a surprise to NBC

"[To all of those who do not understand why the words, "under God" should be removed from the pledge of allegiance, may I suggest a reading of the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution? It was clearly a violation of the first amendment to insert the words in 1954.

Ask yourself this question: If the Congress, or any part of the government, violate the prohibition in the constitution against the establishment of a religion, is there any reason why they should not also order the removal of the words "In God We Trust" and the Ten Commandments from public buildings?Is there any reason why the government should not order the elimination of prayer from public school, public meetings and even in private venues?

We should always carefully pick the hill on which we choose to die. The words "under God" in the pledge is not the hill I choose.

Christianity faces hundreds if not thousands of attacks against it in America today. We should be fighting against those with all our energies and not wasting time supporting the government's illegal acts which is what the insertion of the words under God into the pledge was.

If you need further clarification, try to understand the position of one who fervently desires to pledge political allegiance to the United States, but for personal reasons chooses not to acknowledge God in the same pledge. Like or not, the 14 % have rights too. And their right to make a political pledge free of religious bigotry is one of them.

Many of you will misunderstand. I suggest that you read the constitution before hardening your hearts further.

gs]"

Okay, that was the letter I sent. Now here is the text of the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

Article [I]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Here it is again with notes: Congress shall (Notice it doesn't say may or could or perhaps. It says Congress SHALL . . .

Shall what? Make no law. Anyone have a problem with that. Make NO law. That's it.

What kind of law shall Congress not make? Any law ". . . respecting an establishment of religion, . . ."

Okay, we can argue forever over how far that goes and what establishing a religion means.

But I believe that most people can agree that a law demanding a citizen to profess a faith in a god, any god - including GOD establishes some kind of religion.

Then it goes on to say that Congress shall make no law ". . . prohibiting the free exercise thereof (meaning prohibiting the free exercise of religion); . . . " Like making us take the Ten Commandments down from the court house walls and removing the manger scene from city parks at Christmas time.

And there's more but I'm stopping here for it’s the "under God" part that troubles me as well as the Ten commandments and the manger scene.

In 1954, under Eisenhower, a GOP controlled congress decided to stuff those words into the pledge because they thought the pledge was not religious enough. No kidding! Well, that's the way it was supposed to be.

Why? Because Congress is not supposed to make such laws. When they did, they required every citizen, by force of law enacted by the United States Congress, to confess a belief in God if they wished to profess political allegiance to the United States of America. It made no difference to Congress that some people might love America but have no room in their hearts for God. Like the Buddhists? Or Atheists? That is part of the 14%. They're Americans too.

But the liberals, the Democrats, (the - well, I won't call them names. Some of them are my friends ) laugh their butts off at us for worrying about the words "under God" while they file law suit after law suit making us take down the Ten Commandments, stop prayer in School, prohibiting even the mention of the name of our Lord Jesus Christ inside the school building -- entirely in violation of the constitutional prohibition against the passage of such laws. (Read the second part again. Remember? No prohibiting the free exercise of religion?)

You are a part of the problem if you are not paying attention. You did not believe me. When the man who now claims the right to live in the White House and to use the Oval Office as his own told you he was going to bring about change and hope. But he didn’t explain what that meant.

You didn’t believe me when I told you that Obama’s change meant communism. Many argued with me saying that he was only a liberal, not really a communist. Some in trying to show their erudition pointed out that he was progressive. None of his supporters wanted to publicly admit that they supported an avowed Marxist as their president.

You didn’t believe me when I described his promise of hope as the despair we would all feel as our money, our property and our freedoms slid into the cesspool that is socialism. And now here we are.

When I said, he will nationalize our industries, you pooh-poohed the very thought of it. He has now taken over the automobile industry, the banking industry, portions of the insurance industry and is well on track to completely nationalizing the entire insurance industry in the name of improving the nation’s health care system.

You called me insulting names when I said he hated America and intended to destroy it so that he and his buddies could rebuild it in the image of the Soviet Union. You didn’t believe me when I said his mentor, Saul Alinsky, taught a young Obama about de-constructing society, industry and a nation. You refused to accept his very own words promising to do just that. You called me an alarmist - a reactionary - and right wing lunatic.

You didn’t believe me when I said that spending hundreds of billions of dollars would not bring the nation out of a recession if the money were spent by the government on government programs. You said that Obama was right. We could spend our way back to wealth

When I warned you that the government would borrow more money from China and other nations, you laughed. When I predicted the Federal Reserve would needlessly and carelessly print dollars which could not be backed by any hard commodity or valuable wealth, you said I didn’t understand economics.

Barack Obama has kept his promises to you. He is on the verge of bankrupting the nation.

When I complained about his plan to close the prison facility at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, you said it needed to be closed. When I said George W. Bush was wrong in not moving those Islamofascists through the military tribunals as quickly as possible, you complained that we would be denying those poor Muslims basic human rights to which every American is entitled.

You didn’t believe me when I said that Obama would surrender in Iraq and that he would pander to the Iranians putting all Americans in grave danger. You blamed the war on George W. Bush, accusing him and DickChaney of plotting, financing and masterminding the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon.

When I said that Obama would become a dictator over America, you laughed. You said it can never happen here. You even claimed that the constitution would prevent it. And when I said he hates the constitution and will not obey it. You said, "Impossible."

Barack Obama has kept his promises to you. He makes up rules as he goes along. He enters treaties with foreign nations with no intention of allowing the Senate to approve or not. He is now in process of buying an old prison in Illinois with plans to move the terrorists from Cuba to the U.S. where they will be granted full constitutional guarantees and protection. Don’t be surprised when they are also placed onto a pathway to citizenship along with twenty million Hispanics who invaded our country and stole from us.

I called him liar. You challenged me to prove it. I pointed out one of his lies. His promise for complete transparency in government. He said the health care bill would be debated on C-Span. Yet every thing he’s had done by his lackeys in Congress has been hurried, unread, done behind closed doors, acted on during night time hours and never explained to anyone before passage and his quick signature. He is a liar. But then you still don’t believe me.

