I don't get much time to do basic research.  Like you, I have a job.  The people who oppose us, this is their job. Fortunately, there are people who do have access to the resources I don't (or don't have time to hunt down) and who've had time to reason some of these issues out to their logical conclusions.  Remember, liberalism fears logic, since it easily exposes their game.

I heard a number of things on the radio tonight, specifically on Hugh Hewitt's show, that finally gave me the arguments I needed to make for some of the things Congressman Gonzalez has been saying in his "newsletters."

Argument 1: The United States is a wealthy nation.  If Canada, England, France and so on can afford to run centrally managed health care systems, why can't we?

Answer 1a: As I've been known to say, do the math.  The population of the US is estimated to be somewhat above 307 million humans.  According to a caller to Hugh's show, if we total all the humans in those three nations mentioned above, they reach just over 278 million.  Doesn't sound like much difference, does it?  Until you consider that no single nation in that list even approaches our  population load, and we're not talking about the difference between 278 and 300.  Million.  So, I looked them up.  Canada, call it 34 million. England, 49 million.  OK, call it 50 million. For France, call it 63 million.  Throw in the Netherlands...17 million.  She came in low. I get 164 million, even with rounding upward fairly generously.  Maybe she had newer numbers than I found on the internet, or I missed a nation or two. In the case of Canada, we are about to dump the equivalent of Canada's population on a Medicare system that's already very shaky.

Answer 1b: Let's face it. America's military is absolutely unbeatable on the field of battle.  We are the go-to guys and gals when you want something blown up right now.  We still struggle with asymmetric warfare, but right now that's because...well, that's not the point.  The point is, that kind of battlefield prowess didn't come cheap, and keeping it that way isn't getting any cheaper.  Ask Europe, when hundreds of Russian T-90S main battle tanks show up on their borders, who are they gonna call? Ghost-busters?

Argument 2: The stories of medical rationing in those nations are scare-ups invented by the Republicans to politicize health care.

Answer 2a: I have a dear, dear friend who lives in Canada.  Recently, she was ill with a respiratory issue of some sort.  Another friend took her to the hospital and she was being treated in minutes.  They sent her home with a supply of meds, all free of charge.  Except for the crushing tax rate. Don't misunderstand me.  I love my friend and I'd be devastated if anything happened to her.  But, what she experienced, in the scheme of things,, didn't cost  much.  No MRI's. No CT scans. No expensive, cutting edge medicines.  And she happens to live in a fairly sparsely populated area of the country.  Remember? 34/307, eleven percent of our total population.

Answer 2b: How many times do aged people need to be denied health care for it to be tragic?  Congress claims they will get their $500 million (one half trillion, folks) out of Medicare.  Who gets Medicare coverage? Mom, dad and the grandparents.  One of President Barack Obama's "czar's" is on record advocating that health care be triaged based on the patient's value to society. Under eighteen and over sixty and the rest of society has no real use for you.  But I'll bet the kids will want some say in that.

Argument 3: President Barack Obama only wants to cure the ills in the health care system; the high cost, the lack of portability, the exclusion of pre-existing illnesses and a few other hand-wringers tossed in for good measure.

Answer 3: Me too.  But I'd like to die in reasonable comfort when the Lord calls, not when society determines I am no longer sufficiently valued to keep alive. I also have to ask why the conservatives have been almost completely locked out of this process, with the exception of a very few who are in no position of have real impact, and whose input has been ignored? 

Why do we have the bouncing-demonization of the week? Doctors who perform unnecessary operations.  Oops...how about those evil corporate executives... Or the Republicans, who have no plan, even if we weren't ignoring it? Or George Bush (pick one)? Or the Astro-turf, swastika bearing screamers with blue hair at the Town Hall meetings? Or those dastardly, profit-grubbing insurance companies... Or Fox News?

It is the attacks by the Obama administration on the ordinary mechanisms of American politics that lead me to be distrustful of him and his.  He's made repeated attacks on the first amendment, from excluding reporters who weren't slobbering at the sight of him during the campaign to declaring Fox News to be the "opposition" today.

He's brought on upwards of thirty political managers, the "czars," who didn't endure the "advise and consent" of the Congress, about whom we know little, including much about what they are doing. The federal government now owns roughly one half of the automobile industry, with no sign that it intends to divest itself of that burden any time soon. 
Trust me, after the economic collapse, when Obama hollers "Jump!" the nation's financial institutions are yelling back, "How high?"

If, while blindfolded, I am presented with a soft flower, a sweet scent and sharp thorns, I don't have to be told the odds that it is a rose.

Keep those emails going, folks.  This one isn't over yet.  If they have to force it down our throats without any conservative support at all, then they own it. That frightens them.  Which brings up another question. 

If this is such a great idea, and they are so certain of that...why are we still arguing about it? Surely our benevolent rulers would have acted in our best interests, despite ourselves, by now.

I would surmise that I was not alone in feeling a little queasy about today, the 8th anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center. Throughout the day I kept checking the news sites to make sure nothing had blown up suddenly.  So far, at least, there have been no attacks.  The next few days will be an irritant to my paranoia bump too, but I'll just thank God for today and hope for the best for tomorrow.

You see, I think we are setting ourselves up for another successful attack—successful from their point of view.  President Barack Obama has been the poster boy for ambivalent behavior about WWIII. First he's going to empty Gitmo, then he can't, then he's going to use tribunals, then he's not. For a while even the use of the word "terrorism" is banned, then it returns, then it's gone, then... About the only thing he has done consistently is apologize to our enemies and alienate our oldest and most loyal allies.  Israel, England, Honduras, the list goes on and on. We've allowed the Hydra-Heads of State of the governments most likely to destroy us to be feted at the UN while leaving Israel to wonder if they are going to have to face a nuclear Iran alone. Israel's PM has openly referred to Barack Obama as an "arrogant youth." Russia's President patted Barack Obama on the head and left him looking like a chastened child after their recent meeting.

I remember September 11, 2001 as clearly as if it were actually today.  I am as upset and angry today as I was that day. But, apart from a few of my friends at work, I seem to be the only one who remembers that day.  As most of you know, I am a high school teacher. Even my seniors were only ten years old on that day.  I spoke to a few. They knew the adults around them were upset, but weren't sure why and, for most of them, life proceeded pretty much as it had before.

As a nation, we are forgetting. Our children aren't taught how their government was designed to work and we are prohibited, as teachers, from inculcating them in the values that made America great.  We act as if we are ashamed of our past and afraid of our future.  It has somehow become wrong to go boldly, confident we are right.  President Barack Obama and his ilk have focused us on what our nation did wrong rather than on the changes we've made toward our ideals. We've discovered that Barack Obama's passionate oratory is a thin shell covering a man who hates his nation and has no respect for its citizens. The liberal left has succeeded in making us look weak and now, be weak.
 
Recently, some ruckus was made about Barack Obama's move to make 9/11 into a generalized National Day of Remembrance.  Given holidays like President's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Veteran's Day and all the plethora of Days we celebrate, I'm not sure I know what he wants us to remember since it certainly doesn't seem to be the attack on the Twin Towers.  I read that he called for volunteers to his Youth Service plan, a sort of low-cost Obama Youth in purple shirts.  Brown is so passe' this year.

