Veterans Day

Veterans should hold a place in our society that is special. I know that they hold a place in my heart. My father served in WWII with the Marines in the first invasion of Okinawa. He was 150 miles from the Japanese mainland when for the first time in his life he saw a mushroom cloud. Dad told me that his unit had already received orders to go the China coast in an effort to surround Japan. Thank God he did not have to go.

My younger brother served in the Navy during the first Gulf War. He was on a submarine tender and to this day, he could weld underwater. But as he says from his home in Arkansas, there isn’t a big call for that there.

I wanted to serve, but was deemed ineligible to serve because of my congenital heart defect. The Navy had tried to recruit me for their Nuclear Engineering program, and I often wonder how differently my life would have turned out, had I been able to serve.

A brief history of Veterans Day taken from va.gov – “In November 1919, President Wilson proclaimed November 11 as the first commemoration of Armistice Day with the following words: “To us in America, the reflections of Armistice Day will be filled with solemn pride in the heroism of those who died in the country’s service and with gratitude for the victory, both because of the thing from which it has freed us and because of the opportunity it has given America to show her sympathy with peace and justice in the councils of the nations…”

The original concept for the celebration was for a day observed with parades and public meetings and a brief suspension of business beginning at 11:00 a.m.

The United States Congress officially recognized the end of World War I when it passed a concurrent resolution on June 4, 1926, with these words:

Whereas the 11th of November 1918, marked the cessation of the most destructive, sanguinary, and far reaching war in human annals and the resumption by the people of the United States of peaceful relations with other nations, which we hope may never again be severed, and

Whereas it is fitting that the recurring anniversary of this date should be commemorated with thanksgiving and prayer and exercises designed to perpetuate peace through good will and mutual understanding between nations; and

Whereas the legislatures of twenty-seven of our States have already declared November 11 to be a legal holiday: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), that the President of the United States is requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the officials to display the flag of the United States on all Government buildings on November 11 and inviting the people of the United States to observe the day in schools and churches, or other suitable places, with appropriate ceremonies of friendly relations with all other peoples.”

In 1954, Eisenhower altered Armistice Day by proclamation – “In order to insure proper and widespread observance of this anniversary, all veterans, all veterans’ organizations, and the entire citizenry will wish to join hands in the common purpose. Toward this end, I am designating the Administrator of Veterans’ Affairs as Chairman of a Veterans Day National Committee, which shall include such other persons as the Chairman may select, and which will coordinate at the national level necessary planning for the observance. I am also requesting the heads of all departments and agencies of the Executive branch of the Government to assist the National Committee in every way possible.”

This change came about because of a store owner in Emporia, Kansas. A man named Al King wanted to celebrate all veterans, not just the World War I vets. He persuaded his Chamber of Commerce to get behind him on this, along with Emporia’s Board of Education. King turned to Republican U.S. Representative from Emporia, Ed Rees for assistance. Rees submitted the bill, causing Eisenhower to sign it into law, issuing the above proclamation.

As we fight this ongoing battle for freedom and liberty, we must take heart from that shoe store owner, Al King. One man and his idea, plus initiative and dedication DID make a difference. We can too. We owe it to all the veterans who gave their lives and sacrificed so that all Americans are free. They did not die, so that all Americans could become complacent. Freedom is worth fighting for and we must remember that were it not for those Americans that came before us, fighting and in many cases, dying for freedom, we would not even be able to have these discussions.

I want to leave you all with a poem by Joanna Fuchs:

To rule the world with violence
Is their one and only goal;
Terror is their method;
They want complete control.

We’ve seen it all before,
And we could not let it be;
We gave our lives for freedom,
For the world, and for you and me.

We fight all forms of oppression,
Helping victims far and near,
To keep the world from chaos,
To protect what we hold dear.

America’s the only country
That gives with its whole heart,
And asks so very little;
We always do our part.

So let’s unite again
To subdue our newest foe,
Whatever we must do,
Wherever we must go.

Let’s show the world once more
That America is blessed
With people who are heroes,
Who meet each and every test.

God Bless America, and God Bless our brave and valiant military.

Fort Hood or Camp David?

I submit for your perusal a timeline:

November 5^th, 2009 –

1:30 pm local time, a US soldier in his army uniform enters the Soldier Readiness Center. He is armed with two non-military issue pistols, including a semi-automatic.

During approximately the next 10 minutes he kills 13 people consisting of 12 soldiers and one civilian. He additionally injures 38 other people.

3:57 pm local time, the spokesman for Fort Hood military base announces that the gunman has been shot dead. This is later found to be incorrect.

At this time, Fort Hood is shut down with nobody being allowed in or out due to an extensive search for further suspects.

4:06 pm local time, President Barack Obama addresses the incident only after some light hearted bantering and an actual “shout out” to Medal of Freedom winner Dr. Joe Medicine Crow in which he mistakenly calls a “Congressional Medal of Honor winner.” He then recognizes other people in attendance before finally offering a short, meager statement of the tragedy at Fort Hood, calling it a “horrific outburst of violence.”

4:30 pm local time, Officials reveal the identity of the shooter as Army Major Nidal Malik Hassan, aged 39.

6:30 pm local time, Fort Hood declared safe.

7:00 pm local time, Lt. General Cone announces Major Hasan is alive and describes him as the only gunman. He further states that Major Hasan was shot four times by a female officer who was injured as well. Hasan is reported as being in a hospital, on a ventilator, in stable condition under armed guard.

9:00 pm local time, Fort Hood opened up, under very high security.