He promised fairness and the end of favoritism in government. The fact is that he has been paying off his friends in the unions and community organizers with our tax money. He violated the law by giving substantial ownership of General Motors to the labor union which controls their factories. He is destroying our economy and using what money is available to pay off political debts. It appears now that he may have followed through on his deal with Hillary Clinton to pay off almost six million dollars of campaign debts she incurred in her losing campaign against him. With our money.

But you love him. You said he has such dreamy eyes. You said he is brilliant. A great orator. You called him the "gracious god" Obama. You said I was a racist because I refused to support him. By the end of this year we may have a national debt in excess of 14 trillion dollars. Trillion. With a "T". That comes out to $437,500 for each and every one of us including the illegal aliens who, of course, won’t have to pay. You and I. We’ll pick up their share.

The interest on the debt alone will crush us. We have no manufacturing capacity. That went for NAFTA. Our farming industry is being wiped out by huge corporate farming whose main task now is to feed the world, not us. The remaining wealthy entrepreneurs who chaired the offices of chief executive grab their golden parachutes and jump off shore to place their money in protected bank accounts in foreign countries. You know why that is? Because we treat foreign countries better then we do our own.

We will never be able to pay off this debt. And when the new landlord comes to call, where will your "gracious god" be then? His goal is still to be dictator of the world. He would never be happy leading a crummy, broken little country like the former United States of America..

You were a part of the problem. And you still are if you have not awakened to what we did as a nation in November of 2008. You are still a part of the problem if you are not yet awake to our need to fight to regain control of our government. It still works, but you have to be willing to move the levers, push the buttons and haul the load. And sitting by while Congress refuses to do its job and the courts pass laws which they are not supposed to do and the office of the president is nothing but a collection of financial war lords with no constitutional authority won’t get the job done

Where is your vision, America? Where is your common sense? What happened to that fire in your bellies which made us the greatest nation in history? Why have you come to think that government is the only thing that can save you? When did you forget that this was a nation of laws, with a government of the people, by the people and for the people? When did you lose your connection with the God who gave you liberty as well as life? When are you going to do something about it? Where are your guts?

Today I received the following in an e-mail. It is reported to be a speech given by Ronald Reagan during the 1964 presidential election campaign. It is inspiring. I have added a few notes at the end of the text of the speech.

************************************************************************

Just to make sure, I listened to Reagan's speech again. It came to be known as "A Time For Choosing. I will never forget hearing it for the first time on October 27, 1964. He had started speaking on the radio as I was driving home from work. I was so excited by what he was saying, I could not get out of the care when I stopped in the driveway. I sat in the car and listened to the whole speech and have never at any time of my life been more inspired and encouraged than I was by that speech.

In listening to it today, I find as I most often do, that someone has made changes to what he said. Most of it has been cut out. What remains is similar and in some brief passages is exactly the same as what he said. But much of it is someone else's idea of what he should have said.

In the defense of whomever edited it, they seem to have done so mostly because the specific issues have changed. Today's buzz words don't fit the words and specifics he used that October night in 1964, but the basic message is so much the same I can't avoid the feeling that he should be making the same speech today, because all of the danger signs are still here, having all been renewed after his term in office came to its end.

The pirates and thieves inside and outside our country are well on their way to outpacing the strides made by the pre-Reagan socialist/Democrat party of the U.S. and of the advances made against us by Progressives here at home as well as in the rest of the world. Mr. Reagan could not possibly have foreseen an enemy such as Barack Hussein Obama sitting in the Oval office of the White House in Washington, DC. But he did foresee and forecast the potential failure of the people of America letting down their guard against the takeover which was coming.

You can hear the actual speech by Mr. Reagan by going to: gopwing.podomatic.com/entry/2006-10-28T21_09_33-07_00

There is no government which knows better what is good for me than I know for myself. I will forever continue to fight to preserve your rights to those values as well as my own, for if you are not free, than neither am I. The government does not own us. We own it. Our problem today is that the criminals in Washington, DC think the government is their own private toy. A toy they can manipulate in any way they choose to take whatever we have away from us.

If Mr. Reagan were here today, he would be taking about Cap & Trade bills, Stimulus bills, Bailouts, Government takeovers and Government only health distribution to the nation's citizens instead of farm bills and subsidies.

A general election will take place in less than two weeks. The ballot in Texas will include eleven proposals for amending the state’s constitution. For those of you who live in Texas, you should already know that the Constitution of the State of Texas is highly detailed and sets forth not only how the state’s government is to be constituted but how it is to operate as well. That includes telling the legislature what it can and cannot do. Because the founding document is highly detailed, in many cases before the legislature can change the statutes, the constitution must first be amended by the people. That is what is going to happen in a few days.

The following is what my research shows:

Proposition 2, 3 & 5 are all really part of the same issue. For some reason, simplicity or law they have been separated. First of all Texans have always been taxed in Texas on property both real and personal. Real property is land and anything permanently attached to the land. Everything else is personal property. It makes no difference whether it used for earning income, it is all personal property, either private or business. Generally speaking property is always taxed on an ad valorem basis. Ad valorem is a Latin term meaning "at the value of."

Even though it is now just a little house, it can be said that the land would be worth so much more if the house were torn down and parking garage built there. In other words making the taxable value of the land much higher based on a better use of the land. The owner of the house might be required to pay a much higher tax on his property even though was still being used only as a residence.

The first part of the amendment, Proposition 2, addresses that problem by limiting the state to allowing nothing more than the residential value of the land on which your house sits regardless of the highest or best use to which it could be put. The owner must live in the house and it must be a Texas Homestead to get the protection but right now, you don't even have that. So vote on Preposition 2 accordingly.

Currently, the methods used in establishing the ad valorem value of property are set by the local taxing authority. As a result there are many different methods followed. Those differences often produce vast differences in the amount of tax collected.

