This election was not the first Republican upset since the Obama administration took control.  New Jersey and Virginia both ousted their Democrat incumbent governors for Republican gubernatorial candidates. Republicans, despite what many think, were not due to win an election in those states.  Statistically, no such thing as “being due” exists. Republican wins in these states are further evidence of the distaste for the far left agenda Americans have.  In all the aforementioned elections, Republicans gained great support from Independents.  These are the same Independents that served as the swing for President Obama’s own election.  President Obama’s approval ratings have dropped since he first took office.  His job approval rating spread is the highest on record, surpassing Bill Clinton’s high of a 52-point spread between Republicans and Democrats.

Obama himself does not believe the elections were a result of his own time in office, but it is the effect of the last eight years during which George W. Bush was President.  Just to point out how ridiculous this assertion is, I will elaborate on President Obama’s thinking.  Everyone was so hopping mad about the Republican Bush administration that they elected more Republicans.   If Massachusetts voters, only 12% of whom are registered Republicans, were so disgusted with the last Republican administration, why did they elect Republican Scott Brown with five points more than Democrat Martha Coakley.   Obama, as usual, wants to do nothing but play the blame game.   It cannot possibly be the fault of Democrats that they lost the Massachusetts Senate seat held for 46 long years by a liberal Democrat. Senator Brown ran his entire campaign against the Obama agenda.  It worked magnificently.  His election was obviously no fluke.

This trend has been predicted by many on the right, but the notion has been dismissed heavily among those on the left.   What started as the Tea Parties and other “AstroTurf” groups(as Speaker Pelosi says), which liberals said were racist hicks shouting about things of which they knew nothing, has turned into three more Republicans in government and three less Democrats.  If the current administration keeps on with its leftist agenda, the trend will continue into November of this year and possibly November of 2012.  While liberals may think this is a far fetched idea, evidence lies in Senator Ben Nelson (D-NV).  Ever since he voted for the Senate version of the health care bill, his approval ratings have declined.  He faces a small chance that he will be re-elected.

Finally, something can be done about the Obama administration’s agenda.  With one more Republican vote in the Senate, meaning a total of 41, Democrats can not stifle debate on such issues as the health care bill, Guantanamo Bay closure, etc.  The only possible way to pass any part of the health care bill would be through the process of reconciliation.  This, however, seems very unlikely.  Only portions of the bill that cut federal deficit and/or spending could be put up for reconciliation; the are maybe two provisions in the bill that do this as it is an overhaul.  House Democrats would also have to give up on hopes of such measures as a public option, present in the House version but not the Senate version, if they wanted to get the bill passed through reconciliation.  An agreement between the two houses of Congress is an exceedingly dwindling prospect.  The trend, if Democrats continue with their business as it is, will continue to November 2010 and November 2012.

These people that constantly yammer about global warming ruining the world are highly misinformed. Mainstream scientific belief is that humans are destroying the world by emitting greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere which affects the ozone layer which in turn allows the sun to heat the earth causing disastrous events. According to these people: we are running out of oxygen and water; glaciers are melting; polar bears are dying; tornados and hurricanes are brewing up and will eventually kill us all; (insert favorite NATURAL disaster here). Now, how do these scientists explain this warming trend before industrialization? Many believe that before industrialization solar radiation and volcanism cause warming. I am no Ph.D., but I do believe both phenomena still exist. Is it time to reevaluate these global warming fears?

Just weeks before the Copenhagen summit, someone hacked into the emails, numbering in the thousands, between professors of the Climatic Research Unit based at the University of East Anglia in England. The professors worked heavily with the CRU in pushing their ideas of climate change and global warming. The contents of the emails: evidence that data concerning climate change had been manipulated to show results favoring a warming trend. Not only that, the colleagues wanted to hide all of this by deleting the emails, violating the United Kingdom’s Freedom of Information Act. Professor Phil Jones, head of the CRU, emailed Professor Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University about the “trick…to hide the decline.” I have a hard time believing the two global warming advocates were talking about the stock market. Mann said a “trick” is a “good way to solve a problem.” Inserting that bit into the above quote does not make it sound any better. Another CRU Professor Tim Osborn discussed in email how truncation of a data series can hide a cooling trend that can be seen in results otherwise. Professor Mann warned against letting anyone see the un-doctored results, as they would support the beliefs of skeptics. Another primary global warming advocate Dr. Kevin Trenberth (head of the CRU’s Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research) commented in an email: “The fact is we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” In an effort to exclude contrary views on manmade global warming, the “intellectuals” (if they can be called such) decided it would be best not to send in the climate research for peer review. From their talk, you’d think they were hiding something… Pat Michaels, a climate scientist of the prestigious Cato Institute, said of the fiasco, “This isn’t questionable practice; this is unethical.”