I have a suggestion.  Let's call it our National Day of Reaffirmation, the day we all stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance and rededicate ourselves to our founding principles, our on-going determination to make this land the safest, most innovative, most productive and most free in the world.  Make it the day when our President looks into a TV camera and reminds the architect of the 9/11 attack that we haven't forgotten him and that when we find him, we won't be carrying any handcuffs or reading him his rights. Make it a day for us to practice the steely-eyed gaze that once froze dictators in their tracks, promised to avenge cruelty and liberate the oppressed.

You've seen the look I mean. Clint Eastwood once bestowed that trademark look on a TV interviewer and so flustered the man he had to break for commercial while he regained his composure.  It's the same furrowed brow, narrowed eyes and snarling scowl we see on Joe Biden's face just before he says something stupid.

Next year's 9/11 will be the same span of time away from national elections as this one was.  Let us band together and make sure that our freshly conservative Congress will declare 9/11 to be the day we remind ourselves what our freedom really cost and declare that we will never again come so close to surrendering that freedom to the evil in white robes that promises nirvana if we'll just let them take us there. Let it be the day we tell the world we don't give a damn what they think, we are proud of ourselves, our history and our freedom.  Proud enough that we'll resume teaching our children how our government is designed to work, teaching our real history, warts and all, and teaching them that the future is bright, with ever more progress, ever more innovation, ever more prosperity, and ever more real, tangible freedom for every American.  Let it be the day that we promise our friends that they can rely upon us once again to remain real friends, not schizophrenic lunatics who change our political personality like teenage girls change boyfriends.

Finally, let it be the day that we promise our enemies that they are welcome to run their countries any way their people will tolerate, but if they harm one American, they harm us all—and they won't enjoy the response.  We can be that shining beacon of freedom in the world once again.

Let's call it, oh, how about 9/11? It doesn't matter what we call it.  It matters that we do it.

So, tomorrow, begin recruiting new people for this network.  Join the other conservative groups, send the email and sign the petitions.  Donate whatever you can spare to conservative candidates with real chances to defeat their liberal opponents and send the receipt to your favorite liberal politician as a kind of preliminary pink-slip.

We don't have much for which to thank Barack Obama, but his legacy will be that he reawakened the Sleeping Giant, the American people, energized and participating in their government—just like the Founders intended.

Susie thinks Mrs. Obama looked angry and speculated they'd had a fight.
Biden-Pelosi jumping jacks? Again.
 
Not a Republican stood. Eventually, President Barack Obama managed to say a few things they were willing to applaud.

President Barack Obama stated that we were the world's only wealthy democracy that didn't provide universal health care. 

My answer? We're also the only surviving democracy that is still producing innovative advances in medicine. Once the healthcare system is wrecked and the free market no longer exists for medical care, then all that research and innovation will cease.  In a very few years, we will no longer have the capacity to restart that research without considerable lead-time.  When students aren't motivated to enter medicine, we get no new doctors or researchers.

He claims that healthcare is THE deficit problem? The mind boggles. He forces through the largest spending bill in the world's history, let alone ours, and he thinks healthcare is causing his deficit?  He's completely disconnected from our Universe.

So, what is his plan?

Asks everyone to take part, to take responsibility.  I assume that means to shoulder the costs.

There's the same old "nothing in this plan" nonsense.  His words, taken literally, are true.  The bill does not force you off whatever plan you have.  It just makes it impossibly expensive for your employer to remain with your current carrier.  I can just imagine how quickly the state of Texas will be on the "public option."
 
What is going on here is instance after instance of set-ups that permit these things we fear by not forbidding them.  Nothing says they'll pay for abortions.  Nothing says they won't either.  Nothing says this committee will determine what and how much.  But the "Secretary" will act on those NON-MANDATORY recommendations and make them mandatory. I want to know which alternate reality permits the government to dictate which procedures will be provided and then claim that they won't be interfering with our relationship with our doctors?

We make police officers show cause when they make a traffic stop. Because we've given them the power and authority to make those stops—we want to be certain that power isn't abused.  This bill is one massive flight of unrestrained power.

These are the things he wants: pre-existing conditions must be covered, they can't drop you when sick, no caps on payouts (blink!) and caps on out-of-pocket charges.
Let's get real here.  No one likes these things.  They should not be capricious.  But, face it, insurance companies are in business to (gasp!) make money.  That's what a free market is all about.  Covering pre-existing conditions means they must accept people they know are going to cost more than they are paying in premiums. Forbidding the company from dropping patients once they are sick means that they are left open for massive fraud from patients with un-provable illnesses that are expensive but have no real basis in medicine.

(The single most common employee comp fraud is back pain.  That's because it's easy to fake and impossible to disprove.)

No caps on payouts? Same argument.  Caps on oop charges? Still the same argument.  In addition, ordinary people are then ill-motivated to reconsider an emergency room visit for the common cold. 

No extra charge for testing? Where did that come from?  I've my share of health issues and I've never seen any sign of being charged "extra" for testing.

I don't have the answers for these problems.  I really don't.  I'm caught in the pre-existing condition trap.  It's not fun.  Real people come down with real illnesses that can cost millions of dollars to treat.  Every one is a tragedy.  Dropping a person who entered into the contract in good faith and then became ill is morally wrong, contractually wrong and damned well should be illegal. My argument would be the same for caps on total payouts.  My guess is that it's fairly rare, but I can easily imagine a person with chronic health problems running up a multi-million dollar bill.  That's the whole point in spreading the risk and allowing the insurance companies to compete nationally would seem likely to fix that. 

Capping oop? Well, with some protection against fraud, I'd be willing to force that one down their throats.  My point being, if you force the insurance industry into these conditions without some protection built in for their profit, they will soon be out of business...which I maintain is what the liberal left wants in the first place.

What the devil is this insurance exchange? I've read most of the bill and I have no idea what he means.  It looks to me like he's expecting a consortium of insurance companies to band together to provide a risk pool pro bono, i.e. at no charge.

For the really poor, the ones who can't afford the basic coverage, he wants tax credits "according to your need."  Shudder.  To each according to their needs... Where have we heard that before?

He wants to immediately offer low cost coverage? Really? Who will do that? My guess is we will. 

If you choose not to buy coverage, he wants to fine you. Everyone will be required to carry basic coverage. Excuse me.  If the government wants a check and they won't take no for an answer, that is a tax. So, you have a choice.  Buy the government supplied, inexpensive insurance, or buy the publicly offered, higher cost insurance.  Hmmm... let me think about that a minute. The carrot or the semi-auto pistol in the U.S. Marshall's fist? I think Barack Obama's got this financial incentive thing down pat.  Too bad he won't apply the idea to taxes.

Then the demonization began. His evil opponents, spreading lies and using scare tactics.  My God, they even read the bill!  How dare they!  About here he made some comment about it being a lie that the bill would cover illegal aliens. South Carolina Republican Rep. Joe Wilson shouted "You lie!"  Nancy Pelosi was apoplectic! That glare was worth the entire forty-eight minutes of rerun!  I understand he later apologized.  Frankly, I would have apologized for interrupting, but not for the accusation.

He pushes competition. There's the public option. He claims it would have to be self-supporting by premiums. Only 5% of the population would sign up. He didn't tell us that works out to fifteen million people.  Only 15,000,000 people.  Doesn't sound so hot, does it? Oh, and everyone else stays with their current, now more expensive, insurance.

There comes a flurry of claims and comments.  I had some trouble keeping up.  It would apply only to targeted areas or co-ops...of some kind. He wants Americans to have a choice. No bureaucrat will get between you and your doctor. He will not sign it if it adds to deficit. He will pay for it with savings from inside the current system, I presume he means Medicare and Medicaid.  That would be the $650 billion in cuts to Medicare? Sorry, Mom, Dad. Cut back on those pain meds to save money. Sorry you can't breathe. Don't worry. It'll be over soon.

