You say you want a revolution…

Is this what we have come to? This is America. Legal immigrants are welcome here. This is not about legal immigration – it is about people who are breaking the law and then demanding rights. It is time to stop the madness and enforce our laws. American citizens who opposed the Healthcare Reform bill endured media scrutiny and harsh criticism for exercising their right to free speech. However, now the media is cheerleading the bad behavior of both the left and illegal immigrants because they agreewith them. This must stop now. Enforce the federal immigration laws and secure the border. This type of behavior is offensive to law abiding, tax paying citizens.  

Free speech under attack! A Must read!

The attack on free speech and a free market media is now in high gear. This will be a challenge for us to fight because the administration can attack using an effective combination of legislation and regulation but we must fight back!  Considering the sorry state of the media, alternate media such as cable news, talk radio and the internet are the life line of conservative communications.

Ever heard of Free Press? Until recently I hadn’t either. Here is a blurb from their “About Us” page of their web site:

“Free Press: Reform media. Transform democracy.”

Free Press is a national, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization working to reform the media. Through education, organizing and advocacy, we promote diverse and independent media ownership, strong public media, quality journalism, and universal access to communications.

Look at the above statement carefully. Do you see the recurring theme of this administration? (Transform, Organize, Diversity & Public)

Free Press has three main units; Free Press, Save the Internet and Save the News.

Next we may have the administration’s mission statement for attacking the First Amendment – Free Speech!

Free Press’s executive director Josh Silver wrote a position paper called “Public Media’s Moment” which spells out to President Obama how to take advantage of the opportunity to reshape our national communications structure: “The growing crisis facing commercial journalism and public media’s unique ability to address it… makes such reform all the more urgent… you have a rare opportunity to achieve real change and reinvent public media.” Adding: “Just as the economic crisis has put an end to free market fundamentalism, so too should the failure of commercial media to adequately serve the public interest end the myth that government has no role in fulfilling society’s information needs.”

Remember this is the Rahm Emmanuel White House that lives the creed “never let a crisis go to waste”.

The issues Free Press works on:

Media Ownership

Public Media

The Future of the Internet (Net Neutrality)

Quality Journalism

Civil Rights and Media Justice

Building the Media Reform Movement

For more visit the following links:

http://www.freepress.net/

http://www.savetheinternet.com/index.php

And now for their scariest sub-group of all; SaveTheNews.org Here is “What we stand for” from their website:

The crisis facing journalism does not call for a bailout, but for a far-reaching national journalism strategy to save the news. The national journalism strategy must be aggressive but carefully planned, bold but targeted. And it must not be guided by profit-seeking or nostalgia, but rather by core public interest principles.

We need to explore how the federal government can best support the future of investigative journalism, beat reporting and quality news in America. This is not about newspapers, it is about newsrooms. It is not about protecting old institutions, it is about serving local communities. 

We understand that the future of this industry will likely consist of a diverse collection of models, and we recognize the need for experimentation and innovation now and in the future.

Based on our analysis, we have identified five promising policies that should be the top priorities for policymakers:

NEW OWNERSHIP STRUCTURES. Encouraging the establishment of nonprofit and low-profit news organizations through tax exempt (“501(c)(3)”) and low-profit limited liability company (“L3C”) models.

NEW INCENTIVES. Creating tax incentives and revising bankruptcy laws to encourage local, diverse, nonprofit, low-profit and employee ownership.

JOURNALISM JOBS PROGRAM. Funding training and retraining for novice and veteran journalists in multimedia and investigative reporting.

R&D FUND FOR JOURNALISM INNOVATION. Investing in innovative projects and experimenting to identify and nurture new models.

NEW PUBLIC MEDIA. Transforming public broadcasting into a world-class noncommercial news operation using new technology and focused on community service.