Other than this debacle, there is significant scientific evidence against the theory of global warming. Earlier this past summer, the Australian Senate stalled voting on legislation aimed at reducing carbon and greenhouse gas emissions (because, of course, they will kill us) on the basis of…you guessed it! Tons of research and evidence that the myths and claims associated with global warming are…well, myths and claims. Ian Plimer’s book Heaven and Earth, Global Warming: The Missing Science, according to global warming hysteric Paul Sheehan is “brilliantly argued” and is “the product of 40 years’ research and breadth of scholarship.” The book argues that limiting climate change to one variable–human-induced carbon emissions in this case–is simply not science and to try to predict the future based on this one variable is ridiculous. The US based Heartland Institute has shown that for the past ten years carbon emissions have increased while global temperature has not. PS: The Australian Senate voted the legislation down on 2 December. Need more evidence still?

John Christy, a lead author of the 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report and one of three authors of the American Geophysical Union’s 2003 statement on climate change, has produced much data that undermine arguments that the earth is warming at an unusual rate. No, the University of Alabama-Huntsville’s director of the Earth Science Center is not a lobbyist for Big Oil. He is a lobbyist of no sort. Christy argues that results from surface temperature readings have been distorted by urbanization. Christy says that heat captured by bricks and pavement along with changing wind patterns caused by large buildings will cause higher temperature readings. So, Christy found a way to measure global temperature without using surface temperature. He wanted to use atmospheric temperature. NASA and NOAA satellites gave him readings, which showed only slight increases in temperature over long periods of time.

Why harp on this subject? The Obama Administration has an agenda to “go green.” The cap and trade legislation that was rammed through Congress will severely limit industry and the economy. Beaucoups of money poured into “fixing” something that is not a problem is absurd. Unlike most others, I will not blindly accept the Left’s “facts” when much evidence suggests these “facts” are falsehoods.

Every time a segment about the economy airs on television, people hear this sentence: “This is the worst recession since the Great Depression.”  This is not true.  The early 1980s recession has to date been the worst since the Great Depression.  GDP grew more slowly and lost grand more quickly than the current recession.  The unemployment rate was higher than today’s.  Ronald Reagan pulled the United States out of that recession and left a nation with economic growth and stability.  Unfortunately, President Obama did not take notes.

Reaganomics is the term used to describe President Ronald Reagan’s economic policies, especially those enacted in the early 1980s.  Reagan inherited a terrible recession from the Carter administration.  According to aides, Reagan had a very firm grasp of economics.  I guess this is why he was able to do such an amazing job with fixing a broken economy.

So what did Reagan do?  To remedy the bad economy, Reagan implemented tax cuts.  Reagan’s critics claimed that his tax cuts reflected “trickle-down economics” gone awry.  Over seven years, President Reagan cut income tax rates from 70% to 28% for the upper brackets.  With these new tax cuts, the more wealthy were far more willing to invest money into new business and infrastructure, stimulating the United States economy.  Reagan cut taxes across the board, not just for the wealthy as some believe.  Income tax rates were lowered for all Americans.  This is as opposed to President Obama’s strategy which will impose more taxes on the wealthy and possibly even raise income tax rates for those of the middle class, something he vowed not to do, if I recall correctly.  President Obama has had his own “stimulus package” pushed through congress, which totals in the upwards of $787 billion–$787 billion, more accurately.  The government, despite what the current administration believes, cannot create money.  They can easily print the paper, but there is no value to it.  So, from where is this money going to come.  You guessed it; it is coming from taxes.  The government is dependent upon taxes, especially when they are trying to garner almost $800 million to “boost” the economy.  It is generally inadvisable to spend large amounts of money you do not have when trying to help the economy.

Another great aspect of Reagan’s economic policies is the job creation.  During Reagan’s administration, the unemployment rate peaked at 10.7%.  From 1982, when it peaked, onward, this number decreased throughout Reagan’s terms in office.  He also created 16,000,000 (16 million) jobs during his presidency.  This figure kept up with the population growth rate.  The Obama administration has created 9,000 in the past month.  Unfortunately, those jobs just account for all his new czars. The president promised several times that his stimulus package, if passed, would save or create 600,000 jobs by the end of the 2009 summer.  In July, close to 250,000 jobs were lost.  The unemployment rate was at 9.4% and was on the rise.  Seeing as how, the unemployment rate keeps rising after Obama’s efforts to “stimulate” the economy, I do not think this administration is creating any new jobs.  I somewhat doubt they have saved a tenth of what they stated they would.  It seems every time the Obama administration announces the unemployment rate will not go above x%, they have to issue a statement the next weeks promising it will not go above (x+1)%.  Obviously, the current administration is not going in the correct direction with the economy.

Under Reaganomics, the inflation rate dropped from the highest since 1947 at 13.86% to 4.1% in a span of seven years.  This is an enormous difference.  Instead of spending more, Reagan reduced government spending tremendously.  He cut back funding for entitlement programs.  The Obama administration will not stop spending.  That simply does not work well.  I guess President Obama missed economics class the day the professor discussed which economic policies helped and which hindered America.  I guess he also does not understand that the addition of pointless earmarks, such as the $30,000,000 ($30 million) earmark that is going towards saving a marsh rat.  Chances are very good that worrying about rats will not help the economy.  This is the kind of reckless spending America does not need.  We cannot afford to aimlessly spend such large amounts of money.

The Cato Institute reported that:

(o)n 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.

• Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.
• Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
• Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.
• The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s.  The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years.