At that point, I'm thinking, "You're going to have to re-write HR3200."

He goes on. None of Medicare trust to be spent. Commission to find waste and fraud. Prescription drug coverage. What are these changes? Why are we supposed to believe the government can effectively cure itself? He can't even start thhis speech on time. Wasn't AlGore supposed to root out waste and fraud during the Clinton Administration?  He did, didn't he? I mean between inventing the Internet and stuff.

Barack Obama wants to charge a surtax for Cadillac coverage. Suddenly, he skips over the problems of medical malpractice and, although he doesn't use the word, tort reform. Oh, we might let you experiment with it, but nothing serious.  No need to anger all those nice trial lawyers.

He claims the CBO comes in with $900 billion over 10 years. Much of it will be paid for by the wealthiest Americans. I had no idea I'd become wealthy.

Then he flips back and forth a couple of times, from good cop to bad cop and back again.  He wants to seek common ground. Strange...he won't meet with the Republican leadership.  Perhaps the ground is only common if he owns it? Then, he promises that if you indulge in more lying and fear-mongering, he'll call us out.  Say what?  Like, "C'mon, let's take this outside?"  A common bar brawl?  Or maybe IRS audits?  Visits from the ATF? More "fishy" data collection efforts?  What, precisely, is he going to do to me for telling the truth about his bill?

Back to good cop.  He tries to call this a moral issue. Doing this is a part of the character of America.  He sniffles a bit as he drags Ted Kennedy's poor wife back over the grief-coals.  The poor woman is actually crying.  What kind of man would put a grieving widow on national TV so soon after her husband dies?  He may have been a creep, but she obviously loved him.  Is that the character of America? Cruelty to widows?

They can't claim moral high ground on this. It is insane to accuse our side of wishing hardship on our fellow citizens.  We want these problems fixed too. In fact, we actually, really do want these things fixed, as opposed to an attempt to grab control of another eighteen percent of the economy and clear up this baby-boomer problem by encouraging them to die!

Barack Obama tells us that hard work should be rewarded.  That must be why they're going to tax the wealthiest Americans and charge them extra for having really good health insurance.  I wonder—is he going to pay that surcharge too? They want to have it both ways.

Back to bad cop.  He begins whining about the angry words.  He must mean the American citizens with the brazen nerve to disagree with him.  You know, the 1.3+ million citizens who signed that petition. Why, things have gotten so bad they can't even talk!  I guess that's why they won't even talk to the Republicans, or admit that our side has offered real suggestions that don't involve destroying an entire industry.

He just wants to proceed without acrimony.  "Stop fighting with me. Give up and let me do it to you!"

Afterward, I had to listen to Bill O'Reilly discuss the speech.  A couple of things occurred to me, or were mentioned during the discussion.  One thing comes to mind, and one of the Congressmen mentioned it as well.  Which section of the Constitution permits the Federal government to require its citizens to carry some basic minimum of insurance?  The states get to do this.  Their constitutions (or equivalent) permit this for things like auto insurance. 

And...it finally dawned on me why the "end of life" stuff is in the bill, and why it's added to the Social Security Act.  When last I wrote about that, it seemed benign.  Now, it's possibly the most insidious part of the entire thousand page monstrosity.  They want to pay doctors to do this counseling.  They want to encourage doctors to encourage us to die without putting up too much of a fuss!

When O'Reilly challenged Axelrod to allow interstate competition, he tried to blame Bush for not doing it and when that didn't work, he tried to claim the rules preventing it are a state issue. So, Bush is evil for not doing what Axelrod thinks the federal government can't do? I wonder what Rod Serling from the "Twilight Zone" would have thought of that logic? The government can force every insurance company to cover pre-existing conditions but can't insist on states allowing inter-region competition?

Nothing has changed, folks.  President Barack Obama just spent forty-eight minutes telling us that the fight isn't over.

Below is a response from Congressman Gonzalez in his e-news letter he sends to his constituents.  I've come to believe that it's time to begin calling these "facts" what they are.  Bald-faced lies.

One thing the Democrats are trying to claim is that this bill is still in flux, i.e. that changes are still underway. While it is true that HR 3200 hasn't been reported out of committee and the Senate version is held up in the Finance committee, it is certain that what Congress will be voting on will closely resemble HR 3200 in nearly all respects.  You can wager good money that any changes the Democrats permit will be cosmetic at the very best.  Trying to argue that the bill is still plastic is simply a subterfuge to deflect arguments about the substance of the bill.
I'm not expert and I don't have the advantage of people to work the research for me, but my responses are in italics.

“Myths vs. Facts”
QUESTION: Many people have concerns that we can’t afford to reform our healthcare system at this time.
He can't even get the myth straight.  Most people's concerns are that the Obama administration has already spent multi-trillions of dollars on other initiatives and now they want to take control of a huge chunk of our economy and spend another nine trillion dollars. "Concern" isn't the word.  "Bankruptcy" is more like it.

RESPONSE:
The reality is that we can’t afford not to. Texas has the highest rates of uninsured adults and children in the U.S. I represent 1 in 4 people who are uninsured in my district.
Today, 18% of our GDP is consumed by healthcare costs. Health Insurance premiums have doubled over the last 9 years, three times faster than wages.
Sadly, due to cost small businesses are forced to choose between coverage and layoffs.

It may be the case that small businesses are sometimes forced to choose between coverage or layoffs.  This is nothing new.  I've never worked for a "small" business that offered health care coverage.  Most don't.  And haven't for decades.  Until one is employed by the larger companies, health care isn't one of the benefits.  Furthermore, according to D. Mark Wilson reporting on the Heritage Foundation's web site, the employer mandates in both versions of the bill will require virtually all small businesses to either carry an insurance benefit approved by the government, or pay a punitive tax.  These requirements will cost small business up to $49 billion per year and put 5.2 million low-wage employees at risk for their jobs.  Not because we did nothing, but because Congressman Gonzalez's bill will do the wrong thiing.

QUESTION: Some fear that this health reform plan is going to create a socialized healthcare system.
RESPONSE:
This proposal builds on the public/private system we already have. No healthcare providers will be employed by the government.

This is simply nonsense on the face of it.  The government already employs thousands, if not millions of health care providers.  Discounting military doctors and other  health care providers (to whom we are all deeply grateful that they place service to their country above the wages they could earn in civilian life) every doctor who accepts a Medicare or Medicaid check is de facto employed by the government.  With a public option, ever more will become employees of the government.  When you take their money, you follow their rules.  When you take their money, you are their employee.  The President has said several times that his goal is a single-payer system.  Democrats, to their credit, or damnation, depending on your point of view, never give up.  If they want a single-payer system, they will work toward it single mindedly.  Too bad Congressman Gonzalez doesn't have his own mind. 

QUESTION: Will this bill raise taxes for all Americans?

RESPONSE:
No one earning less than $280,000 a year individually or $350,000 as a couple will pay more taxes.
Only 1.2% of earners will be affected, and even those will contribute less than 1% of their annual income. Only 600 families in the 20th Congressional District would be impacted by this.