November 7^th, 2009 –

11:25 am Washington DC local time, President Obama addresses the House Democratic Caucus at the Cannon House Office Building

2:30 pm Washington DC local time, President Obama makes a statement to the press on Health Care in the Rose Garden

2:45 pm Washington DC local time, President Obama and the First Lady depart for Camp David from the South Lawn of the White House

Sometime during the day on Saturday, November 7^th, 2009 President George W. Bush and Laura Bush arrive at Fort Hood. They had contacted the base commander and asked that their visit be kept unannounced to the press. The former President and First Lady spent several hours with the victims and their families of the Fort Hood massacre.

This, ladies and gentlemen is the way a true Commander-in-Chief acts. No press, no photo ops, just time spent helping the victims and their families come to terms with the tragedy that has befallen them. He did not give a shout out to anyone. He did not identify his cronies that were in the room. He did not arrange a photo op of his actions as did Obama at Dover when the bodies of our brave men and women were coming home in caskets. He did not pander to anyone or any group. No sir. Our former President G. W. Bush and his wife, Laura Bush did what our present Commander-in-Chief should have done. He spent time with the victims instead of heading off to Camp David for the weekend.

Hat tip to BBC News and RiehlWorldView.com

One Nation, under God…

Ken, our newest contributor over at Conservative Hideout 2.0 wrote so eloquently in an article there about his feelings for this great country of ours. In it he said, “To them (his sons), I pledge my allegiance as I do to the Flag of these United States called America, and to the Republic for which it stands, One Nation, Under GOD, Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all, even the unborn.”

This got me to thinking about a short performance given by one of the greatest comedians of all time, Red Skelton. He spoke of a teacher that had touched his heart and stirred his soul. This teacher, a Mr. Lasswell, gave a touching rendition of the Pledge of Allegiance. But what is this Pledge of Allegiance we have come to know as a keystone to Americana?

It was written by Francis Bellamy in 1892. Interestingly enough, he was a Christian Socialist. When he wrote it, he intended it to express the ideals of the socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward and Equality (Edward Bellamy, 1888 & 1897 respectively) which were written by his cousin. The Youth’s Companion, kind of the Reader’s Digest of its day, published the pledge.

According to Bellamy himself, some of his thoughts as to the words he chose are:

“It began as an intensive communing with salient points of our national history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards; with the makings of the Constitution…with the meaning of the Civil War; with the aspiration of the people…

The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the ‘republic for which it stands.’ …And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation – the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. And its future?

Just here arose the temptation of the historic slogan of the French Revolution which meant so much to Jefferson and his friends, ‘Liberty, equality, fraternity.’ No, that would be too fanciful, too many thousands of years off in realization. But we as a nation do stand square on the doctrine of liberty and justice for all…”

I am sure we all have opinions as to Mr. Bellamy’s intentions when he wrote the Pledge of Allegiance. It isn’t my intention in my writings today to pick apart his thoughts listed above as they pertain to it. No, instead I want to point out two things. First, even though this was written as a means to push a utopian socialist view, it has become something uniquely American and has been a boon to our patriotism. Secondly let me just say that were it not for the freedoms and liberties in this country, Mr. Bellamy might not have been even allowed to write this. It is because we live in a free Republic that he could express himself like this. I am sure that he is probably none too happy with the fact that his pledge has been bestowed by the American public with such patriotism.

But, back to Red Skelton’s January 14th, 1969 Pledge of Allegiance in which he explained the meaning of the words as they were told to him by his teacher. His version was read into the Congressional Record of the United States twice, receiving numerous awards.

RED SKELTON: “I remember this one teacher. To me, he was the greatest teacher, a real sage…of my time, anyhow. He had such wisdom. And we were all reciting the Pledge Of Allegiance one day and he walked over, this little teacher. Mr. Lasswell. Mr. Lasswell was his name… He says: “I’ve been listening to you boys and girls recite the Pledge Of Allegiance all semester and it seems as though it is becoming monotonous to you. If I may, may I recite it and try to explain to you the meaning of each word?

I – Me; an individual; a committee of one.

Pledge – Dedicate all of my worldly goods to give without self-pity.

Allegiance – My love and my devotion.

To the Flag – Our standard; Old Glory ; a symbol of Freedom; wherever she waves there’s respect, because your loyalty has given her a dignity that shouts, Freedom is everybody’s job.

United – That means that we have all come together.

States – Individual communities that have united into forty-eight great states. Forty-eight individual communities with pride and dignity and purpose. All divided with imaginary boundaries, yet united to a common purpose, and that’s love for country.

And to the Republic – Republic — a state in which sovereign power is invested in representatives chosen by the people to govern. And government is the people; and it’s from the people to the leaders, not from the leaders to the people.

For which it stands
One Nation – One Nation — meaning, so blessed by God.

Indivisible – Incapable of being divided.

With Liberty – Which is Freedom; the right of power to live one’s own life, without threats, fear, or some sort of retaliation.

And Justice – The principle or qualities of dealing fairly with others…

For All – For All — which means, boys and girls, it’s as much your country as it is mine. And now, boys and girls let me hear you recite the Pledge of Allegiance:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands; one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country, and two words have been added to the Pledge of Allegiance: Under God. Wouldn’t it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer and that would be eliminated from schools, too?”

Ironically Red was correct in his prophesy. For in 2002 to 2004 it was contested, (where else? – in the courts) to take out “Under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance.