The Reagan years were some of the most prosperous years in decades for Americans.  The current president and his administration could stand to take a few…hundred…things from Reagan’s book.

It seems as though the litmus test for “Republicans” these days is Christian, white, and male.  While I am all of these, I am not a Republican.  The syllogism “White, heterosexual, Christian, males are Republicans.  Madden is white, heterosexual, Christian, and male.  Madden is a Republican” does not really work with me.  There are plenty of white, Christian, males that are liberals.  Granted, Chrisitans and whites and males tend to vote for Republican candidates and be registered Republicans themselves at higher rates than other groups–for the sake of argument, a black lesbian Muslim.  The Republican party has seen a major shift in the past decades.  It has had its fair share of conservative and “moderate” (more left leaning) politicians.  The Republican Party has members from all kinds of backgrounds who support a myriad of different policies.  There are agnostic Republicans, Christian Republicans, Jewish Republicans, and even some athiest Republicans.  Black Republicans, white Republicans, and Latino Republicans.  One fish, two fish, red fish….Sorry….   There are pro-life Republicans and pro-choice Republicans.  There are Republicans who support the War on Terrorism–Sorry, that is now the “Overseas Contingency Operation”–and those who are completely opposed to it.

Here are the criteria to be considered a Republican:

1. Registered as a Republican
2. Well, that’s really the only one.

Here are some of the criteria to be considered a conservative:

1. Strong pride in and love for country
2. A belief in limited government
3. A belief that all men are created equal and have equal opportunity to succeed in life
4. A belief in the free market system
5. A belief in fiscal responsibility
6. A belief in moral behavior
7. A belief that there actually is not such thing as a free lunch
8. A belief that the people know what is best for the country and themselves, not bureaucrats
9. A belief in a strong national defense and protecting our nation against all foes
10. A belief in responsibility of the individual
11. A belief in a strong family unit
12. A belief that marriage is between a man and a woman

The list could continue for a while.  I just wanted to get some big ones out there.  As you can see, there is a profound difference in Republicans and conservatives.  To help you figure this out a little better, I will give examples of each.

John McCain — Republican

• McCain favors shutting down the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility where the United States has obtained information that thwarted terrorist attacks
• McCain believes global warming is a man-made phenomenon
• McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts

Olympia Snow — Republican

• Also voted against the Bush tax cuts
• Voted with the Democrats on a Senate committee that passed, through that committee, the proposed health care bill
• Supports abortion
• Supports gay marriage
• Voted against Bush’s ban on partial birth abortions

Susan Collins — Republican

• Also voted against Bush’s ban on partial birth abortions
• Supports same sex marriage
• Supports abortion

Ahn “Joseph” Cao — Republican

• Voted for the Democrat health care bill in the House

Mitt Romney — Conservative

Duncan Hunter — Conservative

Alan Keyes– Conservative

Ronald Reagan — Conservative

Once again, due to numerous discrepancies in what I believe and what some Republicans believe, I am not a Republican and do not plan on becoming one.  I will most likely support Republican candidates, not because of the party, but because of the values most Republican candidates have.  If those candidates do no hold those core values, I will vote for whoever does have them.

America became an independent state because of tyranny.  The reason the thirteen colonies broke off to form the United States of America was an overbearing government with no regard for its people.  Anyone with a basic knowledge of United States history knows this is true.  Great Britain’s King George III and the British Parliament overstepped bounds with the intent of controlling the people of the original thirteen colonies.  Early on, a group of Britons got together and realized the mutual dissatisfaction with the standing British government of the 1600s.  They upped an left Britain because of the British government’s oppression of certain rights outlayed in the Magna Carta–the British equivalent of the Bill of Rights.  Then, decades later, the same government tried to have even more control over the people they drove out in the beginning.  Numerous events brought about the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War.  The people of the thirteen colonies were fed up with the government and were not going to stand for the overwhelming control it had over them, so they broke off and declared independence.  Our ancestors fought a war that gave rise to a nation.  We, because of this, are now privileged to live in the greatest country of them all.  That nation was founded on morality and a limited government.  These, up until the last election, I thought were the convictions and values of most Americans.  Everyone in this country should be here because they love this country and what it stands for.  I have doubts about modern America and this generation as far as this goes.

America has always stood for a limited role of government in the private sector.  This country, for a very long time, has been pushing away from this.  For a very long time, the government has involved itself in all aspects of Americans’ lives.  It seems regulation is placed on everything.  The United States Constitution’s Tenth Amendment states that all powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states or the people.  Obama’s czars, excessive spending, regulation, etc. are blatant violations of this amendment.  Everything from what we eat to what cars we drive to what choices we make in life is regulated by the government.