More nonsense. According to Nina Owcharenko reporting at Heritage.com, the employee mandate in both bills would require all Americans to purchase government approved health insurance, regardless of their personal choices regarding their needs.  If the government is requiring me to write a check, that is a tax.  So, those fifty million or so Americans the Democrats are so concerned about will acquire a new tax to go with their bright, shiny new health insurance.  Back to D. Mark Wilson, the mandates in these bills will affect between 95 to 105 million workers and an additional half to 1.4 million employers (who are also American citizens).  Split the difference and call it 100 million Americans, making it 33%, one third of all Americans.  Any lower figure is simply a lie.

QUESTION: There are lots of concerns that healthcare reform will mean fewer choices for Americans?
RESPONSE:
The House proposal will actually increase choice among an array of high-quality private and public health insurance options.
Most importantly, if you like what you have, you can keep it.
While, reform will create access to more Americans by providing a greater choices in doctors and plans by taking away the insurance industry’s ability to deny coverage and care.

Has it dawned on these people yet that "if you like...keep it" isn't being believed? I don't need to see what the Heritage Foundation thinks.  It's simple logic.  Private insurance companies cannot possibly compete in any way with a public option insurance plan, no matter what words they use to describe it, and will quickly disappear.  How can you compete with a business that can under-cut your prices at will, indefinitely, and, better yet, controls the rules under which you will operate?  Oh, yeah,  did I mention that the public option mandates roughly fifty million customers for the public option who will have no reasonable choice—take someone's coverage or be fined.  By the way, Uncle Sam's Health Care plan is much cheaper...


QUESTION: Seniors are concerned that Medicare benefits will be decreased and out-of-pocket costs will be increased as a result of health care reform. How will Health Care Reform impact Medicare?
RESPONSE:
NOTHING in this bill calls for a reduction in Medicare benefits for seniors or an increase in their out-of-pocket costs.  In fact, quite the opposite is true.
Health care reform will lowers costs for seniors by lowering prescription drug costs for people in the Medicare Part D coverage gap.
Medicare beneficiaries will not have to pay co-pays for preventative care and seniors will also have more doctors to choose from because the bill includes provisions that will expand the work force so that it will be easier to get appointments with your doctors.

While it may be true that NOTHING in this bill calls for reductions in Medicare benefits... Wait, I thought this bill is in flux, with nothing decided for certain? ...the Democrats are pushing for huge, $500 to 200 billion cuts in upcoming Medicare increases. They will do this by reducing payments made to doctors and hospitals, the villain of the moment. What this means is that more and more people become eligible for Medicare benefits, less and less money will be paid out for those benefits. You can't have it both ways, Congressman Gonzalez. You can't add one third of the population to what amounts to Medicare and pay for all of it without raising taxes or reducing benefits.  I suspect we will end up with both. HR 3200 and its Senate comrade will have to be followed up with legislation to fund the public option.

QUESTION: Our community continues to health that a Health Benefits Advisory Committee will determine which treatments & services are covered, which will ration care. Is this true?
RESPONSE:
Nothing in the role of the Health Benefits Advisory Committee infringes on the ability of an individual and the individual’s doctor to make medical decisions. IT DOESN’T HAVE BINDING/MANDATING AUTHORITY
This is not a “government” committee.  It will be made up of providers, consumer representatives, employers, labor, health insurance issuers, and independent experts who will recommend the minimum benefits that insurance plans should cover.

Once again, logic rears its ugly head.  If this Health Benefits Advisory Committee has no binding authority, why have it?  Our experience with government is that if an advisory council recommends it, it may as well have been graven on a granite tablet brought down from a mountain.  When you get down to page 33, sec 4 and 5, we find that this committee will recommend cost sharing levels, which means, in essence, they will determine what will be covered and to what amount.  The "Secretary" will be the sole authority to determine the adoption of the recommendations.  Page 36, section 3 makes it possible for the Secretary to adopt any standards he likes if he can't adopt the ones offered by the HBAC.  So, for all practical purposes, this committee, or the Secretary, neither of whom were elected, most of whom have been appointed by President Barack Obama, will determine who will get treated for what, by price or definition.  

QUESTION:  Will the House healthcare proposal ban private health insurance for individuals?
RESPONSE:
H.R. 3200 does NOT ban individual health insurance. It will expand options for people who currently have health insurance on the individual market and Existing policies to be grandfathered in, so people will not lose coverage.
Insurance companies will be required to accept people even if they have previously existing conditions and to provide a minimum level benefits.

John David Lewis, a professor at Duke University published an analysis of HR 3200, including the provisions that explicitly state that nothing in the bill shall be construed to eliminate  private insurance...and then sets about slanting the playing field in such a way that private insurance companies cannot hope to compete with the public option and will, in due time, be forced out of business.  It is the equivalent of declaring that any fast food company can continue in operation, but McDonalds will have their menu prices subsidized by the government so they can charge .35 for a Big Mac and still make a profit.  Sorry, Jack.

QUESTION: Some say that a public plan option will destroy the private insurance industry, what do you say to that?
RESPONSE:
This proposal will build upon the public/private system that already exists by increasing competition among insurers with the introduction of a public insurance plan. This benefits consumers by providing them with lower rates.

See the above.  This is the same question.  Either Congressman Gonzalez hasn't read the bill, he's too stupid to reason out the consequences, or he's lying.  You pick.

QUESTION: Will all people be forced into the public plan?
RESPONSE:
I voted in favor of an amendment which explicitly states that “Nothing in this division shall be construed as requiring anyone to enroll in the public health insurance option. Enrollment in such option is voluntary.”
The proposal merely adds a public plan to the choices of individual insurance plans from which people can choose.
If you purchase a plan through the Health Insurance Exchange, you can choose from all of those plans, public or private. 

Page 102, section 205, translated, says that if you do nothing, you are automatically enrolled.  You cannot decline the honor.  The evil villain employer is responsible for enrolling those employees still working after the massive layoffs this bill will cause. When all that is left is the public option, you'll have no choice, since everyone is required to have health insurance. Oh, on the same page, anyone who becomes eligible for Medicare will be automatically enrolled.  No choice.

QUESTION: Will this reform hurt small businesses by saddled them with fees, forcing them out of business because of health care costs?
RESPONSE:
This proposal aims to help small businesses provide this coverage to their employees.
We have included a tax credit for small businesses to help them provide health insurance for their workers.
We also exempt some small businesses from the employer requirement to provide coverage to employees, recognizing that even with a tax credit, providing healthcare for employees would be burdensome for some small employers.

Many small businesses, single owner operations with few employees, or part-time employees, do not currently offer health care insurance.  We've grown to accept this.  In point of fact, the person most often employed by these businesses is a part-time teenager who is already covered by their parent's insurance. In any case, this is how it's done.  If you want insurance, apply for a job at the local big corporation, or in the professional world.  Under HR 3200, every employer, right down to the guy who runs that independent paint store in the nearby shopping center, employing two or three college students and eking out an existence, must either carry insurance coverage that is acceptable to the government, or pay an 8% payroll tax.  From nothing to 8% can't be imagined to be a help to small business.

QUESTION: Rumors have it that Veterans will lose their health coverage with passage of health care reform?
RESPONSE:
Veterans’ health care will NOT be impacted by H.R. 3200. Section 202 (d)2(E) and (F) of the bill states that members of the armed forces and dependents (including TRICARE) and those who receive VA care will be considered as having acceptable minimum coverage.  This means that veterans’ coverage will not be affected by this legislation.
In no way would we pass a healthcare reform bill that will negatively impact the care that veterans receive.  The Democratically-led Congress has demonstrated its support for veterans by providing the largest increase in funding for veterans healthcare in the VA’s 77-year history.  This is more of an increase in less than three years, than the GOP-controlled Congress provided in 12 years.