Hat tip to clown-ministry.com for the following:
“On June 26, 2002, the Pledge of Allegiance was banned from the public schools. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that, since the pledge contains the phrase “under God,” it is an unconstitutional establishment of a religion. The court, shocked by popular outrage, put a stay on the order until the entire 9th Circuit Court could review it. As of March 28,2003, the 9th Circuit Court has done so — and upheld the original judgment. Attorney General John Ashcroft condemned the decision and said the Justice Department will “spare no effort to preserve the rights of all our citizens to pledge allegiance to the American flag.” On June 15th, 2004, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled unanimously that the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance would remain intact as a patriotic oath in public schools, despite efforts by atheist Michael Newdow to remove the phrase as a First Amendment violation. The 8-0 ruling (with Antonin Scalia having removed himself) came ironically on Flag Day, and exactly 50 years after Congress added the phrase “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance. As a result, the Pledge of Allegiance, in it’s entirety will continue to be recited by public school students as an oath to their country.
However, the court effectively ruled on a technicality — since Mr. Newdow did not have primary custody of his daughter, in whose name he sued, he had no right to bring legal suit in the first place. The Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the phrase “under God” nor on the supposedly constitution “separation of church and state.”

We live in perilous times my friends. The statist is attacking and chipping away at the fiber of our Republic on many fronts. They are relentless and never rest, but we must stand resolute in our determination to hold dear the cause of liberty, teach our children the meaning of freedom and cherish our democracy so that we remain a free people.

Cheney Destroys the “Blame Bush” excuse on Afghanistan

Former Vice President, and IMHO a great American Patriot, Dick Cheney gave some remarks while accepting Keeper of the Flame award from the Center for Security Policy. He took this opportunity to address some comments Rahm Emanuel made in a CNN interview.

Rahm “Dead Fish” Emanuel’s remarks:

“You have literally got into a situation, is there another way you can do this? And the president is asking the questions that have never been asked on the civilian side, the political side, the military side, and the strategic side. What is the impact on the region? What can the Afghan government do or not do? Where are we on the police training? Who would be better doing the police training? Could that be something the Europeans do? Should we take the military side? Those are the questions that have not been asked. And before you commit troops, which is — not irreversible, but puts you down a certain path — before you make that decision, there’s a set of questions that have to have answers that have never been asked. And it’s clear after eight years of war, that’s basically starting from the beginning, and those questions never got asked.

And what I find interesting and just intriguing from this debate in Washington, is that a lot of people who all of a sudden say, this is now the epicenter of the war on terror, you must do this now, immediately approve what the general said — where, before, it never even got on the radar screen for them. That — everything was always about Iraq.”

So Emanuel was blaming the Bush administration for Obama’s indecisiveness in Afghanistan. He was implying that Bush was so focused on Iraq that he took his eyes off the ball in Afghanistan; not giving it the thought and planning it deserved. Cheney fully and completely called the Obama administration out on this one. Evidently Bush, Cheney, et al. did a complete study of Afghanistan in the fall of 2008, with complete intel and a comprehensive plan for winning the war. Obama and his transition team asked them to keep this quiet. I wonder why?

Here are some of Cheney’s remarks concerning Afghanistan:

“Recently, President Obama’s advisors have decided that it’s easier to blame the Bush Administration than support our troops. This weekend they leveled a charge that cannot go unanswered. The President’s chief of staff claimed that the Bush Administration hadn’t asked any tough questions about Afghanistan, and he complained that the Obama Administration had to start from scratch to put together a strategy.

In the fall of 2008, fully aware of the need to meet new challenges being posed by the Taliban, we dug into every aspect of Afghanistan policy, assembling a team that traveled to Pakistan and Afghanistan, reviewing options and recommendations, and briefing President-elect Obama’s team. They asked us not to announce our findings publicly, and we agreed, giving them the benefit of our work and the benefit of the doubt. The new strategy they embraced in March, with a focus on counterinsurgency and an increase in the numbers of troops, bears a striking resemblance to the strategy we passed to them. They made a decision – a good one, I think – and sent a commander into the field to implement it.

Now they seem to be pulling back and blaming others for their failure to implement the strategy they embraced. It’s time for President Obama to do what it takes to win a war he has repeatedly and rightly called a war of necessity.”

Also, Cheney shed light on the Obama decision to pull the missile defense shield in Europe:

“Most anyone who is given responsibility in matters of national security quickly comes to appreciate the commitments and structures put in place by others who came before. You deploy a military force that was planned and funded by your predecessors. You inherit relationships with partners and obligations to allies that were first undertaken years and even generations earlier. With the authority you hold for a little while, you have great freedom of action. And whatever course you follow, the essential thing is always to keep commitments, and to leave no doubts about the credibility of your country’s word.

So among my other concerns about the drift of events under the present administration, I consider the abandonment of missile defense in Eastern Europe to be a strategic blunder and a breach of good faith.

It is certainly not a model of diplomacy when the leaders of Poland and the Czech Republic are informed of such a decision at the last minute in midnight phone calls. It took a long time and lot of political courage in those countries to arrange for our interceptor system in Poland and the radar system in the Czech Republic. Our Polish and Czech friends are entitled to wonder how strategic plans and promises years in the making could be dissolved, just like that – with apparently little, if any, consultation. Seventy years to the day after the Soviets invaded Poland, it was an odd way to mark the occasion.”