Examples:

1. New York City banned trans fat in 2006.  That means restaurants cannot serve anything with trans fat in that city.  Restaurants are privately owned and operated businesses.  They should serve whatever they want to serve.  The government, although it is only city government, should not try to impose rules on private businesses because it is beneficial for people to intake less trans fat.  If people want to make a decision not to eat the trans fats, fine.  Telling people how they can run their businesses is not American.
2. Global warming has become an increasingly hot topic in the realm of politics.  Since when does the government own the earth?  And exactly by how much would it increase the deficit to buy?  People are entitled to their property.  They are not, however, entitled to the world.  Therefore, the government should not try to step in and tell people that they cannot drive big SUVs that get all of four miles per gallon.  They cannot propose legislation to limit “greenhouse emissions” as the Obama Administration and Congress have recently done with their Cap & Tax…Sorry Cap & Trade business.  The Cap & Trade proposition would fine any energy producer that did not decrease its emissions by a certain percentage by a certain year.
3. President Obama months ago called on every US student to attend post-secondary education, be it a four-year university or vocational school.  He said it is a necessity.  Well, the government should not be telling people it is vital that they attend college.  To sweeten the deal, Obama wanted to increase the Pell Grant program.  This is a program for low-income students to attend college.  He even went as far as to say he would attempt to make the first year’s tuition free.  Not only would this put our economy in the hole even more, it would be most likely to no avail.  If people want to go to college, they will work hardly in school.  If they do not wish to go to college, they will not.  This is common sense.  Doling out $25,000 of government money to students who will not work in college, is plain stupid.  And why does President Obama think it is his say as to whether or not people go to college?

I have serious doubts about President Obama’s patriotism.  Yes, the conservatives have been down this road before.  We probably would not keep going in this direction if we did not have reason to question his love of the country he was elected to lead.  The first clue to his lack of patriotism was the fact that he did not place his hand over his heart during the national anthem while a flag was displayed.  Title 36, Section I, Part A, Chapter 3, §301 states:

During a rendition of the national anthem—

(1) when the flag is displayed—

(A) all present except those in uniform should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart;

(B) men not in uniform should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold the headdress at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart; and

(C) individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last note; and

(2) when the flag is not displayed, all present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed.

To a normal person, it would seem that the American people, overall, do not want government-run health care. To Democrats in Congress and to President Obama, these data mean “Go ahead, get that bill passed. Who cares if they like it?” In the Preamble to the United States Constitution, the country as a whole and its people are commanded to “promote the general welfare.” General welfare does not mean that of only those who agree with you. If Republicans tried to pass a bill in Congress without the majority of the country backing the bill, our good friends the Democrats would be screaming that they were trying to rush legislation without the support of the American people. We are talking about the creation of a government-controlled system that affects everyone in the United States. Every man, woman, and child will be under the effects of the health care legislation.

The bill being pushed through the senate right now is filled with flaws. The first obvious flaw is that it is over one-thousand pages long. It is filled with flamboyant and hard-to-understand language, mostly doublespeak–language used for the purpose of ambiguity. President Obama, during a town hall meeting(21 August 2008) promised he would negotiate health care reform publicly on C-SPAN. We’re waiting… The Obama administration has shown no evidence of plans to fulfill this promise. Another major promise of his campaign was government transparency. Why is it that Americans have little to no idea what is going on in Washington surrounding not only the health care debate but other major issues?

Let’s go over some big issues with the bill:

• The “public option” previously called by Nancy Pelosi the “consumer option” and called by Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz(D-FL) the “competitive option”
• No safe guard against illegal immigrants getting the taxpayer-funded plan
• No amendment to prevent the covering of abortions
• The cost and efficiency
• The “opt out” system and other “choices”

Let’s start with the “public option”: The “public option” is the idea of having a government-run health insurance company. Seeing as how no endless pit of money has been discovered in the United States, a tax would have to be imposed to pay for this insurance program. The Congressional Budget Office found that premiums(amount of money paid for active coverage) account for less than 3% of private insurance companies’ profits. Tax revenue would have to pay for the “public option”; it is common sense that a program that rakes in so little money through premiums cannot pay for itself. Nancy Pelosi, in speaking of the new name she gave the “public option,” justified the rebranding by saying, “When people think of the public option, public is being misrepresented, that this is being paid for with their public dollars.” Well Madame Speaker, in the best way I can think to say this, DUH!!! Where does the government get any of its money? Taxpayers. This is just like welfare, Medicaid, and Medicare. People are paying the way for others. Maybe some will choose to be under the government insurance plan. At any rate, even people who do not use this plan will being paying for it. Why would I want to pay for somebody else’s broken leg? Their trips to the emergency room where they have their alcohol-filled stomachs pumped? Their breast implants? It is absurd to make anyone other than the people wanting these “treatments” to pay for them. “Public” in the plan’s name tells all; taxpayer dollars are going to be used if this bill passes.
This brings us to Rep. Schultz’s name for the plan–the “competitive option.” This name is extremely ironic. Looking at the “public option” strictly from an economic standpoint, the plan cannot create competition as President Obama and Congress have asserted. Inevitably, the “public option” will destroy the free market in the realm of health insurance. The health care bill aims to bring affordable health care and insurance to all Americans. “Affordable” in this case is synonymous with “cheap.” The government will undercut the private insurance companies, offering much lower premiums for insurance. To cut costs, employers and some individuals will flock to the new government insurance plan. This will leave private insurance companies without clients. Essentially, the government will deplete competition, creating a monopoly. Monopolies are abuses of the free market system, and are therefore unconstitutional and illegal. Eventually the government insurance plan will be the only viable option for people. If this happens, the government will have almost complete control over all medical treatments and health care issues. What’s more is that the “public option” has been compared by President Obama to the oh-so-loved United States Postal Service. Well, I have a few problems with this. One, it is illegal to compete with the post office.