Couldn't resist that dig at President Bush, could you?  Briefly, President Bush remade the American military into the world's first unbeatable force on the battlefield.  President Barack Obama is in the process of dismantling that. But, that is the past. Our problem is the bleak future.
Since our military are already on what amounts to Medicare, i.e. government controlled health care and the majority of military or retired military people I know go to private doctors anyway because waiting times and the level of care is so poor, I fail to see how this is an improvement for our veterans. Furthermore, if  you read para F as he includes it above, veterans are only permitted to stay on VA benefits if the commissioner decides they are good enough.  In other words, there's no guarantee here.

QUESTION:  When it come to federal funding for health care reform, will it be used to pay for abortions?
RESPONSE:
NO, I voted in favour of an amendment that explicitly prohibits public funds from being used for abortions.

Apart from an inability to spell "favor," what he isn't mentioning is that no matter how he voted, all those amendments failed.  The bill doesn't expressly exclude abortion and since the government's "Secretary" will determine what is covered, abortions will likely be paid for by your taxes.  I note that on page 769 and onward there is a great deal of attention given to who will be eligible for family planning.  In the past, a major complaint of pro-life adherents has been that government family planning is a one-joke act—abortion.

QUESTION: As you know, there has been a lot talked about regarding death panels and the role that government will have in our “end-of-life” care, is there death panel or anything related to “end-of-life” care?
RESPONSE:
There is NO such thing as death panels in any of these bills proposed.
The bill does NOT include any mandate that people take part in this sort of counseling.
YOU choose whether or not YOU wish to develop an advance directive.  Doing so will allow you to make choices regarding your “end-of-life” care before you get to a point where you are unable to do so and others are forced to make these choices for you.

Page 424, Sec 1233 Advance Planning Consultation reads to me as adding the definition of Advance Planning and other end of life stuff to the Social Security Act.  Reading on, it appears to set standards for that end of life care, including a requirement that a committee of "stakeholders" be consulted.  That committee does not include the patient or the family. The next section makes physicians responsible for reporting on the quality of that end of life care.  Mandatory? It's hard to tell.  But I do have to  wonder at the need to include it here.

QUESTION: Will the federal government provide healthcare coverage to undocumented immigrants?
RESPONSE:
Section 246 of H.R. 3200 explicitly states that no federal affordability credits will be made to “individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.”
This continues current law which prohibits undocumented immigrants from receiving coverage through federal health programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.

Sorry, Charley.  Page 50, sec 152 says it pretty clearly. The provisions of the act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics that don't appertain to providing health care. The part Congressman Gonzalez cites above refers only to health insurance credits as covered under the proposed "exchange" system. So, if they go with something else instead, sec 152 appears to apply first.

QUESTION: Will H.R. 3200 end the Medicare Advantage program?
RESPONSE:
The bill actually increases payments to Medicare Advantage plans that provide high quality care to their customers and to plans that demonstrate improvement in healthcare outcomes for enrollees.
It also equalizes payments between Medicare Advantage plans and those for traditional Medicare.

With private insurance strangled, this becomes a moot point.  No such insurers will remain.

Since Congressman Gonzalez didn't bother to bring it up, despite having been asked about it, let me address rationing, following my own reasoning here and aside from the provisions of the bill that permit it.

Roughly one million doctors service three hundred million Americans. One doctor handles three hundred people.  Add the fifty million new potential patients that President Barack Obama wants and you add about a seventeen percent increase in covered persons. To maintain the same ratio, we'll need about 167,000 new doctors. Where is the funding for that increase? Interestingly, the increase in doctors is also about 16%. Non-doctor health care professionals run about 25 million, about 8% of the population. To maintain the levels, we need to add 2,000,000 new health care professionals. That's a staggering number to produce virtually over-night. It takes eight to twelve years to cook a new doctor and four to six years to produce a new health care professional. Where's the funding for that in the stimulus package?
At an absolute minimum, we are six years from having enough health care professionals and ten years before we can add enough new doctors just to reach current ratios. We won't stop making babies, so those ratios will get even larger. Furthermore, the distribution of patients to doctors isn't even.  GPs carry a heavier patient load than plastic surgeons.  So, with the increase in covered people, it seems reasonable to conclude that the greatest weight of the increased work load will fall on our general practitioners, a medical specialty that is losing numbers in droves.

All that and built in limits on what a doctor can make since the public option will control costs by controlling payments to doctors. What other incentive will be used to attract new students? Long, long waits to see a doctor are inevitable. This amounts to rationing.
Even if all medications remain available at current levels, you have to see a doctor to get the prescription. Rationing again.

I want to apologize for failing too attend your town hall meeting held here in San Antonio during August. Notice was a little short, but your office kept their promise and called me to let me know when the meeting would be held.  I thank you for that.  Sadly, two things kept me away.  In thinking about it over the last few days, the more tragic it becomes.  At some level, both you and I are at fault.

I'm handicapped, and approaching retirement.  I have difficulty standing for long times and I have a condition called idiopathic neuropathy that, at random times, causes the skin of my lower legs and feet to feel like they've been badly burned.  Trust me, when my feet light up like that, I have nothing else on my mind and I'm afraid I can be most unpleasant to be around during these episodes.  That evening, on the way home from work, the combination of the traffic reports in the area of the meeting and my screaming feet argued strongly in favor of staying home.  The sad thing is that my health issues are precisely why it was so important to me to appear at your meeting and express my opposition to a health plan catastrophe that would rather leave me in agony than allow the free market the incentive to find a cure.  I am terrified of a United States that not only rations health care to its elderly, but prohibits me from seeking care from any source but the one that is refusing to treat me.  Imagine what that would be like, Congressman, to know that whatever dreams you had of a peaceful retirement lived out on funds I worked hard to accumulate, independent and satisfied for a life well-lived are doomed by a government that's lost track of the words in the Constitution.  Fear, pain, suffering without end.  No hope.

I work at a local school district.  I teach math.  I'm told I'm pretty good.  There are at least a few adults out there who've told me they owe their success to me.  I like to think I've contributed, in some small way, to the general well-being of my country.  Like most school districts, the teachers go to about a week of what we call "in service" training prior to the return of the students.  It gives us time to un-pack and prepare our rooms and we get some refreshers on technique and some cheer leading to heighten moral.  Oddly, during our in service training, one of our administrators took time, went out of his way to make sure that we understood that, as teachers, we are held to a higher standard.  Facebook pages and other sorts of personal presences on the Internet should probably be reconsidered lest they prove embarrassing, or be deemed "inappropriate."  Frankly, given my political efforts, my web site and my blog, I felt remarkably intimidated.  Without saying so directly, my manager made it perfectly clear that having my face appear on the evening news would be "A Bad Idea."  No one has tried to restrict my rights.  But I was reminded that sometimes exercising those rights can have consequences.  Nothing serious.  I wouldn't be arrested, or beaten.  But I could lose my job.  Aside from my wife, the most important thing in the world to me is my job.  I love teaching.  I want to do that job until I'm dead or simply can't do it any longer.  So, I chose not to go to your town hall meeting.  I took the coward's way out and chose to protect my job and what's left of my retirement. 

But, I have to wonder how it is that any American, let alone me, is in fear of their livelihood because of their lawful exercise of rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Could it be a result of Joe The Plumber being pilloried for having the temerity to ask then-candidate Obama an awkward question? Or perhaps because the media and Democratic Party's efforts to destroy Mrs. Palin's life and reputation because she has a folksy demeanor and an accent? Or maybe because my President wants his subj... fellow citizens to email his administration when they find something "fishy?" Maybe it's because that same President wants to address every single school age child in school about...something.