We make no claims that these models, alone or collectively, will automatically provide a panacea to the crisis in journalism. However, we believe that these alternatives are worth further consideration, study and action. All of these models, to varying degrees, attempt to circumvent market failure with structural alternatives that seek to democratize media. Furthermore, they all could be accomplished via specific policy interventions and are politically viable, though formidable challenges exist. Most importantly, we hope that by highlighting these options, we can begin a truly public conversation about what the future of journalism should look like and point policymakers and regulators toward an agenda that will save the news and serve the public good.

http://www.savethenews.org/

As scary as each of the individual points are consider this statement: We need to explore how the federal government can best support the future of investigative journalism, beat reporting and quality news in America. Is the hair on the back of your neck standing up yet?

Now think back to the comment’s of the FCC’s resident Commie Mark Lloyd, its’ newly appointed Diversity Officer:

In his 2006 book, Prologue to a Farce: Communications and Democracy in America, Lloyd called for making private broadcasting companies pay licensing fees equal to their total operating costs. These funds would be given to public broadcasting outlets to allow them the same funding to support their operations as a private company would have. In other words, corporate redistribution of wealth. Money is not the only thing that Lloyd wants redistributed, he wants to “regulate much of the programming on these stations to make sure they focused on ‘diverse views’ and government activities.” Hmmm, ‘diverse views’ and government activities.” He is a fan of Hugo Chavez and his state run media so… I wonder what he means by “government activities”?

Let’s not forget that this is a White House that refuses any interaction with Fox News and has all but made them an official enemy of the administration. In fact they have demonstrated that they will go after anyone that dares to question or challenge their agenda. Think – Fox, Chamber of Commerce and health insurance companies.

Are you sensing a theme? How about social reengineering through media control? I say it every post and I’ll say it again now, this is another threat to YOUR American way of life!

This is government moving toward policies that control the media, the internet and free speech. These policies will redistribute wealth and control all the messaging.

Radio and the internet are the primary tools for exchange of conservative ideas and conversation. We can not let them take our voices away. We must fight back and stand up for our rights. Liberty and freedom are ours to lose if we don’t get involved; in the end we will only have ourselves to blame if we do nothing.

Restore the Republic, Reject State Run Media and the loss of free Speech!

“Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.” ~Alexis de Tocqueville

 

Orrin Hatch slaps MoveOn & Soros

In a rare display of Republican backbone Orrin Hatch defends himself in an interview with Andrea Mitchell. He then lands punches on MoveOn.Org and George Soros. Now that we know he’s capable it would nice to see him fight for us with same energy he defended himself. Watch the video below.

Restore the Republic, Reject the Left’s Socialist Agenda!

A Fourth of July Post, Sarah Palin…. the liberal media, political assassins, principles, and leadership

“One of the key problems today is that politics is such a disgrace; good people don’t go into government”. – Donald Trump

Today is the Fourth of July, Independence Day in America. Today is a day to reflect on our country, the principles on which it was founded, and all the brave men and women who have led us throughout our history to be the greatest nation in the world.

“Come forward, then, and give us the aid of your talents and the weight of your character towards the new establishment of republicanism.” –Thomas Jefferson

As I watched the news last night, I couldn’t help but feel a sense of sadness as Gov. Palin announced that she would not seek another term as governor of Alaska and would end her current term early, because, even though she wanted to continue, she felt it to be in the best interest of her state.

The cynical among us will say it is because she wants to run for President in 2012; others will say it proves she is not ready for higher office. However, I believe her when she says she’s doing it because the political environment in Alaska has changed. Her national status has made it very difficult to be effective due to the continued attacks from the media and political enemies she made while cleaning up Alaska’s ethical issues early in her term as Governor. She’s become a polarizing figure, and multiple ethics complaints have been filed against her with the state personnel board. Her enemies have attacked her using the very ethics rules she set in place. As she pointed out, it cost nothing to make false accusations and keep her busy defending herself rather than working on the state’s business.