The second part, or Proposition 3, attempts to take care of the problem of varying methodologies by standardizing the method for all taxing entities. It will provide for the administration and enforcement of uniform standards so that all taxing authorities are on the same page in how they determine the value of your property and therefore how much tax you will owe.

Presently if property you own is in two or more taxing districts, such as mine, you can have three or more taxing authorities evaluating your property, determining the tax rate and collecting taxes from you. It is very confusing. In my case I am in a county which taxes me. I live in a municipal utility district which taxes me. I live in a hospital district which taxes me and two school districts which tax my property. All of them tax at different rates. They each set values on my property following different methods and reaching far different results and each has its own equalization board. It can be a nightmare.

Proposition 3 will, if passed, authorize the legislature to allow a single board of equalization for two or more adjoining appraisal entities that elect to provide for consolidated equalization. That would be something you could control through your voting rights in the taxing entity.

So, most of what has been written about those three propositions has either been mis-leading or outright false. The faulty interpretation lies, I think, in the lack of knowledge as to how the Texas Constitution works and what it says. I would not recommend voting against any of these three propositions. In fact I intend to vote for them in the interest of protecting my own property.

He did it in Cairo. He said it again at the United Nations. The lines have been drawn. Obama has chosen his Muslim brothers while most of the rest of us have chosen Israel. He picked the labor unions, while most of the rest of us choose the right to work. He proposes socialist schemes while most of the rest of us rely on free market based capitalism. He is willing to divide Jerusalem and shoot down Israeli airplanes while most of the rest of us believe in the rights of Jews to have a country of their own. He attempts to force down our throats a total government take over of the health care system in the United States while most of the rest of us want to buy our own insurance, select our own doctors and seek treatment when we are sick or injured without waiting on government to decide for us.

He believes that he now personally holds the power. He believes that the people by electing him have turned all decisions of government policy over to him personally and that we, those who voted against him, no longer have anything to say about our government. After all, he says, "I won!" Not we won. Not a great Democrat victory or even a great victory for socialist policies, but a victory for Barak Obama, himself. I suspect that he plans on being president for the rest of his life, just like Castro, Chaves, Stalin and Hitler.

He has shown no sign of weakening his plan of de-constructing the United States in order that he can rebuild it in the image of a Muslim style Islamic Republic where the only law is the personal laws of Shariah. A country where the leader, who ever the leader is, can simply make up laws as they go along, always claiming that Allah proclaimed it.

If Congress passes the so-called "health care" legislation the government will have absolute control of every facet of our lives. A complete record of our existence including physical examinations and personal conversations we have with doctors will be encoded on government computers and bureaucrats will have the power to decide whether we can get treatment or not, if we can go to hospital or not and even as to whether we live or die.

With that horrible success he will then have Congress pass the so-called cap and trade legislation which will in effect destroy every remaining business enterprise in the United States except those operated directly by the government, with Obama and his fascist, progressive friends calling all the shots and reaping all the profits.

I have always thought that Americans would never allow such a thing to happen, but I'm afraid there are not enough of us left to do anything about it now. We have five or more generations of people who have grown up being taught to rely on the government for everything. We have twenty or more million illegal aliens in country who support that type of government and who will receive complete amnesty from Obama as soon as he can grant it.

The small number of people I know who voted for and continue to support Obama show no signs of recognizing what he stands for and what he is doing to our country. Most of them call me names, accuse me of being a right wing extremist and a racist. That is Obama's most powerful tool. Anyone who does not agree with his taking over the government and changing it into communist, Islamic theocracy is immediately accused of being racist solely because Obama is half-black. In other words, we must all agree with him or prove ourselves prejudiced against him.

In an effort to denigrate an article I wrote, one liberal numbskull suggested that it is Obama’s blackness that I am tired of. I’m not. No. Really. I’m not tired of Obama being black. He can be black as long as he likes as far as I am concerned. I am tired of Obama because he’s red! I am tired of watching him destroy my free country in order to rebuild it in the image of the Soviet Union with Islamic overtones.

During the past few days we have watched while a conscientious dedicated conservative member of the United States Congress has been singled out for the wrath of the left because in a moment of patriotic fervor he blurted out a truth to which we are all witnesses. As Barak Obama stood before a joint session of the Congress, he lied to America. Well, nothing new about that you say. True, but in this case, one man, one patriot shouted out, "You lie!" And ever since Joe Wilson of South Carolina has been criticized by just about every member of government right and left.

Even the Fox News Channel, which some of us have come to look to for re-enforcement of our conservative principles, chastises the man for "rudeness." Two days ago, I asked and I ask again now, why is it rude to call a person a liar when they are in the midst of a lie? And if it is rude to say he’s lying while he’s lying, when might be a good time to accuse him of lying?

Okay, I understand. The House of Representatives has adopted a rule which prohibits being rude to the person occupying the office of President by calling that person a liar, even when he’s lying. Here. I’ll tell you what’s rude. Lying to the American public about the most important things in our lives. That’s rude. Murdering our unborn children - that’s rude. Stealing our property from us without due process of law - that’s rude. Ignoring the law of the United States Constitution after swearing an oath to protect and defend it - that’s rude.

Claiming that you are a natural born citizen of the United States but hiding all evidence of it under seal of law to prevent citizens entitled to know from learning the truth - that’s rude! Barak Obama occupies the residential palace of the legitimate leader of our country, and yet we are not allowed to know whether he is the legitimate leader or not. He lies to us. He steals property from us. He appoints himself monarchial rights over our private industry and makes other foolish decisions which has led to the un-employment of almost ten percent of our work force. It is extremely rude to those he has put out of work to take such actions. Yet, he goes on and now the Democrats in the House of Representatives assembled dare to censure the patriot who called out the true bill of indictment, "You lie!"

The army of the Soviet Union was known as the Red Army. On May 1^st of each year, grand and elaborate celebrations were held in what was known in Moscow as "Red Square". Persons suspected of being communists in the United States were know as "Reds." Red became the international color of communism. Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin was similarly singled out by the Senate charged with failing "to cooperate with the sub-committee on Rules and Administration," and had "acted contrary to senatorial ethics."