So, Congressman Gonzalez, I didn't come to the meeting.  Odds were, I would not have had the opportunity to speak.  Not that anything untoward would have taken place, or been arranged—I'm not making an accusation.  But I didn't come because I'm afraid of dying a helpless ward of the State.  A beggar to a nation I helped educate, whose taxes I paid, whose laws I obeyed. 

You'll vote in favor of the things I fear most.  Perhaps that is the greatest tragedy.  Your words of caring and concern actually promise hell on earth and a loss of freedom all the world will mourn.

Tonight, I thought I'd try reasoning with him...


As Americans, we have generally been careful not to give our LEOs power in a way that makes it possible to easily abuse that power.  For example, we limit random stops for sobriety checks because they unjustly accuse, by implication, the innocent of a crime.  We want our police to be able to catch drunk drivers, but at the same time we don't want to offer an unscrupulous officer too tempting an opportunity to abuse that power.
Sen. Rockefeller is introducing a bill that would give the President the right to essentially shut down the Internet in an emergency.  On the surface of it, that seems like a reasonable idea.  However, the justification is that our power grid and other infrastructure is vulnerable to disruption by malevolent persons hacking into the system via the Internet and wreaking havoc.
The problem is that the bill leaves the definition of "emergency" vaguely defined and in the hands of a single man.  This is the  "paragon of virtue" argument—the ill-advised assumption that the persons who can make that decision is utterly trustworthy—and will stay that way.  I think you know that I don't trust President Barack Obama, but that's beside the point.  I wouldn't want President Reagan to have that power.  As I understand the bill, it makes it possible for a power-mad individual to cut off the Internet simply as a means of silencing dissent, a violation the the First Amendment we must not permit.
Explain to me why it doesn't make sense to hire a trusted security firm to actively work to harden these vulnerable systems?  Such a bill would be simple, targeted, with a narrow focus and no further "powers" granted to a single individual.
I am opposed to Sen.  Rockefeller's initiative and I wish you to be as well. 

Oh, by the way, Congress.org is reporting that So far, 74 percent of Congress.org users who have written their Members have opposed health care reform. This suggests that a Congressman who supports ObamaCare is not acting according to the wishes of her constituents.

Of all the things a politician could do, when it happened, I was perhaps more offended by Teddy Kennedy's murder of Mary Jo Kopechne by abandoning her to drown in the cold, dark waters of Chappaquiddick.  I do believe I would have been far more forgiving if he'd simply shot her and called it a day.

However, I also believe the Universe is a just place and my guess is that Mary Jo was permitted to meet Teddy again the other night.  Sadly, the real tragedy is the thousands of liquor dealers now destitute with Teddy's removal from the market.

I realize I'm being small minded and perhaps even un-Christian.  But I also believe that murder, even if the truth really was simply blind, stupid, arrogant, staggering drunkenness, is unforgivable and that the citizens of Massachusetts repeatedly reelected him to that seat was a crime forced upon the rest of us.  Furthermore, we all get to channel-surf this weekend, looking for some program that isn't blubbering about this man's demise.  Plant him, offer up his soul to God's justice and let's move on.  My condolences to his family, especially the ones who had to live with him all those years.  Look out, Arnold.  I sense a Constitutional Amendment coming on.  No one is safe.  Not even Jon Jon.
Do you suppose it would be rude to erupt in laughter the next time some nitwit Democrat insists we should pass ObamaCare because Teddy died?

Now that I have that off my mind, I think Hugh Hewitt may be onto something. As I understand it, he tossed off a comment that people could donate $10 to Senator Reid's opponent in the coming 2010 race, and then forward the electronic receipt to Sen. Reid along with a straightforward explanation that the donation is a consequence of the Senator's support for the ObamaCare bill. Thousands upon thousands of checks later, he opines that Reid may have reason to be concerned.

Apparently, Hugh agrees with me (only a hell of a lot more efficiently!) that the way to a Democrat's heart is by causing them to worry about their job.  He has now added a House seat to the effort, that of Congresswoman Betsy Markey, also running a close race with a Republican opponent.  I think it's a great idea and I would urge you to spend $20 in a way that's likely to be the best, most focused pair of sawbucks you'll ever  find.  You can pick up the thread at http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/

You may recall my Uncle Alex's warning about ATF agents barging into innocent people's homes on the scent of multiple gun purchases.  His advice is to never, ever allow a Federal agent into your home, especially without a properly executed warrant the describes specifically the weapons in which they are interested and why they want to see them.  If you can, offer to meet them in your lawyer's office with the indicated weapons, rather than permit them access to your home.  My sense is that it is much like allowing an officer to search your car.  Once the permission is given, he may "see" what he needs to see.  Furthermore, if you believe you may be subject to one of these impromptu searches, instruct your family in what to do if they are confronted by these people.

Apparently, ATF is conducting these searches in response to the suggestion that evil Americans are smuggling weapons into Mexico to destabilize their peaceful drug smuggling operations.

Even if we can't beat people like Prince Charley in "secure" Democratic enclaves, we can make them nervous.  Miracles have happened in political races before.  A fella named Dewey comes to mind.  Keep showering them with emails and keep an open mind for ideas that will work better than this one has so far.

Never give up.  Never surrender.  It is our country and we will take it back.

Film at eleven... 

 

President
I am the person from whom it would be much cheaper to up my pain medications that to search for a cure.  You see, I have ankylosing spondylitis, a sort of spinal arthritis, the symptoms of which I began enduring shortly after high school.  Sadly, it is fairly common among our young men.  I'm 54 now, and coming up on retirement. When diagnosed, my doctors predicted a wheelchair in my future within a few years.  Decades of treatment with various NSAIDs successfully kept the disease at bay.  I remained able to walk and, apart from some stiffness and pain, able to do pretty much what I wished. 

Until I suffered a major heart attack.  One five-way bypass later, I'm alive, but forever exiled from NSAIDs for my arthritis.  You may, or may not know (there's no reason to expect you to) that NSAIDs are now linked to cardiac issues.  All that is left is codeine.  And willpower.  I wasn't "lucky" enough to be taking the drug that everyone got to sue over when the problem was discovered.  I wouldn't have in any case—they had no reason to be expected to see into the future and shouldn't be punished for their lack of prescience.
So, now I wait, living in a daily hell of trying to balance the codeine with wakefulness so I can continue to pursue the career I've come to love, teaching.  I don't have many years left, and with the deterioration of my health, fewer still.  What I do have is the hope that on-going research will find an effective cure (or at least treatment) for the arthritis and allow me to get off the codeine.

Single-payer health insurance, no matter what words you use to describe it, will put an end to that research.  Without a free market to dangle the prize of money for the company that finds a cure, they will stop trying.  In a very few years or months, the very people capable of doing that research will move on to other fields of endeavor. The scientists and doctors now looking for a cure for me have to make a living too.  They have families too.  In short order, it will not be possible to restart that research without years of time and millions of dollars.  That will doom me to a wheelchair, early retirement, Medicare, and a short life of unending pain—or semi-consciousness.

I am not alone in this trap.  All that changes are the specifics of the disease.  I don't know why, but you've hardened your heart to this.  You say the right words and ignore simple logic.  The real savings you are hoping for are those from the early deaths of the baby boomers, cut off from the health care they think they've already paid for.  The sooner our generation dies off the social security books, the sooner the younger generations can move along.