Following my article, I will provide a link to the entirety of Cheney’s remarks. I strongly suggest reading them. His understanding of foreign affairs and the interactions between the United States and her allies, and enemies alike is undeniable. A lot of people disagree with Cheney and the left likes to paint him as a “Neo-Con” and a war monger. Yet he sticks to his principles and he takes the time to speak out. He is in a unique position to represent the opposition to Obama and the far left, since he isn’t running for office. This allows him to speak his mind and be more direct. I understand that G.W. Bush wants to take the high road and avoid criticism of his successor to the Oval Office, but Cheney has no such limitations. With his intimate knowledge of how this country was protected in the aftermath of 9/11, he is the perfect foil to the “blame Bush” mantra that the Obama administration all-too-often falls back on.

I cheer Dick Cheney and applaud his efforts to let the truth be told. He is a great American, a great Patriot and is one of the best, if not THE best Vice Presidents this country has ever had.

Dick Cheney’s speech at the Center for Security Policy

Senate Aspirations, the EPA and our Constitution…

When the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill, or as I like to refer to it – Tax & Kill – was up for vote in the House, one of the eight Republicans to vote FOR it was a Rep from the 10th District of Illinois, Mark Kirk. Now being the civic minded, conservative activist that I am, I fired off an email to all eight of the RINO’s (Republicans In Name Only) that voted in favor of H.R. 2454 letting them know that I intended to donate to the coffers of their opponents in the next election they ran in. This bill needed 216 votes to pass, it got 219. Had just four of the eight RINO’s voted No; we would not have this horrible bill to contend with. This is a job killer and only serves to weaken our economy and weaken our stance in the world.

Of the eight Congressmen that I wrote to, only Mark Kirk wrote me back. I was surprised to say the least and I read with fascination what he had to say. Here is the text of the letter and a link to the letter itself.
October 20, 2009

Dear Mr. King:
When the Congress first considered H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, I conducted a careful analysis of its economic impact on the 10th Congressional District of Illinois. Given the economic data available at the time, the relatively low economic impact of the legislation on our district and my passion for finding ways to end our dependence on foreign oil, I voted for the bill.

The 10th District has one major energy supplier. Surprisingly, this coal-burning supplier, Midwest Generation, strongly supported the House bill and the direct impact of the bill on the 10th district was low – just $14 per year, per household.

In recent months, however, I learned that the economic impact of this bill on the wider State of Illinois – where millions of family incomes depend on manufacturing and agriculture – is far greater than in the 10th District. In addition, a recent report issued by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office revealed that the cost of this legislation is considerably higher than first anticipated, reducing America’s gross domestic product by up to 0.75 percent by 2020 and 3.5 percent by 2050, and likely costing our Illinois economy thousands of jobs.

This economic burden on our community is unacceptably high – particularly during the deep recession we are currently enduring.
As you know, I support policies that end our dependence on foreign oil and improve our environment – a key U.S. national security priority. I am pro-nuclear power, pro-offshore energy and pro-Trans Canada pipeline to lower heating and manufacturing costs in the Midwest.

But due to the rising economic cost of H.R. 2454, I can no longer support this legislation as written. If we want to advance legislation that lowers our dependence on foreign oil and improves the environment, we need to do it in a way that does not adversely affect jobs and economic growth in our community.

I believe we can do just that. We should permanently extend tax credits for wind, solar, geothermal, fuel cell, ethanol, biodiesel and other alternative energy research to reduce America’s dependence on Middle East oil and protect the environment. We should build 50 new nuclear power plants in America and complete the trans-Canada natural gas pipeline. We should back innovators like FutureGen, Argonne and Fermilab. These are ideas that would 1) lower our dependence on foreign oil, 2) create jobs, not kill them, and 3) receive bipartisan support in both the House and Senate.

Thank you for taking the time to contact me on this issue. Please feel free to visit my website, kirk.house.gov, or contact me again should other issues of concern to you come before the Congress. To stay better connected to current legislation please sign up for my e-newsletter at kirk.house.gov/newsletter.
Sincerely,

Mark Steven Kirk
Member of Congress

I will admit that at first glance, I almost believed his reasons for explaining his vote. But I did a little digging and found out that Mr.Kirk has aspirations for Obama’s vacated Senate seat. So his vote in favor of Tax & Kill was merely pandering to the liberals in his district so that when he runs for the Senate, he will have his base behind him.

Senate Seat in his future?

This didn’t really surprise me, I mean it wouldn’t be the first time a politician put his political career ahead of what is best for the country, now would it? However, something in that letter made me wonder… “The 10th District has one major energy supplier. Surprisingly, this coal-burning supplier, Midwest Generation, strongly supported the House bill…”

Now why would a coal-burning energy supplier show public support for a piece of legislation that would cut straight to the heart and profits of the way they do business? I went back to the internet and did a little more digging. I found out that Midwest Generation is one of many power companies facing intense scrutiny from the EPA. In fact, Midwest Gen is being sued over their emissions.

Midwest Generation Lawsuit

The last sentence in that article caught my eye. “Midwest Generation is the third power company to face tougher inspection by the EPA under Obama’s administration, according to the Chicago Tribune.”
Before I jumped to any conclusions, I wanted to check further. It would seem that under Obama, the EPA is getting very aggressive in its scrutiny and inspection of coal burning power plants. Now that, in itself is not necessarily a bad thing. Some of these plants are using decades old equipment that does nothing to prevent harmful pollutants from being released into the atmosphere. What I found interesting is that Midwest Generation’s endorsement of H.R. 2454 was suspicious in its nature. Once again, we have Chicago style politics on a national scale, or in other words the quintessential quid pro quo.
But in my investigations, I came across an article written by a law firm with offices in Texas, New York, Washington, D.C., Connecticut, Dubai, Kazakhstan and London. One of the authors of the article used to be with the EPA and now assists companies in navigating the treacherous waters of EPA regulations enforcement. Two sentences stood out in that article.
1. “The EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OCEA) is likely to expand its well established position by both participating in EPA’s ongoing debates over expanded environmental policy, and by playing a significant role in driving that policy through its enforcement actions.”
2. “…the Obama administration’s OECA will not be expected to impede the development of new policy, though it will likely continue to be used as a tool to advance OECA’s vision of environmental policy, especially in areas where rulemaking procedures may delay the implementation of the administration’s preferred policies.”