Senator McCarthy saw "Reds" everywhere. He ultimately lost his career and possibly even his life over the issue of Reds in sensitive places in our government, our industries and especially in the entertainment industry. Sound familiar? So, rest assured, I have no problem with Barak Obama being black. I have an enormous problem with him being RED above all else. And I do not mean that I think he is an American Indian. I think he is a communist.

No doubt that he enjoys the membership of no known communist party anywhere in the world, otherwise, he would be called a Communist, with a capital C. Bandy these words about all you please, communist, Marxist, fascist, collectivist. What you wind up with is a person who does not believe in the greatest economic engine of all time. The economic engine which made the United States the most powerful, the most wonderful, the most free independent nation in the world, capitalism.

Banks, labor unions, automobile manufacturing and much of our representative form of government has already fallen prey to his obsession with hatred for everything American prior to his election. And now he presently moves on our medical services delivery system in an attempt at the most massive transfer of power from the people to the government in the history of the United States. It is his redness that disturbs me, not his blackness. A redness that says to us that we are stupid, that we are lazy, that we are cowards and that only the government can solve our problems.

Sadly, if we allow Joe Wilson to fall to the same fate as Joe McCarthy we are all those things and worse. When heros step forth, we should rise up with them, not against them. We all heard Barak Obama lie the other night. But only Joe Wilson had the courage to shout out to the world to identify the liar. How about you shouting out in support of Joe Wilson before his private life is destroyed as was Joe the Plumber’s and as was Joe McCarthy’s before them?

A man stands in front of the entire government, the Senate, the House of Representatives, Executive Branch members and the Supreme Court and lies to the American people. When is it more appropriate to call that man a liar? Barak Obama can’t seem to stop telling us lies. He can’t seem to find the truth. What is his name? Is it Barak Obama or is it Barry Soetero? Where was he born? We don’t know. He says it was in Hawaii, but is unwilling to release the documents which would settle the matter once and for all, opting instead to order all of his personal records sealed for all time. Rather than expose the truth, he chooses to continue the cover and denials which prevent the truth from being known.

He made unrealistic promises during the election campaign which he had no intention of keeping. That is not campaign rhetoric. Those are lies. The man who spoke them, a liar. What is wrong with calling him by that title. Following the 2008 election, Obama even created a new office for himself, calling it The Office Of The President Elect! There is no such office. To say there was is a lie. The man who said it, a liar.

He said he would end Cronyism in the government, but filled administration offices with friends and former Clinton staffers, choosing people based mostly on their tendency toward socialism and radicalism rather than on the skills and experience they bring to the office. His promises, lies. The man who spoke them, a liar.

As a candidate he promised transparency in government yet began his massive personal coverup even before taking office. He then went on to appoint more than thirty communist style Czars to administrative positions in the government loyal only to him with no oversight by the Congress or the court system and no constitutional authority for the creation of the positions. Transparency? No. Lies.

We do not even know whether he was legally qualified to run for election to the highest office in our land. The Democrats were in charge and they don’t care. They have long since surrendered honor and honesty for politics and progressivism. So, the man climbs to the stage in front of our government, the American people and the world and speaks lies. When he said that the so-called "health care" proposals now before Congress would not pay for medical expenses of illegal aliens in our country, Congressman, Representative Joe Wilson of South Carolina, apparently couldn’t contain himself longer and shouted out, "You lie!"

Rep. Wilson was late. He spoke out only after I had already yelled, "You’re a liar," at the television set a half a dozen times while listening to the ‘campaign rhetoric’ of the Liar-In-Chief. Thank you, Mr. Wilson for speaking for me when I had no voice.

When someone lies, what is wrong with calling him out on the matter? Why is it impolite to call a liar a liar? To hell with politeness! This is politics, after all. Why should it be politically incorrect to point out the lie in the place where it matters most, in the halls of government, where lies hurt us the most?

All of the television news channels I can monitor say it was wrong for him to shout out the insult to the speaker because of the setting and the occasion. I ask where might there be a better time and place, for those of us who continue to doubt, to raise the issue of Obama’s compulsion to take liberties with the truth than when he is speaking?

We’ve already heard it, read it, seen it when he has lied in the past. So what? No one does anything about the lies. Joe Wilson did. At least he spoke out. He called out the word we use when describing what someone does when they speak falsely. Why let a liar continue lying without confrontation over the untruth?

Nancy Pelosi was popping up and down in her seat from the first word he spoke like an overzealous thirteen-year-old cheerleader, encouraging him to continue the lies. Her Democrat minions followed her lead by applauding the lies from the leader of their party. Why should not a member of the opposition express their opinion as well? When George Bush was president, the Democrats booed him. Booed the President of the United States during a state of the union address. Obama was conducting a partisan political rally inside the capitol building and one man had the courage to shout out the correct charge, "You lie!" And he needs to apologize? I don’t think so.

Pelosi has not apologized to the CIA. Harry Reid has not apologized to George W. Bush. And Obama himself has not apologized for having called us terrorists. Why the hell should we apologize to him for noting that he is in the act of lying - again - as he has so often in the past?

We are not in second grade here. Our liberty and our very lives are at stake. We can still call a liar a liar and so can Rep. Joe Wilson even when sitting in the capitol building and most especially at the moment he hears the lie spoken!

Thanks, Joe.

Obama, Obama, Obama. He ran for president for two years or more. The election was last November but he’s still running. I guess it’s to be head of some other world organization next. Or maybe he only wants to be the head of the new North American Union - you know, as a stepping stone toward Secretary-General and Dictator of the United Nations. But it’s the talk I’m really tired of.

The outstanding thing about Obama is that he has pulled off the most stunning political victory in the history of man. I don’t mean the 2008 U.S. national elections. I mean the theft of the United States - right from under our noses. Unqualified for the job both legally and experientially, he lied his way across the country and into the hearts of blind America. The person who lives in a house which I own in Washington, D.C., a house which I and my fellow citizens paid for, is not my president. I do not call him president. He is nobody’s president. He is a usurper and therein lies the brilliance of his campaign.

