Hope and Change in Massachusetts

With the significant victory of our newest senator, many are scratching their heads wondering, “How did Scott Brown go from 30 points behind to 5 points ahead?”

From a strategy standpoint there are a few reasons Martha (or “Marsha”) Coakley didn’t join ranks with Pelosi and her minions.

First, though the media would have you believe otherwise, this race was about the health care bill. There’s no doubt about that. Democrats and Conservatives alike are sick of having the health care bill being shoved down their throats.

Massachusetts health care (instated by Romney) serves as a model for proposed health care bill. According to Rasmussen polling data over 2/3 of Massachusetts voters don’t like their current health care. Obamacare would be even worse than Romneycare and the voters knew this.

It was unwise for Coakley to repeatedly promise to vote for Obamacare. Health insurance costs have jumped through the roof in Massachusetts.

Not only are voters in Massachusetts having to pay for the burdens of their socialized medicine, but their current Governor raised the sales tax 25% during a recession despite promising to cut property taxes.

The people of Massachusetts simply cannot afford, in the very literal sense of the word, another Democrat.

President Obama Was Indeed a Member of the Socialist 'New Party'

Obama Divides Democrats As Progressive Fringe Mocks Americans

We’re currently witnessing a turning point in America’s political climate. The Democratic Party is fracturing and the Republican Party is uniting.

Democrats always ignore the lessons of history, but one lost lesson is contributing more than others to their current struggle. In bringing the party together, Democrats relied on a shared loathing of George W. Bush for their cohesion. The American nation made the same mistake during the Cold War, relying on mutual hatred for the Soviet Union to be the focal point of tenuous alliances with nations like Iraq.

The problem with these sorts of alliances is that once the bogeyman is gone, the alliance falls apart.

In the 2000’s, while Democrats were uniting under their hatred of President Bush, Republicans were unraveling in their own right. Since 1993-94, Republicans had built a coalition based on the strongest things that can bind people: firm and concise ideals. These ideals include dedication to a free market, limited government, and personal responsibility, with the government providing freedom and the generous hearts of individuals meeting their brother’s humanitarian needs.

But, even a coalition founded on ideals can dissolve when those ideals are ignored by the people elected to uphold them.

Beginning in 2006 and continuing through 2008, a Democratic Congress and Progressive President were elected by latching on to Republican hypocrisy while espousing platitudes of “Hope and Change” and demonizing any Republican who supported a single policy of President Bush. Who can blame Americans for voting for Obama, after all, much of the media hid Obama’s true character. Additionally, he’s a smooth talker who knew that the coalition wasn’t united because of his agenda and he therefore played the role of empty vessel, allowing Americans to see in him whatever their personal ideas of “Hope and Change” were.

But now, President Bush is gone and the many moderate and main-stream Democrats, who simply wanted anyone but a Republican, are growing terrified as they learn more about the fringe Progressives they united with.

These Americans are waking up to the reality that the Democratic Party is being controlled by socialist-minded Progressives. Mainstream Americans are furious at what Progressives, led by Obama, want to reshape America into.

“Wait a minute… during a recession, you’re going to impose an expensive energy tax on me to save ‘mother Earth’, when global warming is currently being debunked as a fraud?”

“Wait a minute… during a recession, you’re going to run a deficit of nearly $1,600,000,000,000 (that’s $1.6 trillion), spent largely on stimulus spending? Obama called it an emergency and promised that ‘There’s not enough time to read the bill, trust me that this stimulus will keep unemployment from reaching 8%.’ Isn’t unemployment now nearly 10% and rather than create sustainable jobs the stimulus just enlarges fringe Progressive programs?"

“Wait a minute… Social Security may run out of money in as few as two years, Medicare is failing too, and the comparatively tiny Cash for Clunkers program was an administrative disaster, but you think the government should run health care for every American and make participation mandatory?”

Average Americans, including Democrats, are taking to the streets and their town hall meetings because they are scared and angry that the Progressive fringe controlling the federal government is dissolving American ideals and pushing Socialism down their throats.

While the Democratic Party fractures, the Progressive fringe is allowing for Conservative ideals to be clearly and beautifully contrast against their Socialist vision for America. Americans of both parties are reuniting around freedom. The more that Progressives mock and ridicule mainstream America, the more clear it is to all Americans that only the Conservative ideals of freedom and personal responsibility represent anything near mainstream America.