A quick explanation: OECA influences policy in the EPA in many ways. One such way is in the Clean Air Act’s (CAA) New Source Review (NSR) program. During the Clinton admin, the EPA brought many cases under the NSR program. These cases were inherited by the Bush admin and they restricted the ability of the EPA to change the NSR program. Due to the cases filed under Clinton, and the United States taking formal litigation positions at that time on the way the NSR worked, the Bush admin had to start rule making proceedings all over to change the NSR. Had the litigation not started under Clinton, the Bush EPA could simply have reformed the rules on a case-by-case basis.
The Obama admin will be making no such mistakes. They will allow the NSR to institute policy changes and essentially make the rule of law, avoiding that pesky House-Senate-Executive Branch law making process.
So allow me to sum up the journey that this letter from a Congressman took me and I, in turn took you all.
1. We have a US Congressman who puts his career in front of his country.
2. We have an administration that is possibly using the EPA in strong-arm tactics to get public support for it’s socialist legislation.
3. We have an administration that is taking that same EPA and utilizing it to make an end run around the Constitution in order to change the laws of the land in regards to the environment.

What all this proves is that there is nothing simple in Washington and that we have a dangerously unscrupulous person occupying the Oval Office.

Link to letter from Cong. Mark Kirk R-IL

You lie!!! Honest…

In his much hyped speech about health care to the joint session of Congress President Obama told a very sad story about a lady who had cancer and lost her insurance right before a much needed procedure. Why did she lose her insurance? She lost it because she failed to report a case of acne. That is awful and another example of those evil insurance companies!

But it seems that Joe Wilson was right about one thing. Our dear President was lying. Let’s refresh our memories on what exactly he said about that poor lady from Texas.

“Another woman from Texas was about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne.  By the time she had her insurance reinstated, her breast cancer had more than doubled in size.  That is heart-breaking, it is wrong, and no one should be treated that way in the United States of America.”

Seems that Robin Lynn Beaton, 59, of Waxahachie, Texas, did have her insurance suspended; and it was suspended right before a life saving procedure that she needed. But the problem is that she wasn’t suspended for an unreported case of acne. She lost her coverage when she failed to disclose a previous heart condition when enrolling in the plan. She also fibbed about her weight.

All was not lost, though, Ms. Beaton’s Representative, Republican Congressman Joe Barton and his staff worked with the insurance company and got her coverage reinstated. She got her surgery and she credits Barton and his staff with saving her life.

What we have here is a classic case of what Ann Coulter said – “If you want to know what the left is up to, pay attention to what they are accusing the right of.” Obama is just fear mongering. Yep, that is what the right has been accused of all summer and then the left’s fearless leader gets up on national TV and does it big time.

But to be fair, he said that transparency and accountability were going to be the touchstones of his administration. He said nothing about fear mongering, so that is evidently fair game.

Conservatism: What it is and why it is needed?

Conservatism is by today’s standards closely associated with Edmund Burke’s philosophy. I think it goes beyond that, in that it is more than merely a political doctrine. It is, in my estimation, a way of life, a code of conduct that associates one’s property with one’s liberty. For how can one truly be a free man when his property is not his to do with as he wishes? Russell Kirk, a man who has had a big impact on 20th century conservatism and has helped to shape it going into the new millennia was quoted as saying that conservatism is “the negation of ideology.”

How is that ‘negation of ideology’ translated into today’s conservative movement? By its very nature the term conservative is derived from the Latin verb, conservare, meaning to preserve or to save. So how do we arrive at what seems to be an oxy-moron such as ‘modern conservatism?’ How does one combine 21st century thinking with a traditional approach to life and politics? It’s not that difficult, really. I think Kirk was onto something important when he called it ‘the negation of ideology.’ For if one is to look at the Statist’s modus operandi, it is clear that amassing power and expanding the role of government in the life of the “masses” is his number one priority. It has been said that the far left, which is the controlling faction of the Democratic Party at this time, is part and parcel with big government. In other words, the Democratic Party needs big government for power and big government needs the Democratic Party to exist. It is a symbiotic relationship that is troubling to say the least and dangerous in the extreme.

To be honest, some Republican Presidents have increased government spending as well. Let’s look at Ronald Reagan. He did increase government, but he did it in a slightly different way. Reagan dramatically cut the role of the Federal Government in domestic programs and shifted the focus to increasing the military. Of course, this is well known today to be one of the leading reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union. So this begs the question, did Reagan increase or decrease the role of government in our lives? On the domestic front, he dramatically decreased it, so the argument can be made that he was a small-government conservative. If one takes into the account the expanded size of the Federal Government due to the military build-up during the Reagan years then the answer seems less clear unless you remember one key factor, our Constitution. It specifically calls for the Federal Government to provide for the common defense; it does not call for entitlements, or other socialistic programs. So in retrospect, Reagan was definitely a true conservative. It is very unfortunate that we do not have a true conservative in the White House at this time.