The last president of the United States was George W. Bush. And as paradoxical a man as you could ever expect to see, President Bush unwittingly paved the way for the Obama family to move into the residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue through his overly self-centered governing style.

Mr. Bush either could not or would not listen to those of us who supported him through every election in which he ran for office. His singularly outstanding achievement was the result of his response to the attack on New York City and Washington, D.C. by Islamofascists. What we as Americans accomplished under his leadership was to strike back at the heart of Islamic sponsored aggression against us and to depose one of its worst leaders. The result is a free Iraq.

In almost every other way, Mr. Bush abandoned us in favor of the Progressive movement. Expansion of government, increased government spending and enlargement of the body of foreign nationals living within our borders, many of whom entered and remain here illegally. Although his reduction in taxes sparked an economic recovery, turning a blind eye toward our southern border canceled the effect by allowing American jobs to be taken by illegal aliens and American wages to flow southward into Mexico and other parts of Central and South America. The over all result was to pave the way for Obama to bring on his dog and pony show, called Hope and Change.

While we all grew angry, the radical Democrats had already chosen their new leader. The Obama Circus traveled about the United States putting on live performances. Television carried his contrived speeches to all parts of the world. Bill O’Reilly called him brilliant. NBC declared him to be eloquent. One man in Florida called him "gracious god." While he took office and moved into the White House, we sat by and complained.

As he gave away our money, we talked to each other about it. We watched him steal General Motors as his own private automobile company. We wrote blogs and comments objecting to this theft, but we did nothing about it. He then stole Chrysler Corporation only to sell it to an Italian Company. Both transactions were completed with the very best financial terms and considerations for the labor unions, which Obama said he "owed." Bitter condemnations were voiced in the columns. But no action was taken.

The banks were taken over. Hundreds of billions of dollars were authorized by Congress to bail them out, to stimulate the economy and to satisfy the greedy needs of an Obama budget. We screamed in print. Soon commentators began hurling insults and calling each other names. It was not long before the dirtiest place in town was no longer the local brothel but the internet. Linguistic pornography now saturates almost every blog and every forum including this one. But otherwise we do nothing.

So, I’m tired of Obama. I’m tired of talking about him. Recently a man who had as much as anyone alive to do with the success of Obama died. Days were spent by enemies and friends alike speaking of him in hushed, respectful tones. I was reminded of Mark Antony’s eulogy for Julius Caesar. I thought, we should not be speaking to praise Ted Kennedy but to bury him. He was a scoundrel while alive and no less a scoundrel when dead. But after his passing, you would have thought he could have never done a wrong thing in his life. He was the lion. And in the eulogies for Kennedy, most speakers had to comment on the fact that he had taken part in the successful coup by Obama which moved him into the most powerful office in the world.

August saw the re-enactment of the historical Boston Tea Party in cities across the nation as members of Congress took their annual summer vacation. Citizens turned out in record numbers to talk to their congressional representatives. To let them know of the great opposition in the land to the massive take over of the health care delivery system. Most of the people from Congress were shocked, dismayed, even surprised that the people wanted to talk back. In the minds of our governing public servants, the purpose of a town hall meeting was for the members of Congress to talk to us. To give yet another speech in which they would have their say and we would listen.

When it was discovered that we wanted to have our say, we were accused of being terrorists and Nazis. And when purple-shirted thugs knocked one man to the ground, they were excused because they were just looking out for the union. Strange thing about that was that similar purple-shirted thugs appeared at other meetings, to shut folks up, to usher people out and to prevent citizens from coming in. What did we do? We wrote about it in columns and blogs and comments. We bitched. We p*ssed and moaned. We clamored. We hurled insults. We called each other names.

And worst of all we argued with liberal shills, trolls, cyber terrorists, hired to disrupt our conversations. To cause rifts in our unity. To dissuade us from our subject of interest. To change the discussion to their condemnation of a former president and praise for the new "gracious god" Obama. And we fell for it - again! In short - we did nothing - again! The country is now led by a thief, a liar and a communist and no one is going to do anything about it.

And one of my senators now wants to be my governor. After six years in Washington, ignoring everything I asked for, and treating me in her letters as though I am stupid, she continues to do nothing about Obama’s constitutional violations. Furthermore, both of my senators and my congressional representative still think they can negotiate with Obama’s Democrats on a Health Care Bill!

Banks, automobile companies, money we don’t have and yet he announces the continuation of his plans to build a civilian force as strong, as well funded and armed as our army, navy, marine corps and air force, combined. And no one does anything about it but talk! On Tuesday of next week, he begins the formation of the Obama Youth Corps which is nothing less than a quickening of the pace of taking over the local school systems and federalizing them. Inaugurating direct access to our children in order to drive a wedge between them and their parents, a wedge which will separate them from the past, from historical fact and into the fantasy of Obama World. And still we only talk.

What can you and I do about it? Not much, really. We can continue to enlighten as many of our fellow citizens as possible, encouraging them to awaken to the dangers and stand with us. We can continue our barrage of letters to our legislators by electronic mail, facsimile, United States Postal Service and the telephone demanding that they listen to us, that they remember they work for us and not the other way around. We can keep reminding them that they were elected to represent us not themselves.

But if they don’t respond on a timely basis, we must find others to help. We must find those like minded persons who have the wealth and power to speak forcefully to power. We must convince them of the impending doom which faces these United States if we do not act in a coordinated, united way to defend our way of life. Those presently in government unwilling to take the necessary action must be removed from office as early as possible. The people chosen to take their places must be able to abandon political correctness, to speak out in defense of our guaranteed liberties and to stand against those who would further corrupt our freedoms into the slavery of socialism and multi-culturism.

This democratic Republic of ours has the means of controlling such despots as Obama. But there is no one in the congress who has the courage or the will to exercise the powers they have. It is, for them, politics as usual. They are more concerned with the security of their own positions and size of their own personal bank accounts and the longevity of their growing careers than they are with preserving and protecting the constitution they promised us they would care for. In the meantime, they are letting Obama walk away, his pockets stuffed with goodies.