You can't imagine the despair I felt when I listened to my President tell the nation that increased pain meds might be a better solution than an operation to relieve pain.  If you wonder where the passion and the anger among the Americans protesting the health care reform bill is coming from—look to us.

I won't beg.  But you should know that there are millions of us whom you've condemned to short, painful lives. We still get to vote.  I urge you to change this path.  Restart the process and search for legislation that fixes the current short-comings without destroying the best of what we have.


 

Ladies and Gentlemen of the CAN,

Sorry about the lull.  Those of you who are teachers know what the last few days of a school year are like.  Then, selfishly, I took a few days to rest.

I'm sure you've been watching the news and thinking about ongoing events.  Here are a couple of things that are on my mind.

The President's push to get his health care reform, although we don't yet know for certain what that reform is, are terribly worrisome, especially if you're sneaking past middle age.  We do have rumors and leaks.  That information forms a picture that eventually leads to the end of the private insurance company and a single-payer government-run package made mandatory for every American.  

I know I don't need to warn you of this, but listen carefully to the words the Democratic Socialists use to describe the plan.  There has been mention of fines to be levied for failing to enroll in the plan.  There's the words and there is the practical result.  A fine for failing to comply is just another way of telling you that the act is mandatory and the penalty for failing to comply with the law is a fine.  In this case, since they intend for this to apply to every American, it is also a tax.

A little like that "voluntary" income tax system we all pay into...and face fines for failing to pay up on a timely basis and in which, if we push hard enough, we get to greet an armed US Marshall at our door one fine … night.

If health care is taken fully out of the free market system, consider the result.  

No more research effort into new drugs.  The rigid "market" in a single-payer system wouldn't produce the return on investment needed to finance such research.  Consider this: we are the only place left of the planet with an economy that can support that research.  If it stops here, it stops every where.  If, like me, you are holding on for a cure for what ails you, well, never mind.

If you are a man, and getting' on in years, know that there is a much better than even chance that you will have prostate cancer, eventually.  In England and Canada, if you are more than 65 years of age and have prostate cancer, the state will not treat the disease.  You are no longer within their cost-benefit parameters.  Get into your 70's and heart disease and cancer in general fall off the chart as well.  One wonders if the Democratic Socialists aren't planning on fixing their Social Security woes by letting us die off as quickly as possible.

On the same cost-benefit issue, consider the cost of devices like CT scanners and other, more sophisticated machines coming along.  These things are expensive.  If the single-payer system can't support new drug research, why are we to believe it will support new hardware or even technique research?  Or, suppose the Democratic Socialists fix that by offering big grants to the university system. (That's where much of this research takes place now, but the building and implementation of these machines is pure free market capitalism.)  The research might get done, but the money to build, buy and install  these devices will not be present.  Unless, of course, the government takes on the task of financing that as well.  Say bye-bye to yet another chunk of the free economy.

Certainly our letters and emails to our Representatives can help, but the real voting block whose ox is about to be gored are your doctors.  Please, on your next visit to one of your doctors, talk to them about this.  Tell them of your concerns.  (OK, terrors.) Ask them to pressure the AMA to take a direct and firm stance in  opposition to this health care catastrophe.  And urge them to write letters of their own.

You might even urge them to contact us.

For more information, check out Docs4patientcare.org

Today is Memorial Day and, frankly, I don't care what President Barack Obama or Congressman Gonzalez are doing to recognize the day.  I believe they've already made their real feelings known and I don't approve.

You've heard this before.  We are free because of the sacrifices of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and coast-guardsmen.  After a few repetitions, the sentence loses its impact.  We take our freedom for granted.  Not you, my friends, but Americans in general.  

I hold up my students as the example.  In Texas we still get to stand once a day and recite the Pledge of Allegiance, complete with "under God."  As a teacher, it would be "unprofessional" of me to require my students to do any more than stand quietly during the recitation.  I get grudging cooperation and few, if any, actually recite the Pledge.  I have a number of students who openly tell me they don't like the military.  A few of those have actual reasons—they blame the military for absent parents.  They'll learn to deal with that eventually.  The others say those things because it's what they believe to be expected of them by their peers.  In other words, a part of their culture is a dislike for the military.  That's worrisome.  I have to wonder where it comes from, but in the long run, it doesn't matter.  

Outside the microcosm of my classroom and its somewhat eclectic selection of students, recruitment rates are actually climbing.  The military is seen as a steady job with good benefits.  My high school produces a large number of new recruits.  That's comforting.

A few days ago, one of my ex-students, now a soldier, dropped by school to visit some of his old friends.  In town on R&R from Iraq, he took a little time to visit with me.  I've known this young man since he was a wild, uncontrollable freshman.  That's one of the joys of being a teacher—I get to watch them become human.

We chatted a bit. Soldiers are, in general, not permitted to speak out publically about their Commander in Chief.  I understand that. I even agree with the policy.  Out of curiosity, though, I thought I'd be subtle.  

"Do I have anything to fear from my own military?" I asked.  Too subtle.  My friend isn't the subtle type.  Finally,

"Given our fears of what President Obama might do despite the injunctions of the Constitution, do I have to fear that the military would back him in action against the American civilian?"  Like I said, subtlety isn't his game.  In answer, he struck a pose of attention and recited his pledge of allegiance, the Soldier's Creed.
(The emphasis is mine.)

The Soldier's Creed

I am an American Soldier.
I am a Warrior and a member of a team.
I serve the people of the United States and live the Army Values.
I will always place the mission first.
I will never accept defeat.
I will never quit.
I will never leave a fallen comrade.
I am disciplined, physically and mentally tough, trained and proficient in my warrior tasks and drills. I always maintain my arms, my equipment and myself.
I am an expert and I am a professional.
I stand ready to deploy, engage, and destroy the enemies of the United States of America in close combat.
I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life.
I am an American Soldier.


I pray to my Lord for the soul of every man and woman who has paid the highest price for my freedom.  I pray to my Lord for the safety of our troops and, failing that, their ability to make our enemies pay the highest price indeed.

Finally, I am comforted to know that our troops are precisely clear about where their loyalties lie.  This makes me ever more grateful.

I take great pleasure in calling out to one of our troops, shaking their hand and thanking them, loudly, in public, for their service and sacrifice for me and mine.  It makes their day.  You might try it if you haven't already.  It makes Memorial Day last all year.

CAN is a different paradigm, not a competing one.  I wish Beck, et al all the good fortune in the world and fully support their collective efforts with whatever time I can muster.

CAN isn't about money.  I have none.  I'm a school teacher.  I want none--beyond what I earn at work.  If I can't get it done myself, or convince a volunteer to do it, it won't get done.  CAN is about a plan to do something now, without waiting for 2010.  CAN is about a focused pulse of emails delivered over a short period of time designed to be a directed means of reminding a Congressman where their best interests lie.  CAN is about getting an email written to whom we ask, about what we ask, when we need it written.

The only thing that will make that work is numbers.  Not money.  We need thousands upon thousands of volunteers.  We need each of us to be bringing in more and more people to serve as nodes in the network.

I should have put something up before this, but other things have taken precedence, mostly the efforts to get the Conservative American Network up and running, along with trying to have a life too.

I can't run for Congress as I thought I might be able to.  I've talked to people whose opinion I trust and each tells me that I must start out with three million dollars.  Well, I don't have three million dollars and I'm not likely to get it.  I'm just a school teacher.