Obama is the most pure statist in American history to ever occupy the Oval Office. If you look at the unprecedented spending undertaken by this administration, then you see that we are on a course of financial ruin.
• $787 billion stimulus package
• $410 billion omnibus spending bill
• $700 billion Wall Street bailout package
• $3.6 trillion budget
To assail his critics, Obama promised to find $17 billion in cuts from his gargantuan budget. If it weren’t so scary, it would be laughable. As Senator Judd Gregg (R N-H) said, “It’s as if you took a teaspoon of water out of the bathtub while you left the spigot on at full speed.”

But it actually gets worse. Projections from the General Accountability Office and the Congressional Budget Office show that spending on entitlements will outpace economic growth from 147% to a whopping 331% by 2030. That means with our Gross Domestic Product at 72%, we will be spinning our wheels as a nation to try and cover the unfunded liabilities of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, not to mention any universal health plan that Obama may get passed.

So what we, the American public have been stuck with is the bill for a pure statist’s Utopian dream. Can we afford this? Can our children or our grand-children? The answer is no. This is only one of the many reasons why we need conservatism so much right now.

Stephen A. Smith on Modern Conservatism and the Minority Community

Stephen A. Smith, the personality most well known to fans of ESPN was recently interviewed on the Mark Levin radio show. I was astounded. Not that he is a black man that is also a conservative, because studies show that there are a great many black conservatives in America. No, what really struck me, was in the way he put into words how he felt about, not only our President, but also about what it means to be a conservative. He is eloquent and direct. And as Mark asks him in the interview, he could very well run for President, or at the very least, public office. This man is exactly what the Conservative cause needs at this time.

Mark Levin: Now Stephen, one of the things that impresses me about you is, you fundamentally understand liberty. Doesn’t mean we agree on everything.

Stephen Smith: Right.

ML: But you fundamentally understand that this is what we have to defend. I don’t care who we’re defending it from, this is what we have to defend. What do you make…what do you make of what’s going on today with all the government push and all the racism charges and all the rest of it?

SS: Well I’m disturbed to be quite honest with you. Ah, you can hear me clearly, correct Mark?

ML: Yes sir.

SS: Yes sir, I’m very, very disturbed. I mean, you know as an African American growing up in the streets of New York City I understand what poverty is all about, I understand, you know, what trials and tribulations mean. But at the same time, I’m looking at what we’re witnessing from our President, a man that I voted for; a man that I was proud to vote for at the time simply because, from a historical perspective what he represented. And then I’m looking at, you know, what I consider to be a government takeover. And I’m quite alarmed; I don’t think it’s what he campaigned on. I know that his record was radical, I listen to Sean Hannity a lot and Sean Hannity made it a point to say that everyday. But I certainly didn’t expect us to own 80% of AIG. I didn’t expect us to own a part of the automobile industry. Its one thing to put forth a $787 billion stimulus package, but to drop on top of that $410 billion omnibus package, a $3.6 trillion budget, a cap and trade bill, and then to come with universal health care that ultimately leans towards a government takeover of the health care system. Um these…I did not have to listen to Mark Levin or Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh to recognize that this is something that should make all of us extremely uncomfortable. Because as a young black man growing up in the streets of New York City; no matter what you say about so many of the critics that were perceived as leaders within the community, people may have advocated Mark, government intervention in terms of supervising things and making sure that we all were operating under a fair and equitable system. But I don’t recall anybody, and I do mean anybody that has ever walked into the black community and advocated a government takeover of anything. It’s about handling your own business, grabbing yourself by your own bootstraps and lifting yourself up. We may all need assistance, but a takeover is an entirely different situation altogether, and I’m extremely uncomfortable with it, and I’m even more uncomfortable with the fact that race has become a part of the discussion.

We all know racism exists to some degree, but to act as if it is as prevalent as it was years and decades ago is completely untrue and it serves to divide this nation, which I think is a catastrophic thing.

ML: Are you running for president? Cause I’ll vote for you.

SS: (Laughter)

ML: I – I’m not kidding. What you just said was so damn good and I’m not kidding, because, uh, in fact I have, I have shivers going down, uh up my leg, or whatever the guy said, Chris Matthews.

SS: I tell you something; one of the things, listening to your show, listening to Sean, listening to Rush, I’ve agreed with Rush in a lot of the things in the past, but I remember…I’ll tell you a little story Mark. Just a few days ago I was in Washington D.C. for an event and an African American happened to be driving me. He was a cab driver and I’m talking to him because he’s a big time supporter of Obama. And I said to him, “Listen you’re not going to be able to put that tag on me, ‘Oh, you know what? You’re being critical of Obama, so therefore you must be against him.’” No, no, no, no, no. The fact is, he is the President of the United States of America, he received 69 million plus votes, he received 52% of the popular vote; he has sworn to be a president to ALL Americans, not just African Americans. I appreciate his sensitivity or what would appear to be his sensitivity to some degree, but that doesn’t mean we don’t get to be critical of his policies. And you can’t tell me that what you’re seeing from his policies right now should make you comfortable. If it makes you comfortable, it’s because you must be ignorant to the issues. Because if you are paying attention, then you cannot be comfortable with the American way of life that you knew before, watching what’s taking place right now. And I was, I ended up surrounded by about 15 or 20 people, and I was basically saying to them, Mark, “Listen, at the end of the day, its about, if you walked up to any African American in this country and you said to them, ‘You know what? I’m gonna give you universal health care, or I’m gonna give you a cap and trade tax, or I’m gonna give you X,Y and Z.’ If you gave them that option, or the option to have money in their pocket and for them to make their OWN decisions. They would choose the latter.” I said, “I got news for you. That would make you somebody with a conservative point of view. You better wake up and recognize.”