The 15 complaints have been dismissed with no findings of wrongdoing, although one complaint led to Palin’s agreement to reimburse the state about $8,100 for costs associated with trips taken with her children. The state says it has spent nearly $300,000 to investigate the complaints. Palin says she has racked up more than $500,000 in legal fees fighting them, and it has wasted over $2 million in state funds when you count the time lost by Palin and her staff to answer all the charges. To her credit, Gov. Palin says she is stepping down because she doesn’t need the title of Governor to serve her state. She also said she will not be party to allowing state resources to be wasted just so she can sit in the governor’s chair. I guess she fooled a lot of her detractors. She was willing to give up something important to her for the greater good. This is a concept to few political leaders are familar with these days.

This is easy to believe when you consider the success she has had as governor. Sarah Palin has reformed the code of ethics for Alaska state politicians. She has struck landmark deals with the gas and oil companies operating in Alaska to return a portion of their profits to the state and its citizens, resulting in extremely low tax rates. She even threw out all kinds of unnecessary government perks, including the governor’s private jet. Like her or not, Sarah Palin is a woman of substance, which is why yesterday should be a sad day for all Americans who value the character of their leaders. 

 “I have the consolation of having added nothing to my private fortune during my public service, and of retiring with hands clean as they are empty.” – Thomas Jefferson

Whether you agree with Sarah Palin’s political point of view or not, any fair-minded American should be appalled at the way the Alaskan governor has been treated by the media since being announced as John McCain’s Vice Presidential running mate last August. You can attack her policy positions, criticize her experience (although if you supported Obama, you are a hypocrite), say she’s too folksy, and argue about why you don’t think she is ready to be Vice President. All of this is fair game. However, the relentless personal attacks on her intellect, her mannerisms, her sex appeal, her family, her way of life, and her religious beliefs are over the top. Never has an American political candidate received such embarrassingly vicious treatment from the media. 

I have written two blogs on leadership and principles in the past two months. A large portion of those blogs apply to Gov. Palin’s situation. So I’m going to pull in a few excerpts for reference.

“Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, rottenness begins in his conduct.”  – Thomas Jefferson

It seems that politics today is more about winning the election than it is about a commitment to principles and values. Ideally, candidates in a political contest would debate clearly articulated points of differentiation, providing the voters a choice between approaches to problem solving and philosophies of governing. 

However, the political strategists of the day seem content with and adept at blurring those lines. Combine that with a little help from the media and often you don’t know who you’re really electing until the election is over and the candidate is in office. This, by the way, is not a shot at any single elected official but a comment on the sad state of the mass media and our political system. Both parties are guilty! 

After the 2008 election, the pundits started to debate what the Republicans needed to do to regain control of the White House and Congress:  They discussed strategies to recruit younger, better-looking, energetic candidates. They suggested a need for candidates who had a better TV presence and were more gifted speakers. One of the esteemed panelists even went as far as to say that the content of the message doesn’t matter as much as how it’s delivered. The debate was about style over substance and whether the party should move more to the center or more to the right. I couldn’t help but think that political parties are supposed to represent an ideology that is based on a system of values.

I am not sure what horrifies me more; the fact that the pundits might be right or that we’ve become a nation of media junkies. It seems we’re no longer capable of telling the difference between a commercial and the program. Are we being told what to think by our televisions?

Webster offers a couple of variations on the definition of a “politician,” but the one that seems most fitting these days is “one who seeks partisan or personal gain often by crafty or dishonest means.”

In recent years it seems we’ve had a difficult time attracting anyone other than “politicians” to take leadership roles in our government; real leaders want less and less to do with elected office. This is most likely due to the harsh light cast on those in public life. The level of personal scrutiny that an individual must endure to embark on the path to public service is enough to scare off most sane people.

 Successful, intelligent, and ethical individuals who have lived a “normal” life and made common mistakes shy away from throwing their hat in the ring. The personal sacrifices that they and their families must make are often too steep a price to pay for the privilege of serving ones’ country, state, or community.

Ironically, character is often what is most lacking in today’s political leaders. Yet the very mistakes, trials, and tribulations that become the subject of scrutiny are often the life -changing experiences that build character and moral fiber. 