Obama's New Slogan: "Changing What We Believe In"

President Obama changed his rhetoric from supporting “health care reform” to supporting “health insurance reform.” He doesn’t simply want to reform the insurance system, he wants to drastically alter the very nature of insurance.

Insurance is and always has been to protect against rare but catastrophic losses that a person would not be able to pay for on their own. People get car insurance to provide financial protection where there’s a total loss or they injure someone. People get homeowner’s insurance to cover against things like the small chance that their house will burn down. People used to get health insurance to provide against the risk of a serious accident or illness.

Insurance is like gambling. You are betting that something catastrophic will happen and the insurance company is betting against that bad thing happening. The company calculates the risk and the cost of covering the event, it does some calculations and adds on a little to run their business. If you like their price, you take their bet. If not, you shop elsewhere. If you are so high-risk, as to be too expensive, you lower your risk level and try again. It’s the free market and it works.

The reason that insurance works is because it does only cover a limited class of catastrophic events. The system spreads small amounts of risk over a large population. Can you imagine the cost of car insurance if every oil change, tune-up, or repair job were covered? How about if homeowner’s insurance covered the cost of painting your house, putting in a larger bathroom, or other preventative or even frivolous maintenance?

This is what has happened to health insurance and it is one of the reasons that the costs are so high. Americans expect health insurance to cover the cost of every procedure, doctor’s visit, and medicine, while at the same time they gripe about their rising premiums.

One tool to combat this problem is the utilization of high-deductible plans tied to tax-free Health Savings Accounts. These plans require that individuals pay their own routine medical expenses, usually up to $5,000 a year, but then kick in when a catastrophic event occurs. Therefore, they are much cheaper than boutique plans. Likewise, Health Saving’s Accounts provide that money paid for medical expenses never sees the IRS.

Obama wants the government to interfere in health insurance. However, government interference is largely responsible for the high cost of medical care. The government forces hospitals and physicians who treat MediCare patients to accept whatever money the government thinks the service is worth. If a service is worth $1,000 and the government only is willing to pay $600, the hospital makes up the difference by charging more to non-MediCare patients.

What needs to happen is rather than redefine “insurance,” we need to remind the American people of the purpose of insurance. If we put more money back in the pockets of Americans and empower them with the responsibility to choose the best services for the best price, costs will tumble as physicians and hospitals compete for business. Likewise, if we remove the artificial barriers from the insurance market, like those prohibiting shopping across state lines for insurance, these companies will be better able to compete for business and drive down prices.

The liberal solution to a problem always produces the opposite of its intended effect. It’s time for the government to stop causing problems and let the innovative citizens of the private sector provide the answer.

Canada Doesn't Get It

Barack Obama has scheduled a play date this month with Canada’s NDP (New Democratic Party) leader, Jack Layton. President Obama plans to sit down with Canada’s premier socialist “expert” on how to best nationalize our healthcare system.

Layton, who is known in his homeland for trying to imitate Obama’s feel good speeches, and Obama’s state-of-the-art suit ensembles, will now be urging Obama to imitate his party’s healthcare principles. Layton will spend three days this month bragging to Americans about Canada-Care, delivering speeches and meeting with Democrats.

When Brad Lavinge, the National Director of Canada’s NDP, was asked about the upcoming appointment, he stated, "We would go down there to not only defend Canada's health-care system -- but encourage them to adopt similar features."

Lavinge went on to say, “"[Medicare] is one of the greatest connections we have to each other. Regardless of your economic status, if you get sick, you will get care.”

Lavinge is right of course. If Canadians get sick, they do get care. He just fails to mention how long it may take depending on your ailment.

According to a recent study published in Health Affairs it could take a Canadian cancer patient up to 3 months to receive treatment. It was found that you were most likely to wait more than 1 month for elective surgery, 6 days or longer to see a doctor when ill…the list goes on.

The American Medicare System is the best case-study for demonstrating the failures of socialized medicine.

MIT economist Amy Finkelstein found terrible consequences which emerged in just the first five years of Medicare. U.S. hospital spending soared 37 percent without a "discernible impact on elderly mortality". Spending soared because individuals were getting services for next to nothing, encouraging individuals to abuse the system.

Since Medicare was implemented, the list of items covered by the health plan has grown each year. The monthly costs for this expanding list of coverage is much more than taxpayers can afford.

Today, Medicare consumes 15 percent of the federal budget and consumes similar shares of most state budgets.