The Private Express Statutes (PES) are a group of federal civil and criminal laws that, for the most part, make it unlawful for any entity other than the U.S. Postal Service to send or carry letters over post routes for compensation unless appropriate postage is paid in an amount equalling what would have been paid had the letters been sent through the Postal Service.

Basically, if you own a private company that deals in delivering mail, and you go on any road or route that the US Postal Service uses, you are competing and thus breaking the law. The second problem I have is the fact that the post office is highly inefficient, is closed on every holiday you can think of, and is usually opened only while most people are working. Will hospitals be this way?

When President Obama made his Address to the Joint Session of Congress, Joe Wilson exclaimed, “You lie!” after Obama said his plan would not cover illegal aliens. Liberals spent the night poring over the bill trying to find evidence that conservatives were liars who just wanted Obama to fail in his bid for a health care bill. Only the latter is true. Numerous people pulled portions of the exceedingly long bill that said the plan would not provide any services to any person not legally in the United States. While the bill is not designed to cover illegal immigrants, it has no safeguard against this occurring. Republicans have brought amendments that would require national ID cards and other such measures to ensure that illegals did not get coverage under the health care bill. Democrats voted this amendment down. Illegal immigrants have been getting free health care for years under Medicaid. This was not the intent, and I am sure the decision to have Medicaid was not designed to cover anyone in the country illegally. Well, it did and it still does. It is not plausible that the government can have it so that illegals will not be covered. If government entities are not inquiring about citizenship, what makes you think doctors would? Illegal immigrants deserve no help from the American taxpayer. They reap benefits for what they have not sown.

Similarly, abortion is not covered by the proposed health care bill, according to one section. Like the issue of illegal immigration, there is no safeguard against this from being covered. Democrats have continually voted down Republican amendments that would stop abortion from being covered in the plan unless the person (in whose name the insurance is) pays a separate premium with their own money. Well, think about this logically. A lot of people who get abortion, are lower class people who do not necessarily have jobs or a steady source of income. This means they are using the welfare system for their means. The government has already said it will give subsidies to low-income families for the government health insurance. So, the government will pay the full premium for these people and they will give them welfare checks which could be put towards abortion. Anyway you look at it, abortions will be paid for with taxpayer money. They have been for years. Some welfare checks are probably direct-deposited to the abortion clinics’ holdings. Forcing taxpayers to pay for other people’s mistakes monetarily is one thing; not ensuring that the money does not go towards something against someone’s beliefs is unforgivable. This is nothing new. People have been paying for others’ abortions for a long time. In some–not all, but some–states, Medicaid covers abortions. This is using taxpayer money. The “public option” would make this occur on a more vast scale. It is not as if pro-lifers can just refuse to pay for it without ramifications. Let’s see, fork over taxes or go to the federal pen? Most people whether they like it or not will fork up the cash.

Let’s talk cost. According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) assessment, “enacting H.R. 3200 would result in a net increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion over the 2010-2019 period.” H.R. 3200 is the current bill proposed (“America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009″) which bears an ironic name due to the lack of choice involved; I digress. This contradicts what President Obama said about the health care plan. I believe he said something along the lines of, “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits–either now or in the future. Period.” Oops. Common sense tells people that enacting an expensive program such as this health care and public insurance program will put us in debt. Did Obama misread his tele-prompter? Maybe it actually said, “I will sign a plan that adds twenty-three trillion dimes to our deficits–either now or in the future. Period.” Maybe the tele-prompter died, and Obama had to improvise. Or he was just flat out lying. To refrain from belittling the President of the United States, I will assume one of the first two. At any rate, the overall cost of the proposed bill is one hundred and four trillion, and two hundred billion(104,200,000,000,000) dimes–that is one trillion, forty-two billion dollars ($1,042,000,000,000) for anyone who does not feel like dividing by ten. Where is the money coming from? Not the aforementioned endless pit of money that we have not yet discovered. It is coming from all who pay taxes. Another irony in the bill’s name (“America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009″) is that America absolutely cannot afford this. We cannot afford anything right now. This bill alone will surpass the cost of both the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan have cost us so far.

Take a look at the efficiency of government institutions. Did you have to get that payment in the mail so your power would not be shut off. Too bad, you have arrived at 5:01 to the post office. That means, the doors are locked, the blinds are closed, the lights are off, and there is no employee within five miles of the place. Guess you will have to do without power for a while. Got it in did you? Sucks for you that the post office mixed up your mail and it was delayed. You lose power anyway. Thanks for playing, though. Case scenario: You have been standing in line for hours to get your number to wait in the other line to wait in the next line to see a person at the desk to be referred to the final line that leads you to another line to get done what you came to get done. Where are you? Anyone who has ever been to this Godforsaken place knows I am talking about the DMV. Yes, another fine government institution. The government is just so gosh darn good at running institutions. Why not let them run health care? Oh wait. Back up… They only run them into the ground. Not such a good idea after all is it?