ML: I think I just found a superstar. I-I’m not kidding you. Now, by the way, do you know I get –

SS: Yes sir.

ML: I get notes from cab drivers all the time asking me for a copy of Liberty and Tyranny? I mean people make assumptions, bigoted assumptions about people based on their race, or what they’re doing in their lives or something like that. You know I just think if we explain liberty more, if we explain competition more, and you’re right, if we, if we, and we spend a lot of money, if we’d spend it the right way to help people that truly cannot help themselves, I’m all for that. I’m not an Anarchist, I’m a Conservative. But that said, there’s no reason to destroy the entire health care system in order to help people. There’s just no need for it.

SS: I-I’ll tell you what, if you don’t mind me saying so. I’ll tell you what the conservatives and the Republican Party is up against more so than anything else. You don’t have a great messenger, outside of talk radio.

ML: You’re – It’s true.

SS: That ultimately, that ultimately is your problem. I like Michael Steele, I certainly don’t want to do anything that would impugn his integrity, or, or stain him in any way. But, you know he has to do a better job of making sure that the message of the Conservative party is coming across because I don’t think it’s reaching the masses. I think you’ve got to have people that can go in any community because the reality is that when you look at Conservatives, when you look at Republicans you know that you’re going – you know that there’s a vast majority of white Americans that are going to vote in that direction. But when you talk about the Hispanic and in particularly the Black community then it becomes a problem. You’ve got to have somebody that can walk into these disenfranchised and minority communities and really explain what it is all about.

I didn’t know who Mark Levin was from a can of paint. But when I listened on a radio show, and I listened to him, I said, “You know what? When it’s six o’clock on the East Coast, if I’m in my car, to hell with music, and the hell with talk radio, everything else –

ML: (Laughter)

SS: I’m turning on Mark Levin, because I wanna LEARN something.” And even if I disagree, I’m still going to learn something even in the process of disagreeing, and therefore it’s going to make me more intelligent about the arguments that I make for or against whatever somebody like you is saying. Too many people do not do that and that needs to change, especially when we’re witnessing what we’re witnessing what’s taking place in our country today.

Wow. That is really all I can say. We need more people to orate the conservative position this well.

It is our right!! Or is it?

The terms “socialism” and “Marxism” have been bandied about quite a bit as of late; in fact it would seem that with Barack Hussein Obama in the White House those terms are being heard more and more. But to what end? I mean it is one thing to speak of socialism and its negative impact on our society, and quite another to label a U.S. President as a socialist. But have we had socialistic presidents in the past? Now don’t worry, this isn’t going to be a review of all 44 presidents. I am going to focus on only one and more specifically on one speech given by that president.

But before that, I want to talk quickly about one of the greatest gifts our Founding Fathers gave us; the Bill of Rights. They were introduced to Congress in 1789 and finally ratified in 1791. The Bill of Rights laid out, for our society, a framework upon the already rock solid Constitution. They were also brought forth to quell dispute between the federalist and anti-federalist camps. These first 10 amendments allowed our country to move forward and carry on with what Americans do best, pursuing life, liberty and happiness.

What is the Bill of Rights? Well quickly, I shall summarize them for the purpose of this narrative.

• First Amendment, freedom of speech and religion – Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
• Second Amendment, the right to bear arms – A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
• Third Amendment, protection from housing troops – No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
• Fourth Amendment, protection from unreasonable search and Seizure – The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
• Fifth Amendment, right of due process and protection from double jeopardy, self incrimination and eminent domain – No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
• Sixth Amendment, right to trial by jury, speedy trial, to confront your accuser and right to counsel – In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
• Seventh Amendment, right to civil trial by jury – In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
• Eight Amendment, protection from excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment – Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

• Ninth Amendment, Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights – The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
• Tenth Amendment, powers of States and peoples – The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now that we have refreshed our memories of our Bill of Rights, let us take a look at what has been called our Second Bill of Rights. Franklin Delano Roosevelt in his State of the Union address to Congress in 1944 said that America needed another bill of rights.

In it he declared, “This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.”

Quite a list there, Mr. FDR, sir. But his list begs the question, “What is a right?” Well it can be said, and was said by our Founding Fathers, that we possess certain unalienable rights, among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I believe the key word in that well known American phrase is “unalienable;” meaning those rights which are placed upon us by our Creator. These rights cannot be transferred, sold or sundered by man or any implementation of man. But further, the term “right” refers to that which one can pursue and enjoy only when it is not at the expense of the rights of others. When one says something is a right, there are two parties involved, the party receiving the right and the party granting the right. Unalienable rights are those that arise between our Creator and us. Our Creator grants those rights and we receive them. To call anything a right, there has to be the understanding that it is universal, for to not do so would negate the rights of all of us.

This being said let us look at FDR’s Second Bill of Rights. He speaks of a person’s right to a job, substantial earnings, of a business man to be able to do business and sell his products without fear of oppression by monopolies. FDR continues with calling the ability to own or have a home a right, food, health care and economic security a right, and that only when these are secured can America be America.