You can be sure now that Obama and the Democrats are pushing a Medicare-like insurance policy for all, coverage will be even more measureless. “Necessary” procedures like abortion and sex change operations will soon be provided on the backs of taxpayers.

Since any logical person can surmise that health care is never free, how does Medicare offer such affordable care? Well to keep Medicare prices affordable, the government charges less for the medical procedures than the market price, forcing tax payers to make up the difference. This means health care isn’t going to be affordable for the next generation due to this philosophy of tax-care-coverage.

In other words, when the government makes something “affordable” or “free” it simply means the taxpayer is responsible for whatever plan-of-action the government decides is best for all.

From the Post Office to the DMV, it’s hard to try and think of an effective machine that the Government operates. Medicare is no different. Any Doctor can tell you about the massive amount of paper work that accompanies each Medicare transaction. In fact, in many states we are seeing more and more doctors REFUSING to accept Medicare patients.

In Seattle, the percentage of doctors who accept new Medicare patients fell from 71 percent to 55 percent in four years, according to the Washington-based Center for Studying Health System Change.

More to the point, we see in further studies conducted by the Center for Studying Health System Change that our Medicare system now closely parallels the beloved Canadian-run Medicare system. One such parallel is the increased refusal for treatment.

Gaining access to doctors, particularly specialists, has become increasingly difficult for seniors with Medicare.

Medicare controls its costs by setting artificially low fee schedules for the services it does cover. Nearly every year Medicare unilaterally cuts physician payments. And doctors, who have seen their operating costs increased radically over the years won't take the economic blows much longer. Our best and brightest in America will soon realize that under a system like Medicare, they’d be better off becoming trail lawyers suing doctors.

Just look at Canada, students there who are considering a medical career are giving it a second thought. Once the home of one of the developed world's highest physician-to-population ratios, Canada now ranks a sad 26th among 28 developed nations that maintain universal approaches to health care. Of course government restrictions are to blame. One such restriction is the increased difficulty in receiving physician training. Canada's physician-to-population ratio will continue to fall in coming years unless they look to other countries for help.

It’s clear that Obama and the Democrats are being pressured by our neighboring socialists to become more like them. More like them? A large percent of Canadians with cancer seek immediate aid from specialists in America. Who wouldn’t? The life expectancy in America is 30% more for a cancer patient than it is in Canada.

Americans have created a multi-faceted problem within the tangled web of health insurance problems, but our legislature would be well advised to look away from more government control and intervention for their solutions.

Let’s put possible solutions in the hands of Americans, who in the exercise of their freedom and creativity produce the best possible outcomes. After all, this is why America has a record of unparalleled inventiveness and a vast record of world changing development…not Canada.

Democratic Logic: Unity Through Division?

In a valiant effort to unite our country, one race at a time, Obama and his friends at the Department of Education are attempting to racially categorize every student across the nation. They will not sleep until every college student in America has been properly labeled.

In a recent memo that universities have submitted to faculty and students, it is “urgent” and “mandatory” that every person comply with new federal requirements for the collection and reporting of racial and ethnic data.

It’s a new survey that endeavors to more accurately “reflect the increasing diversity of the nation's population”. It’s a two part questionnaire with questions about your race and ethnicity. And this time, “other” doesn’t appear to be an option.

When Penn State’s Vice President was asked about the mandatory racial questionnaire he responded, “Complying with this government mandate is a top priority for Penn State as an institution, and we ask each student, faculty member, and staff member to make it a personal priority.”

He went on to say, “The University's eligibility for various kinds of federally funded student financial aid and for federal grants and contracts depends on compliance with this mandate."

In Obama’s defense, he has never been one to say that race doesn’t define you. In fact, his message has always been quite the opposite. That is why universities will only get money from the never-ending Obama wallet if you fit into his “diversity” category.

Perhaps these dangerously divisive tactics of racial labeling wouldn’t be so hard to stomach if we didn’t have to watch the left play the race card at every given opportunity.

Just a few days ago, conservative talk show host Glen Beck invited ACORN spokesperson Scott Levenson on his show to discuss the many instances of voter fraud across the nation. As to be expected, the conversation became fairly heated. When the show went to commercial, Glenn Beck took the opportunity to inform Levenson that ACORN was “bad for America”. Levenson cleverly replied “You’re just afraid of black people.”

Remember when House Minority Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina accused ALL republican governors of “not liking black people” because they opposed the $1,000,000,000,000 dollar bail-out plan?