The Left has painted us a picture of national health care which involves lots of choices for consumers. The newest one is the “opt out” choice. This is a system in which states have the “choice” to offer the public health insurance President Obama and Congressional Dems are pushing. When I first heard about this, I thought, “Wow, maybe they are doing something right with this whole health care deal.” Then, I smacked my head into a wall for daring think such a thing. Of course, the “choice” lies only in offering the service or not. The states still have to pay for it. Regardless of whether a state offers the public insurance, it will still have to pump money into the system. This is like paying chosing not get a Coke at the football game but having the price of Coke built into the ticket price. Of the beaucoups of “choices” in this little bill is another great choice consumers have–whether or not to buy insurance. Well, here is the government’s choice offering on that: You either buy insurance, or we fine you until you buy it. Basically, the government is bullying people into buying insurance, using the logic “We are going to take your money anyway; you may as well put it towards something useful.” Here is my rebuttal: GET YOUR HANDS AWAY FROM MY MONEY!!! It is mine. That means I earned it. I do not want it going to you or anyone else unless I specifically chose to do so.

As you can see, this bill is a really bad idea. It is stupid to assert that the government knows what is best for the people. Listen to the people on this one. They do not want it because they know it is bad for them. There are so many flaws in the health care bill that make it not only implausible to work but make it a disaster waiting to happen. I guess the government is trying to create a pit of money in lieu of actually finding one. Just stop using my money.

10/29/09

- Great educator Booker T. Washington

In what is supposed to be a postracial culture, public figures–often those who say they want the world to not view race as an issue–use race for their benefit or the benefit of others.  Law suits, misquotings and distortions, and ridiculous assumptions spring up and revolve around one central issue–RACE.

Why is it that Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton who constantly call for such a postracial society–one in which all races are treated equally–profit from crying “racism”?  It is ridiculous for these two race profiteers to prosper from race while they cause others to suffer for it.  A prime example of this very scenario is the 2006 Duke lacrosse case, in which a black student and stripper Crystal Gail Mangum accused three white Blue Devil lacrosse players of raping her at a party.  Both Jackson and Sharpton were quick to give full support to the “victim” in this case.  Mangum’s attorney Mike Nifong claimed the alleged rape was a hate crime.  Jesse Jackson said the situation of the three men watching and then supposedly raping a black stripper was a fantasy “as old as slave masters impregnating young slave girls.”  Jackson’s organization Rainbow/PUSH Coalition even said they would pay the woman’s tuition whether she made the story up or not.  Sharpton was invited on to “The O’Reilly Factor” to discuss the case.  When Bill O’Reilly suggested because DNA tests did not match the lacrosse players’ that Ms. Mangum, who had already accused three men of raping her in 1993–a story her own father said was fabricated, became very upset and asserted that what O’Reilly said was not true.

Sharpton became very involved in the Tawana Brawley case of 1987, which involved 15-year-old Tawana Brawley accusing six white police officers of raping her, smearing her with feces, and writing racial epithets on her torso in charcoal.  Brawley was found alive, but unresponsive, in a trash bag near an apartment building smeared with feces and covered in charcoal slurs.  Sharpton became a legal and public relations adviser for Brawley.  He and the girl’s attorneys even suggested government officials were attemtping to cover up the case to protect the white defendants.  Sharpton also said that Steven Pagones, the Assistant District Attorney for Duchess County, NY, was one of the rapists and colored(no pun) him a racist.   After hearing the case, a grand jury decided Brawley was not the victim of the alleged assualt and that she created the appearance of the crime herself, smearing herself with a dog’s feces and writing the derogatory words on her own torso.

A more recent case of race profiting involves conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh, a man who has in the upwards of TWO to THREE MILLION listeners per day.  On October 7, Bryan Burwell, a sports columnists, claimed Limbaugh said the following:

I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: Slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back. I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.

Burwell offered absolutely no evidence to support his claim that Limbaugh made the above statement.  The statement was repeated by many news outlets as a statement straight from the mouth of Limbaugh.  The “quote” actually came from the Jack Huberman book 101 People Who Are Really Screwing America.  The author himself offers no transcript of Limbaugh’s radio show nor any audio clip from any of Limbaugh’s show, offered on his website, to support his claim.  The fact of the matter is, Burwell and Huberman are lying.  Limbaugh never made any such claim.  Limbaugh’s quotes have often been distorted to “prove” he is a racist.  One such example is Limbaugh’s saying in 2003 that liberal sports commentators were very impressed with Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb and that he is getting credit he did not deserve for his team.  Limbaugh was referencing several sports commentators, on of which (Selena Roberts) claimed that the NFL was as “white as baking soda.”  The Left immediately accused Limbaugh of being a racist and putting him in the same category as genetecists Jimmy the Greek Snyder and Al Campanis who said blacks were bred for atheletics and were inferior to whites.  It is funny that the Left made no effort to state the fact that Walter Williams, a black political pundit, is often a guest host on Limbaugh’s show.  Limbaugh made no such assertion, but with the Left the facts are not important, the spin is.