Without previous elected experience, and that all important $3 million, the local Republican Party won't support any candidacy.  I have no doubt they can find someone better qualified.  There's something else.  If I were to leave my job as a school teacher to run for Congress, and lose, I'd be 57 years old with no job.  The recession has destroyed our savings.  I'm not yet vested with Texas' Teacher Retirement System and won't be for six more years, so I can't take retirement.

I simply can't risk it.

But I CAN do this.  I can't sit about doing nothing.

Our Heavenly Father,

My President is ashamed to pray to you in public, for fear of offending our enemies.  I am not. Like my nation's Founding Fathers, I know from whence freedom flows, and I am grateful.  Once, my nation writhed in a spasm of blood and ended the obscenity of slavery.  I am grateful.  Twice, my nation spilled its blood to help free the rest of the world from despots they'd appeased into existence.  I am grateful, Lord.  For almost sixty years my nation stood with its allies against a creeping political entity that claimed to free all while enslaving each.  I am grateful.

It is true we have sinned.  We have never made any claim to perfection.  It is also true we then confessed our sin and reaffirmed our intent never to repeat that sin, but to uplift those about us.  Suddenly, we have sinned, and no act of the past or future will ever exculpate that sin, except the sacrifice of our national integrity.  I don't know what we did wrong, Lord, but my President apologizes to a world that doesn't remember what it owes my fathers, and You.  He is ashamed because we were successful, and creative, and free.  

Suddenly, Lord, my own leaders have begun to resemble the monsters my nation bled to defeat time and time again.  The lie that the common man can be freed by punishing a few is being heard again, only this time, it is here.  A nation that was once uplifted by creativity, innovation and the simple right to keep the fruits of our labors is now fearful and hateful of those very same things.  Success is inequality and a desire to keep what we earn is selfish.  What was once a government of, by and for the people is now of, by and for the government.

I do not pray for rescue from the events of the time.  I know that this is my responsibility, and that of my fellow citizens.  I pray for the restoration to my leaders of the values that created this nation, made it free and proud, and once promised to make the world itself more prosperous and free than it had ever known.  I pray that you will restore to my President the pride in a people and a nation that have done so much good.  Let him not fear us.  Let him instead unleash us.

In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, amen.

Read this, please:

Harvard European Students Association
Purpose Statement
The Harvard European Students' Association, founded in 1977, is an organization committed to nourishing cultural, intellectual, political and economic awareness about the European continent. We are the Harvard community for students from Europe, connected to Europe, or interested in matters concerning Europe. Anyone who is intrigued by lively debates, art shows, cultural shows, music, and European cuisine will find a welcoming home at HESA. We are dedicated to building community and promoting collaboration amongst European students at Harvard, encouraging awareness of Europe within the Harvard community and the greater Boston area, and ultimately contributing back our continent.

Does that strike you as racist?  Do you find yourself threatened (if you are not European) or feeling a little ashamed (if you are European)?  Are you about ready to write an angry letter to the editor to complain about this blatant racism that's being permitted on the campus of one of this nation's greatest institutions of higher learning?

Don't just yet.  Oh, it is a real mission statement from a real student organization at Harvard.  Except I've replaced "Africa" and "African" with "Europe" and "European," respectively.  Here's the real mission statement:

Harvard African Students Association
Purpose Statement
The Harvard African Students' Association, founded in 1977, is an organization committed to nourishing cultural, intellectual, political and economic awareness about the African continent. We are the Harvard community for students from Africa, connected to Africa, or interested in matters concerning Africa. Anyone who is intrigued by lively debates, art shows, cultural shows, music, and African cuisine will find a welcoming home at HASA. We are dedicated to building community and promoting collaboration amongst African students at Harvard, encouraging awareness of Africa within the Harvard community and the greater Boston area, and ultimately contributing back our continent.

We could do this with the mission statement of almost any minority student organization's mission statement and arrive at the same result.  It is true that any organization designed to celebrate or even recognize the history and accomplishments of Europeans will be seen as racist, even by European readers.  This is racism carried to its logical conclusion.  Racism is wrong—whomever is the target.

Here's another mission statement, for another student group, Youth for Western Civilization.

Youth for Western Civilization will educate, organize and train activists on campuses across the nation to create a culture that will promote the survival of Western Civilization and pride in Western heritage. This movement is focused on the support of Western history, identity, high culture, and pride and opposition to radical multiculturalism, political correctness, racial preferences, mass immigration, and socialism.

OK.  They want to promote the survival of Western Civilization and pride in Western heritage.  As a member of western civilization, I have a vested interest in its survival and when I consider things like the printing press, the industrial revolution and the creation of the single document that has guided the single nation on the planet that's enjoyed the greatest freedom of any nation on the planet, well, I can find a thing or two in there to be proud of.  If I look hard enough, I can find some things to be ashamed of too.  But this isn't a zero sum game.  I have no plans to commit suicide because I've done things in my life of which I'm ashamed.

Radical multiculturalism and political correctness both have the effect of supressing free speech.  Go to the web site these folks run and watch a peaceful meeting sponsored by this group be disrupted and ended by the very same people who claim to preach tolerance and respect for the other guy's opinion—unless you're conservative.

Racial preferences are racist whoever is getting the preference end of the stick.  It isn't possible to rectify an injustice by introducing yet another injustice.  I owe the past nothing.  I didn't do it.  I'm not doing it now.  Therefor, don't do it to me.  Let's all agree to do it anymore.

Mass immigration is difficult to sustain in any nation.  In comparison, the U.S. has the most open immigration policy on the planet.  Our economy is robust, but there are a finite number of jobs available and new immigrants are owed the opportunity to make their own way without having to depend upon the taxpayer's generosity.  For the moment, at least, immigration without passing through to mechanisms allowed for by our law are illegal, making the act a crime.  If you don't like that, get it changed.  In the meantime, my desire to see these people succeed and avoid becoming welfare slaves could hardly be called racism.

If I have to explain why socialism is bad, then I cannot change your ignorance and unless you are willing to go read the history books and study how governments have worked over the ages, you are the enemy.  I'm sorry.

Why then, is an organization of people who intend to promote conservative values being shouted down with cries of racism?

Because it works.  Because we haven't had the courage to stand upright and say "no," we are not racists and  we will not permit ourselves to be painted with that brush.

My kudos to these young men and women.

Their web site is westernyouth.org

I saw an advertisement on TV a bit ago  about starving children in some where who were dying at the rate of one every five seconds.  Ted Danson was making his impassioned plea for my money to help provide a cow for these people.  OK, well, it wasn't quite that lame, but something about the numbers teased at the back of my mind for a while.  A day contains 86,400 seconds.  Divide that by five and you get 17,280 children a day dying of starvation.  In thirty days, that would come to 518,400 children!  A half million souls in a month! Where are the networks?  Where's Connie Chung?  Barbara Walters?  Heaven's to Betsy, where's Geraldo Rivera?  This is a global catastrophe  the liberals could not possibly resist, if true.  Why, they'd be demanding the U.S. cease all that silliness in Iraq and immediately pour all our recourses into stopping this incredible leakage of life.  If it were true.

See, if it were true, it would be a self-correcting problem.  In a matter of a few months the population density in the area would be down to levels the area's agriculture could support without outside help.

If it were true.

The sad thing is, there are much to many starving children in the world who could use my help.  But, with Ted Danson lying to me to appeal to unthinking sympathy—where do you suppose that money is going? Well, mine won't be going there.