Clyburn stated “The governor of Louisiana expressed opposition. He has the highest African-American population in the country. Governor of Mississippi expressed opposition. The governor of Texas, and the governor of South Carolina. These four governors represent states that are in the black belt. I was insulted by that,” Clyburn said. “All of this was a slap in the face of African-Americans. It had nothing to do with Governor Sanford.”

Well at least I’m comforted to know that not only white people are being accused of hating black people, apparently even GOP Governor Bobby Jindal can hate them too.

The left isn’t interested in overcoming racism. If that were true, they wouldn’t be forcing students to racially label themselves in order to receive government aid. They wouldn’t continue to make race an issue every time someone disagrees with them in a political debate unrelated to race.

The most successful solution to overcome racial divides is for race to no longer be a focus of our language and policies. I shouldn’t have to check a box that categorizes me based on my skin color when I go to school, the Dr.’s office, or any other place.

In order for Obama to accomplish his so-called desire to “bring the nation together” we have to stop playing these divisive racial games and become a nation that is made up of many cultures but of one blood, a nation that is no longer divided by racial categorizing. But then again, the left would lose their race card and the power that they have built on years of dividing Americans among themselves.

New Agenda for the Left: Make the Moderate GOP Look Increasingly Extreme

It’s been a long time coming. For those who haven’t heard, controversial Republican, Arlen Specter finally took the R from behind his name and replaced it with a big fat D.

After old-timey Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter advocated for socialization via the Democrat’s Stimulus Bill, and became one of the three “Republicans” responsible for passing the bill through the senate, most conservatives were fuming.

This wasn’t the first time Specter has flippantly forgot what party he represents, but it was the last straw for PA conservatives. And finally, his re-election efforts were looking grim.

Specter seems to be concerned only with self-preservation, so the switch makes sense. However, conservatives have significant reasons to be up in arms. As Specter was exiting stage left of the Republican Party he managed to paint the Republican Party as the one forcing him to make such a “conscience led” decision.

His derogatory statements against the GOP have given liberals a perfect opportunity to continue to paint us as extremists.

Specter stated that his primary reason for leaving the GOP was that the “Republican Party has moved far to the right” since the days of Reagan. The evidence he sites is the fact that 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania switched parties this past fall.

Those new democrats don’t prove that Republicans have become “too conservative”. It simply means Pennsylvania, for multiple reasons, has become much more liberal, as shown by last November’s election. Not to mention, party politics in America has become so black and white and so completely cyclical, that a very unpopular Republican president will single-handedly do all the necessary campaign work for the next Democratic president. We have seen this occur in many past elections over the years.

This statement by Specter gives liberals the perfect opportunity to say “See, I told you those right wing Republicans are off the deep end.” Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell couldn’t wait to get behind the camera to say “Arlen Specter finally decided that he couldn’t represent those crazy right wing radicals. He had no choice but to switch parties. He had to do what was in the best interest of America.”

What exactly has the Republican Party done in recent years to fall into this category of right wing extremism? Was it the Bush administration? Bush’s economic policies were pretty close friends with some of Obama’s. Bush’s big spending policies made conservatives everywhere wonder where he was taking the Republican reputation.

Maybe it’s the fact our Republican Presidential nominee voted as much with the democrats as he did his own party, and that his daughter is apparently now the leading spokesperson for all homosexual Republican activists.

The Republican platform and mission has not changed since the 1980’s. Our mission still reads the same. If only the Republican Party stood by our mission more like we did during the Reagan administration instead of being bullied by leftists who demand that conservatives accept their ideologies and morals…or lack thereof.

It’s the principles and mission Arlen Specter has a problem with, not the alleged “right wing radicals” in Pennsylvania. In fact, after listening to Arlen justify his vote for the stimulus bill, I can probably guess which areas of our mission he has the most problems with:

I BELIEVE free enterprise and encouraging individual initiative have brought this nation opportunity, economic growth and prosperity.

I BELIEVE government must practice fiscal responsibility and allow individuals to keep more of the money they earn.

I BELIEVE the proper role of government is to provide for the people only those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals or private organizations, and that the best government is that which governs least.