Further, when Representative Joe Wilson (R-SC) proclaimed during President Obama’s address to the Joint Session of Congress that President Obama lied when he said his new healthcare plan would not cover illegal immigrants, liberals set to work making it an issue of race.  New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd attributing the act to pure racism.  “Some people just can’t believe a black man is president and will never accept it,” stated Dowd in addition to saying what Wilson really wanted to say was, “You lie, boy!”  Boy, a common epithet for blacks in the, um I don’t know 60′s, was inserted by Dowd, saying this was the unspoken word she and many others heard in Wilson’s outburst.  This is just one of the many examples of the Left painting the decent Americans who dare criticize Obama, the Messiah, on his policies as racists, bigots, Nazis, (insert favorite name for conservatives here), etc.

In our supposedly postracial society, it seems that those who want equality most, or at least say they do, often are the ones invoking race every chance they get.  Why must we who genuinely do not view race as an issue in life be decried as racists for no reason.

10/23/09

My opinion on the matter is that the government should not close down the facility.  And the government does not torture!

If waterboarding is torture, I have similarly tortured my siblings years before waterboarding made headlines.

The Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility is in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a small island just off the larger communist island.  This detention facility, sometimes referred to by its critics as an “internment camp” or “labor camp,” houses mostly persons of Middle Eastern origin and is run by the Central Intelligence Agency.  All the detainees have been deemed enemy combatants.  These persons, housed at Gitmo—a common alternate name of Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility—are all suspected to be of some connection to either al-Qaeda or the Taliban.  Both of these are terrorist organizations.  Al-Qaeda—meaning “the base” or “foundation”—was established by Osama bin Laden after the Afghan victory in the war between the USSR forces and the Afghan forces which recruited young Muslim extremists.  That April 1988 victory for the extremist forces—that is, the Muslim extremists—brought rise to the organization we now know as al-Qaeda.[i] In 1992, bin Laden, representing al-Qaeda issued a fatwa calling for jihad against the occupation of Islamic lands by Western forces (this pertained to such forces as the United States troops deployed to Somalia in late 1992).  In August of 1996, bin Laden declared war on the United States of America.  In 1998, he issued a public fatwa, or religious decree, that stated that Muslims had an obligation to wage holy war on United States citizens because of the United States’ responsibility for maintaining the Saud royal family as the rulers of Saudi Arabia and maintaining the state of Israel, dominated by Jews.  The sole purpose of al-Qaeda is to follow bin Laden’s decree.  The Taliban is a Sunni extremist group which believes in a strictly theocratic government.  This group believes in the practice of the sharia code, religious law.

Arguments exist on the left that the United States government imprisons just anyone they want to at the Guantanamo Bay facility.  This is completely false.  The left constantly questions the authority of the detainments.  Because the laws of war have primarily evolved in the context of international armed conflicts, that is conflicts between armed forces of nation states, Congress had to interpret these laws of war as they pertain to the current armed conflict.  The authority of detaining these prisoners is based on the Authorization for the Use of Military Force.  Accordingly, under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, “the President has the authority to detain persons that the President determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, and persons who harbored those responsible for those attacks.  The President also has the authority to detain persons who were part of or substantially supported Taliban or al-Qaida forces or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act, or has directly supported hostilities, in aid of such enemy armed forces.”  The exact nature of “substantial support” can be ascertained nor the characteristics of “associated forces.”  The concept of these two alone does not justify the detainment of persons who unwittingly or insignificantly support the organizations al-Qaeda/Taliban.  The facts and circumstances of justification vary from case to case and may require analysis and identification of “various analogues from traditional international armed conflicts.”  In response to the September 11, 2001 attacks on America, Congress authorized President George W. Bush to “use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”  The mentioned attacks were carried out by al-Qaeda, which was harbored by the Taliban.  The Authorization for the Use of Military Force Preamble that it is “both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad.”  This includes interrogation.[ii]

Gitmo has become a media sensation with the claims of people, usually of the liberal persuasion, that torture is implemented quite often at this facility and to no avail.  This claim is just simply not true.  There is no support for the allegations that the inmates at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility are tortured.  This is so because of the legal definition of torture.  People on the left constantly clamor for better treatment of the detainees saying that they should have basic constitutional rights.  These are the same people that call the Bush administration an administration of human rights violations.

All the detainees, as stated before, have been deemed enemy combatants.  These are people who were captured either on the battlefield or during other militaristic operations.  According to a United States Supreme Court ruling[iii]:

Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful.  The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who

without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.

According to the Geneva Convention, only soldiers captured in uniform may have the Geneva Convention standards applied to them.  Since most of al-Qaeda’s and the Taliban’s soldiers wear no official uniforms, or insignia for the guerrilla warriors, the standards of the Geneva Convention do not apply.  It was ruled in the 2006 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case by the Supreme Court that Article 3 of the Geneva Convention be applied to all detainees, however.  Article 3 states that noncombatants—combatants that have laid down their arms or are out of the fight due to wounds, detention, et cetera—are entitled to minimal protections.  This article allows for the humane treatment of prisoners and allows for the detainees to be tried in civilian courts instead of military courts.  In 2007, the Department of Defense issued a memorandum stating it would enact Article 3 for all detainees.  No acts of alleged torture were carried out after that point, and any detainee that has stood trial was not tried by military tribunal.  Another talking point for the left is the so-called fact that the detainees are entitled to the constitutional rights of all United States citizens since they are held in the care of the United States Central Intelligence Agency.  This is an easily-struck-down point.  First and most important, the detainees are not American citizens and are heretofore not guaranteed rights that American citizens are.  Second, the detainees are held offshore of the United States.  They are not held in the United States; so international law applies, not United States law.