So, Obama gets a pass. If that’s true, then Bill Maher was right when he said Americans are dumb. If we allow Obama to get away with this massive theft of our rights, our property and our futures, then Eric Holder was correct when he called us a nation of cowards. If Obama can continue this swindle of the entire nation, then perhaps he is as O’Reilly says: brilliant.

If that’s the way it’s going to be, I don’t want to hear any more of it. I’m tired of Obama, not just tired of hearing about him, but tired of him using the Oval Office as his election headquarters. I’m tired of being called a racist because I don’t believe in communism. Tired of sitting by while my liberties are piece by piece rubbed out and replaced with my so-called duty to the leader.

I’m tired of Obama. I’m ready for something else. I’m ready for some real change. How about you?

I pray I am wrong. I do not think I am."

So, two men try to enter a locked dwelling in the middle of the day. It appears they have no key and are trying to force an entrance to the building. A neighbor or passerby happened to see the men struggling to open the door. Thinking that a burglary might be in progress the witness notified the local police department. A police sergeant responded. After interviewing the witness the police sergeant observed a man standing inside the now open doorway to the residence. The officer approached the man and asked him for identification. The man refused to identify himself, instead responding in racially inflammatory language.

The police officer asked the man inside the house to come outside to speak with him in order to help resolve the problem since the officer had been sent to investigate a suspected home burglary.

The man inside became abusive making racially insulting remarks in reply to the officer’s request.

The situation escalated to a point at which the police sergeant arrested the unruly man who had refused to identify himself or his right to be inside the residence. The arrest for disorderly conduct was made when the man came out of the house shouting demands at the police officer. He was taken into custody after leaving the sanctity of the house. At no time was the police officer rude nor did he use racially abusive language.

A supervisor was summoned and eventually the man was released after it was determined that he was Henry Louis Gates Jr., an African-American scholar and professor, who is a resident of the house in question, and was in fact employed at Harvard University. The professor accused the police officer of racism. You already know this story. You have already heard it on the news and watched the coverage of it on television. You already know that the police officer was a Caucasian and the man arrested was a so-called African-American and a personal friend of Barack Obama.

The following day during a press conference, Barak Obama was asked for a comment about the incident and replied by saying that the police "acted stupidly" and suggested the police officer owed Gates an apology. At that point, Obama was unaware of all the details of the arrest and criticized the police officer apparently because he is white. This knee-jerk reaction puts great illumination on the racism of Obama’s attitude.

Much in Obama’s writings, speeches and personal affiliations points out the intense feelings he bears against Whites in general and even to those close to him such as his white grandmother. During the election campaign his fealty to and support of Black Liberation Theology and to the chief writers and leaders in the Black superiority movement was made vividly clear. There are many faces which bear the mark of the racial bigot and they are of many colors. And while many Whites ashamedly wear the mark it has come to pass that some blacks, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright, for example, come to mind who never fail to hurl the charge of racism as part of the performance of their professions.

And now the white police sergeant is being drawn to the White House to meet with Obama and Henry Gates so the two of them can educate the poor stupid White officer in how to deal with Black people. The invitation itself already an insult seems to imply that the offer of free beer was sure to attract a White man to this civil slaughter.

The racist is a fascist. The racist demands that everyone bow to his will. The racist insists that he always knows better how everyone else should treat his race. The racist can never see his own prejudice, never account for his own bigotry, never acknowledge the guilt of his own brethren but is always ready to play the race card at the appearance of a television camera. The rest of us, Black and White alike, sit in front of our televison sets or listen to our radios wondering what our Black or White neighbor is thinking. And whether he is thinking of us.

It appears that you are not going to give up until you lose the entire show. Your staunch position of wanting to negotiate with the Democrats and the liberals of your own party gives away the weakness of that position and its hopelessness.

Some say, "Health care reform continues to dominate the agenda in Washington – and rightly so. We need a comprehensive approach to ensure Texans and all Americans have access to affordable care. This is one of the most important changes we can make to improve quality of life and it requires a thoughtful, deliberative debate and bi-partisan solutions."

Why does health care require debate and bi-partisan solutions? Why can you not see that it is government interference in health care that is the problem?

Had the government refrained from interfering in the automobile manufacturing business General Motors would not be a government owned company today. If both Bush and Obama has tended to the rightful business of the presidency Chrysler would probably still be an American company today. If Congress had kept out of the corporate welfare business and the political election pay back business the United States would not be facing the most horrendous deficit of its history.

And yet you continue. The House of Representatives recently passed the so-called Cap & Trade legislation which is nothing but an enormous tax on the American people, one which will ultimately destroy our economy thereby delivering it up to the whims of Barack Obama and the Social/Democrat party.

Now you want to mess around with health care. You want to try your untrained hand at delivering health care services. Why? You don’t know what you’re doing. Stop it. Get the House of Representatives back to doing what it should be doing and get it out of the business of medicine before it is too late for all of us.

"Absolutely essential? Just as it was absolutely essential that the so-called stimulus bill be passed without reading it? Without knowing where the money was going? Or how much would be spent? And when?

And what exactly do you think appropriate and properly designed means? Members of Congress, most of whom have never run a business of any kind and most of whom have no medical training or experience whatsoever are going to design a health care delivery service?

Stop this insane tinkering with our health. Stop this idiotic tampering with our republic. Stop second guessing us. Stop pandering to the liberal interests of both political parties.

STOP NEGOTIATING! YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE AWAY THE STORE!

Use your best efforts at thwarting the Democrats, not aiding and abetting them. Use your influence to change their vote instead of seeking out how to best allow them to change yours. America does not need its medical services industry changed. It is the finest health care delivery service in the world. The best that has ever existed. And if Congress will leave it alone, it can only get better.

There are matters which should be given the attention of legislators the country over, including you. But so far, you haven’t even looked at them. So far you have only asked yourselves, "How can we cooperate with the man in the White House? How can we show our bi-partisanship?"