Oh and let’s not forget the values section of the Republican platform, maybe Specter didn’t read this section before registering as a Republican all those years ago:

Values of the Republican Party Platform

Upholding the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Ensuring Equal Treatment for All

Protecting Our National Symbols

Freedom of Speech and of the Press

Maintaining The Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life

Preserving Traditional Marriage

Safeguarding Religious Liberties

Preserving Americans’ Property Rights

Where Are The Real Liberals?

Some gay-gossip-queen-blogger by the name of "Perez Hilton" decides to launch an all out assault on a 21 year old beauty pageant girl, who answered a simple opinion question about the definition of marriage.

Apparently there was only one right answer, and the penalty for not answering the question "correctly" was to demonize her publicly and call her names that I won't mention here.

I'm confused…why hasn't anyone called Hilton's crude actions a hate speech crime? All this girl did was state a personal opinion and is now being persecuted. Where are the liberals advocating free speech?

In an interview with Larry King after the pageant, Perez was asked if Miss California's answer about gay marriage lost her the competition. Without hesitating, Perez answered "Oh, most definitely, all the judges thought her answer was a bad answer. Her answer needed to be politically correct. Her answer needed to be all inclusive."

Just so we're clear everyone, unless your opinions echo that of the radical left they are "bad answers", "bad opinions".

Conservative views rooted in Christian morals are the only one's not allowed in America…for the record.

Later, the owners of this pageant apologized for Miss California's answer. The agents from California, who were previously her friends, cut her off saying, "she doesn't represent California, and she doesn't represent America."

Actually, if we are to be politically correct…meaning politically ACCURATE, 85% of America still believes that marriage should be between one man and one woman. Excuse me California, as left and brainwashed as your state is, you STILL passed Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage!

You should actually be thanking Miss California for representing the majority of people in California, or at least give her the common decency of expressing an opinion without being called the b-word, the c-word and being denied first place in a stupid beauty pageant.

Where are the real liberals? I thought liberals were all in favor of the free exchange of ideas, freedom of thought and freedom of speech.

When groups of people are bullied into answering questions a certain way, or not allowing members of our society the right to express certain beliefs, it's called censoring, a fundamental tenant of a socialist society.

They Wouldn’t Write Anything about Al-Qaeda Like This…

I wouldn't worry patriots, these outrageous accusations from Obama and his pals from Homeland Security aren't anything new. Liberals have been craftily waging a war of language and labeling for years.

Remember back to 1995, when Timothy McVeigh went nuts and bombed a federal building in Oklahoma City, it was shortly after this tragedy that Bill Clinton snatched the opportunity to blame conservatives, and conservative radio for McVeigh's heinous act of terrorism.

President Clinton referred to conservative radio hosts as "loud and angry voices" who were "spreading hate and leaving the impression by their very words that violence is acceptable." In an interview with the Detroit Free Press, Clinton urged radio talk show hosts and their conservative callers to stop "fostering hate and division and encouraging violence."

I think Rush Limbaugh was probably offended for being blamed for the deaths of nearly 170 lives by the president of the United States.

So do you think Slick Willy honestly thought that conservatives were to blame for the bombing? Or was he taking this opportunity to play the blame game in an attempt to restrict the rights of the Americans that were still in favor of a free America…not an enslaved America that Bill Clinton and Friends envisioned?

It was soon after the bombing that President Clinton urged for the quick passage of new anti-terrorism legislation. His original plan would allow the President to declare a group "terrorist" without the likelihood of judicial review. (Doesn't sound like a balance of power to me.)

In more recent news, take a look at the comments of Obama's B.F.F., Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell. The governor cites the shooting of three police officers in Pittsburgh, PA as a motivator for legislators to take fast action to promote stricter gun laws.

In fact, I don't know if anyone noticed the reference in the Homeland Security memo yesterday to the tragic events in Pittsburgh, but liberals are using the actions of a deranged wacko with an AK-47 to label all conservative gun owners as potential terrorist threats. How clever. I guess the daily shootings and stabbings on the inner streets of Philadelphia by African American gang bangers don't make the A-list of terrorist threats to America. Or at least DHS is too afraid to stereotype and target anyone but conservatives.

This is what liberals do. They blame the warm weather or some wacko with a gun for something, and then use fear and panic to slowly remove our individual liberties.

As offensive as it is for conservatives to be labeled as a larger threat to America than Al-Qaeda, Kim Jong Il, or the countries of China, Iran, or Venezuela... we can't expect anything less from the dangerous left and Obama's team lead by Janet Napolitano, who would rather wage a war against veterans and constitution loving citizens than the real enemies.