[ii] May 13, 2009 Respondents’ Memorandum Regarding the Government’s Detention Authority Relative to Detainees Held at Guantanamo Bay (response to the Guantanamo Bay Detainee Litigation)

[iii] http://www.law.umkc.edu/fuculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/quitir.html

Once the detainees arrived, they would be subjected to solitary confinement ranging from sixteen months to three years.  During their solitary confinements, the detainees were given Internet printouts of newspapers, sometimes magazines, and even whole newspapers.  The inmates were allowed no communication with the outside world.  This included their families, friends, embassies, et cetera.  The Red Cross memo goes on to describe acts of “ill-treatment” to which the inmates were subjected.[i] The memo’s descriptions are reproduced below:

Suffocation by water poured over a cloth placed over the nose and mouth, alleged by three of the fourteen.  Confinement in a box to severely restrict movement alleged in the case of one detainee.  Prolonged nudity alleged by eleven of the fourteen during detention, interrogation and ill-treatment; this enforced nudity lasted for periods ranging from several weeks to several months.  Exposure to cold temperature was alleged by most of the fourteen, especially via cold cells and interrogation rooms, and for seven of them, by the use of cold water poured over the body.  Forced shaving of the head and beard, alleged by two of the fourteen.  Deprivation/restricted provision of solid food from 3 days to 1 month after arrest, alleged by eight of the fourteen.

To elaborate on this, the “suffocation” is commonly known as waterboarding.  Waterboarding is an enhanced interrogation technique in which a person is strapped to a board, his head tilted downward, and water is poured onto the face.  The box in which the inmates were confined were sometimes long and skinny and sometimes short and fat.  The other acts of “torture” are exactly what they sound like.

Accounts of waterboarding have been given by both detainees and non-detainees.  Khalid Sheikh Mohammed gave his account of water boarding, saying, “I would be strapped to a special bed, which can be rotated into a vertical position.  A cloth would be placed over my face.  Water was then poured onto the cloth by one of the guards so that I could not breathe.  This obviously could only be done for one or two minutes at a time.  The cloth was then removed and the bed was put into a vertical position.  The whole process was then repeated during about 1 hour.”  Abu Zubaydah explained his waterboarding experience as well, “I was put on what looked like a hospital bed, and strapped down very tightly with belts.  A black cloth was then placed over my face and the interrogators used a mineral water bottle to pour water on the cloth so that I could not breathe.”  FOX News correspondent Steve Harrigan volunteered to be waterboarded.  Harrigan underwent three phases of the interrogation technique.  The event was captured on video.  In the first stage, two “interrogators” applyied pressure to Harrigan’s stomach and chest, while the third “interrogator” poured water over his face.  The second stage was similar, but Harrigan’s mouth was covered with a wet towel; water was the poured over Harrigan’s nose.  The third stage involved water being dripped into Harrigan’s nose with what appeared to be a turkey baster while cellophane covered his mouth.  After his subjection to “torture,” Harrigan concluded that the waterboarding technique is “a pretty efficient mechanism to get someone to talk and then still have them alive and healthy within minutes.”[ii] On his second day in office, President Barack Obama deemed this interrogation technique torture and banned it.[iii] Waterboarding may be used only on high value detainees if the Central Intelligence Agency has credible information that a terrorist attack is imminent and if all other techniques fail, according to a 2005 Department of Justice memorandum.

As stated earlier, none of these are torture.  Section 2340 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 USC §2340) states the following[iv]:

1)      “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

2)      “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—

A the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;

B the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;

C the threat of imminent death; or

D the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and

3)      “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

To better explain this, the August 2002 Bybee Memorandum—known as one of the “torture memos”— also looked to the use of “severe pain” in certain other statutes, and concluded that to satisfy the definition in section 2340, pain “must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.”  Other statutes define it as an “emergency medical condition,” for purposes of providing health benefits, as “a condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain)” such that one could reasonably expect that the absence of immediate medical care might result in death, organ failure or impairment of bodily function.  That is not to say death, organ failure, or impairment of bodily function cause “severe pain,” but rather that “severe pain” may indicate a condition that, if untreated, could cause one of those results. The phrase “prolonged mental harm” is not defined in relevant medical literature or elsewhere in the United States Code.  The Bybee Memo concluded that in order to constitute “prolonged mental harm,” there must be “significant psychological harm of significant duration, e.g., lasting for months or even years.”  This is to say that “prolonged” means lasting for at least “months or even years”.[v] President Obama obviously did not read this memo.

[ii] http://mediamatters.org/research/200611060004

[iii] http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/28/despite-reports-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-waterboarded-

times/

[iv] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2340.htm

[v] August 1, 2001 Memorandum authored by James Bybee to John Rizzo