How about showing some leadership for a change? How about leaving some hope for America to remain free, independent and productive instead of overseeing its repugnant slide into socialism and tyranny?

In recent responses to me from my congressional representative regarding the matter of the nationalization of the medical industry by Barack Obama and his forces the following three assumptions were made:

1. "Congress must address these problems in order to provide affordable and accessible health care to all Americans."

2. "The health care delivery system in the United States is in need of reform."

3. "Any health care reform package Congress considers should empower Americans with opportunity and provide Americans the ability to make unencumbered decisions about their course of care. Achieving this positive type of change will only be possible by embracing – in a bipartisan manner – a fundamental rethinking of our health care delivery system – into a system which champions personal ownership and coverage."

All three positions or statements are false.

It is not true that Congress must address these problems in order to provide affordable and accessible health care to all Americans.

Neither is it true that the health care delivery system in the United States is in need of reform.

Nor is there any veracity or factual content in stating that a "...positive type of change will only be possible by embracing - in a bipartisan manner - a fundamental rethinking of our health care delivery system . . ." presumably by the Congress.

These are the wrong arguments. The United States has the finest medical care system in the entire world. Our doctors, our hospitals, our pharmaceutical companies, our design engineers and equipment innovators, our nurses and administrative staffs are the best there is anywhere. People come from all over the world to be treated in the United States.

We may have a pricing problem. But it was not brought about by the medical practitioners. It was not brought about by any failure of government to intervene in the very private matter of personal health issues.

There are persons and organizations who bear the responsibility of the current state of medical costs. And the U.S. government leads the list of offenders by not keeping its nose out of a matter which should and must be left in the hands of the people acting privately in their own best interests. It is no business of government to regulate medicine, to operate hospitals, to employ and supervise doctors and nurses or to set and maintain prices for medical services, supplies, facilities or equipment.

The vote in the U.S. House of Representatives should be Nay to any government control of the nation’s health care delivery services. The vote should be against any interference by government in the rendering of medical care to the nation’s citizens. And members of the House of Representatives should acknowledge their absence of powers in this respect and cease and desist from passing laws regulating, interfering with, appropriating funds for or nationalizing hospitals, clinics, ambulance services, laboratories, factories and any other portion or element of the health care sector of our country and vote accordingly.

In my letter to my congressional representative I said, "I have not proposed solutions because we face no medical problem to solve. When you are prepared to discuss the real problems and effective solutions to those problems, please let me know. I will be glad to discuss them with you. In the meantime, know that you are using the wrong argument. As long as you do so, you are destined to lose. Pay attention. The problem is financial and political not medical."

Nationalized health care is but another of Obama’s tools in taking over the United States of America for his own ill-conceived plans and faulty solutions designed to take America in the direction which best suits his personal desires and needs. "Tell Speaker Pelosi that America belongs to the citizens. It is not her private toy."

The problem in the U.S. Senate is different only in the names of its players and the margin of power held by the Democrat party. Reid replaces Pelosi and they have a narrower margin of power. Otherwise, the two houses are very similar in the fealty they show to Obama and the dedication they exhibit in carrying out his orders and/or fulfilling his wishes, as the case may be.

My Senators, too, argue the same falacious arguments. They say that it is about how much money will be spent on medical care. They seem oblivious to the fact that we don’t need a government take-over of the delivery of medical services in America. They seem unaware that it is as Nancy Reagan used to tell us about illegal drug use. She said, "Just say no." That is what the senators should be saying to Senate Majority Leader Reid and to Barak Obama. "Just say no."

Say no, to any government take over of health care and medical delivery services in the United States for the simple reason that it is not within their grant of powers to so act. Add to that the ever growing list of reasons why such a program borders on stupidity as anyone unselfish enough to look at the overall problem can easily see, and you have great reason to say NO.

Where are the problems? Take a look at the courts. Take a look at the myriad of entitlement programs in place. Take a look at the immigration problem along with its offspring, chain migration. Take a look at the Trial Lawyers Association and the burgeoning load of liability law suits designed primarily for the purpose of enriching lawyers. Take a look at the silliness of the Class Action Lawsuit program. Who gets served? Who gets enriched? Follow the money and you will find that it is not the doctors or the hospitals or even pharmaceutical and equipment manufacturers which start the runup of prices. The genesis of the problem lies in the greedy desires of individuals and their attorneys who make it almost impossible for a doctor to practice medicine in the United States for the fear of losing everything the doctor has earned to the clap of a judge’s gavel and the pronouncement of a jury awarding money damages.

And that is not the bottom of the well. Our legal system changed when lawyers were allowed to advertise for clients. It changed when lawyers were allowed to illegally finance their clients’ lawsuits. It changed for the worse when filing a lawsuit against one’s neighbor became not only financially rewarding but fashionable as well.

Most modern problems in America stem from some foolish action on the part of government. Last fall we were told there was an imminent financial disaster that would wipe out our savings and place all of us on the unemployment rolls. It was said that government must act. Many of us screamed NO, that what was needed was for the government to do nothing. For government to stay out of it.

Well the government didn’t stay out of it. They acted. And then acted again and again. Now millions of us have lost our savings and millions of us have been moved to the unemployment rolls. Now with millions poorer and millions out of work – with most of our former greatness in manufacturing prowess shipped overseas – with the U.S. federal government now owning the greatest automobile manufacturing company in history, with a foreign nation owning one of oldest and most respected car makers – the government now wants to take over health care.

And what are our law makers talking about? Not whether the government should run the health care delivery system, but how they should run it. Again! It’s The Wrong Damned Argument.

You remember when the national argument was about Bill Clinton having oral sex with a young female intern in the oval Office? Well, it wasn’t about sex. If it had only been about sex, most men, especially young men, would have congratulated the president and clapped each other on the back shouting, "Way to go, Bill!" Getting the ‘o’ in the Big "O" would have merited re-election. The argument was about perjury and obstruction of justice. It was about Slick Willy lying under oath and blocking a special prosecutor in his investigation and enforcement of the law.