The left’s philosophy is contingent on the premise that not only are we all created equal, but that we are all maintained and secured in that equality. For only when every citizen is equal in stature financially with all other citizens can America be fair. This is a failed and markedly flawed philosophy because no one government is powerful enough to make all its citizens equal. Where does this end? If owning or having a home is a right, then why does one person live in an apartment while another has a 50 room mansion? Why does one citizen reside in a crowded, congested city while another enjoys the expanse and openness of the rural lifestyle?

Or what about this “right” to a job and financial security? When one citizen toils long hours of the day, week in and week out, only to survive from paycheck to paycheck, why is it that another citizen lives in the lap of luxury after building his business up from meager beginnings to corporate success? What then, should we do to correct this problem? If you subscribe to the left’s philosophy, then you tear down or penalize the more successful citizen to reward the less successful. You take from the rich and give to the poor. On paper that is a very romantic proposal, stirring images of Robin Hood and a benign hero to the poor. But in reality, taking from one person and giving that to another person is anything but romantic. If you subscribe to the idea that we are endowed by our Creator with certain rights, then you must reject the notion of redistribution of wealth because only our Creator can give or take away rights, not man or man made institutions.

So how would FDR explain the idea that we are born with the right to a job, a home, health care and economic security? This is just another example of the left making promises of a utopia that is utterly unattainable; for to say that we are born with the right to economic security is to say that someone must give that right to us. Who? Our Creator? I hardly believe that our Creator is worried about how much money we have, the size of our home, or how well our business does. No, to say these things are rights is to confer the status of right giver to our Government and I, for one do not want our Government to have that kind of power. And let us not forget that our Founding Fathers saw the Government as the potential enemy and therefore built limits in the Constitution to prohibit it from expanding into the role of “right giver.”

We find our current President subscribing to this theory of FDR’s on the issue of health care. During a debate last October, Obama was asked if he thought health care was a right. He said he thought it was a right. But I tend to follow the ideal that Edmund Burke espoused, which was that thinking of health care as a right was preposterous. On this subject he said, “What is the use of discussing a man’s abstract right to food or to medicine? The question is upon the method of procuring and administering them. In this deliberation I shall always advise to call in the aid of the farmer and the physician, rather than the professor of metaphysics.”

This directly correlates to what our Founding Fathers said about being created equal. In other words, we are created in equality, not maintained in that equity. By creating a level playing field, it is ultimately fairer to every individual by allowing them the chance to strive, rather than by making sure everyone strives equally. But maybe this idea is just too unfair, and maybe this is what Michelle Obama meant when she said America was a “down right mean country.” Other countries utilize socialism to equalize the citizenry, to give everyone the same level of success. America does not do that and if having a nation full of people striving to do their best, to succeed in a compassionate manner means that we live in a mean country, then so be it. For only in a country that focuses on individual liberties and freedoms can equality mean anything. No Mr. FDR and Mr. Obama, I do not think health care is a right. To call health care, food, shelter and economic security rights is to demean what our Creator bestows upon us, and that is not something that I wish to do.

We the People

All across America as our Congress takes a break during their August recess; the Democrats are getting a rude awakening from their constituents. It seems that the polls showing that most Americans don’t want Obama’s health care reform are being proven to be very accurate. Americans don’t want government run health care. They don’t want a bureaucrat to come between them and their doctor. They don’t like the fact that the Democratically controlled Congress is spending our country into oblivion. But most of all, they don’t like the fact that their elected representatives vote in lock step with the far left element of the Democratic Party.

But they aren’t the only ones who don’t like things. The Democrats don’t like being disagreed with. They don’t like their constituents telling them how to vote. I think they have forgotten that “We the People” is more than just a bumper sticker slogan. It is the bedrock this country was founded on; the ability for the citizenry to speak out and voice their displeasure with their Government.

Last September Barack Obama said the following to that very same citizenry: “”I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face.” He said this when he wanted their help. He wanted “We the People” to get in people’s faces and make a change. Now his very own party, the Democratic party is saying this about those very same citizens: “The Republicans and their allied groups – desperate after losing two consecutive elections and every major policy fight on Capitol Hill – are inciting angry mobs of a small number of rabid right wing extremists funded by K Street Lobbyists to disrupt thoughtful discussions about the future of health care in America taking place in Congressional Districts across the country.” And they go on with, “…these mobs of extremists are not interested in having a thoughtful discussion about the issues – but like some Republican leaders have said – they are interested in ‘breaking’ the President and destroying his Presidency.”

So we have on one hand Obama saying he wants people to get involved, get into people’s faces to make a change. And on the other hand, when those same tactics are working against his agenda, Obama says, “This is the moment our movement was built for…That’s why Organizing for America is putting together thousands of events this month where you can reach out to neighbors, show your support, and make certain your members of Congress know that you’re counting on them to act. But these canvasses, town halls, and gatherings only make a difference if you turn up to knock on doors, share your views, and show your support. So here’s what I need from you: Can you commit to join at least one event in your community this month?”

So which is it Mr. President? Do you want your citizens to get involved and get in people’s faces to make changes? Or do you not want them to? Are they everyday Americans voicing their opinions, exercising their most fundamental American right? Or are they K-Street Lobbyists and angry mobs? I would say this to our Pretender-in-Chief, if you think that you can bully the American people into submission, you have another think coming because “We the People” are tired of your agenda. “We the People” are tired of your incessant spending. “We the People” are getting fed up with our elected officials thinking they are the ruling class in this country. But mostly Mr. Obama, “We the People” are mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore. It is time you and the rest of those who “We the People” voted for and sent to Washington D.C. remembered who your boss is. It is “We the People”