And then when George W. Bush was president we were told constantly that the national argument was about the need for immigration reform and poor people putting food on the table when in fact the argument was about mass amnesty for millions of foreign nationals who had invaded our country and were living here illegally. It was and still is an argument about Democrats, RINOs and other liberals raking up another twenty million votes for the future.

We were then told that the banks were broke and the automobile manufacturers were facing bankruptcy. The argument became one of whether the government should let them go under or bail them out immediately and let them file for bankruptcy later on. It wasn’t about the banks or the auto companies going broke. It was about the government nationalizing the financial institutions of the nation and the last remaining vestiges of our great industrial prowess.

And now, we argue on television, on radio, on the internet and in person about national health care. Once again, that’s the wrong argument. The national argument should now be about Barack Obama usurping the power of the states and of the people in order to take complete control of our lives, our property and our very souls in the name of the immediate need for national government provided health care for everyone. Arguing about health insurance is a waste of time. It’s like arguing about how many people don’t have Cadillacs and have to rely on a crummy little Chevrolet to get around.

Once again it is the wrong argument yet we waste most of our time talking it to death. And of course the goal is to make all of us so sick of the discussion that we will accept the brain washing and support Obama in his last drive to become the permanent leader of what used to be the United States of America.

First of all, it is not about health care. It is about government provided health care. It is not about health insurance. It is about government provided health insurance. It is not about 40 million Americans who do not have adequate health insurance. It is about adding those not now covered by Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Hospital provided medical services and those who simply don’t want to buy health insurance for whatever reason. Maybe they have just lost one job and will be getting another, at which time their medical will either transfer or start with a new company. Maybe they are just healthy and don’t want to waste the money on an insurance policy since their current medical expenses are comfortably manageable without it. Maybe they are just rich and want to pay their own way. It is about forcing Americans into a health care system most don't want and few will benefit from.

Whatever it is, the argument should be about stopping the government from shoving an unwanted, irresponsible, overly expensive change in the way we pay for medical services down our throats. Maybe it is just an argument about whether Americans are ready for utter tyranny and a dictator who talks as though America is already his own private property.

Dinner with Obama, Food for thought ...........

I don’t know who wrote this. A friend forwarded it to me by way of e-mail. It so well tells the story of what Americans are allowing to happen to themselves and their nation, I think it should have wider distribution. The piece is entitled: Dinner With Obama:

I dreamed I was invited to the White House for a private dinner with the President. I was a respected businessman, with a factory that produces memory chips for computers and portable electronics. My invitation to dinner with an American President was an honor.

I checked my coat, was greeted by the Chief of Staff, and joined the President in a yellow dining room. We sat across from each other at a table draped in white linen. The Great Seal was embossed on the china. Uniformed staff served our dinner.

The meal was served, and I was startled when my waiter suddenly reached out, plucked a dinner roll off my plate, and began nibbling it as he walked back to the kitchen. "Sorry about that," said the President. "Andrew is very hungry."

"I don't appreciate..." I began, but as I looked into the calm brown eyes across from me, I felt immediately guilty and petty. It was just a dinner roll. "Of course." I concluded and reached for my glass. Before I could grasp it, however, another waiter reached forward, took the glass away and swallowed the wine in a single gulp..

"And his brother, Eric, is very thirsty." said the President. I didn't say anything. The President is testing my compassion, I thought. I withheld my comments and decided to play along. I don't want to seem unkind.

My plate was whisked away before I had tasted a bite. "Eric's children are also quite hungry."

With a lurch, I crashed to the floor. My chair had been pulled out from under me. I stood, brushing myself off angrily, and watched as it was carried from the room. And their grandmother can't stand for long."

I excused myself, smiling outwardly, but inside feeling like a fool. Obviously I had been invited to the White House to be sport for some game. I reached for my coat, to find that it had been taken. I turned back to the President. "Their grandfather doesn't like the cold."

I wanted to shout, "That was my coat!" But again I looked at the placid smiling face of my host and decided I was being a poor sport. I spread my hands helplessly and chuckled. Then I felt my hip pocket and realized my wallet was gone. I excused myself and walked to a phone on an elegant side table.

I learned shortly that my credit cards had been maxed out, my bank accounts emptied, my retirement and equity portfolios had vanished, and my wife had been thrown out of our home. Apparently, the waiters and their families were moving in. The President hadn't moved or spoken as I learned all this, but finally I lowered the phone into its cradle and turned to face him.

"Andrew's whole family has made bad financial decisions. They haven't planned for retirement, and they need a house. They recently defaulted on a sub-prime mortgage. I told them they could have your home. They need it more than you do."

My hands were shaking. I felt faint. I stumbled back to the table and knelt

on the floor. The President cheerfully cut his meat, ate his steak , and drank his wine. I lowered my eyes and stared at the small gray circles on the tablecloth that were water drops.

"By the way," He added, "I have just signed an Executive Order nationalizing your factories. I'm firing you as head of your business. I'll be operating the firm now for the benefit of all mankind. There's a whole bunch of Erics and Andrews out there and they shouldn't have to come to you for jobs groveling like beggars."

I looked up. The President dropped his spoon into the empty ramekin which had been his Creme Brule. He drained the last drops of his wine. As the table was cleared, he lit a cigarette and leaned back in his chair. He stared at me. I clung to the edge of the table as if it were a ledge and I were a man hanging over an abyss. I thought of the years behind me, of the life I had lived. The kind of life I had earned with a lifetime of work, risk and struggle.

Why was I punished? How had I allowed it to be taken? What game had I played and lost? I looked across the table and noticed with some surprise that there was no game board between us.

What had I done wrong?

As if answering my unspoken words, the President suddenly cocked his head, locked his empty eyes to mine, and bared a million teeth, chuckling wryly as he folded his hands.

"You should have stopped me at the dinner roll," he said.

WAKE UP AMERICA ! The nightmare has begun.