Today’s politicians have become largely a collection of actors playing the part of leaders. They have self-serving agendas that are equally split between their personal goals and repaying debts to those who supported their candidacy. Most are career politicians who have made a job out of “public service.” 

How do we change this trend? How do we encourage real leaders and statesmen to get involved in government again? Let’s start electing real people with character, ethics, morals, and flaws, who were forged in the real world under fire.

We need:

• principled men and women who are willing to represent the values of their constituents and do what’s best for their country, their state, or community;
• true leaders that will not mortgage our future for short-term victories or sell their values to the highest bidder in exchange for support on an item they want; and
• leaders who have common sense, love their country, and believe in the American dream.

The candidates aren’t the only ones who need to have values and principles. As voters, our responsibilities are the same as the candidate’s. We need to invest enough time in the process that we have well thought-out and defined positions on the issues. We also have a responsibility to understand, at least conceptually, how the candidate will solve a problem or address an issue, if elected. 

This reminds me of a lyric from an old country song that goes right to the heart of the matter: it goes, “You’ve got to stand for something or you’ll fall for anything.” Unfortunately, far too many of us don’t make the time to study the issues. Instead we get our news in soundbites. We vote for what sounds “good” without ever knowing if it is good. In the end, the only people who can hold the candidates accountable are the voters. This accountability should start on the campaign trail, not once they are in office. There should be no surprises once elected. If we understand the issues and set expectations of our elected officials, we won’t have to worry about “falling for anything.” 

So in the end the pundits got it all wrong! It is not about if the Republicans should move right, center, or left. It’s not about whether they should be more moderate or more conservative. It is about candidates from both parties deciding what they stand for and sticking to it. Both parties need to use the election process to honestly sell their views and let the voters decide.

I hope this is not the last hurrah for Sarah Palin. We need more down-to-earth, regular folks with common sense to seek office and help lead this country back to greatness. We need leaders that don’t sell out their principles to get in office and then rediscover them once elected. That is corrupt, and corruption will destroy trust in the government. When the government loses the trust of the people, our country will cease to be great. 

 I’ll close with the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson:

  “Public offices were not made for private convenience.” – Thomas Jefferson

  “We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” – Thomas Jefferson

Obama slam dunks Inspector General in KJ scandal…. Is the White House engaging in Chicago-style politics?

Last week, a top White House lawyer called the firing of AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin “an act of political courage.” But is it really an act of “political cowardice?” 

(AP, Washington, 6/12/09) An inspector general fired by President Barack Obama said Friday he acted “with the highest integrity” in investigating AmeriCorps and other government-funded national service programs. Gerald Walpin said in an interview with The Associated Press that he reported facts and conclusions “in an honest and full way” while serving as inspector general at the Corporation for National and Community Service.

Obama’s move follows an investigation by Walpin finding misuse of federal grants by a nonprofit education group led by Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, who is an Obama supporter and former NBA basketball star. Johnson and a nonprofit education academy he founded ultimately agreed to repay half of $847,000 in grants it had received from AmeriCorps.

The inspector general found that Johnson, a former all-star point guard for the Phoenix Suns, had used AmeriCorps grants to pay volunteers to engage in school-board political activities, run personal errands for Johnson and even wash his car.

In settling the case, the government agreed to lift its suspension of any future grants to the academy and Johnson agreed to immediately repay $73,000 in past grants. The academy was given 10 years to repay the remaining $350,000.

Walpin was criticized by the acting U.S. attorney in Sacramento for the way he handled the investigation of Johnson and St. HOPE Academy. Walpin defended his work on Friday. “I know that I and my office acted with the highest integrity as an independent inspector general should act,” he said.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, wrote President Obama a letter pointing to a law requiring that Congress be given the reasons an inspector general is fired. He cited a Senate report saying the requirement is designed to ensure that inspectors general are not removed for political reasons.

Grassley said Walpin had identified millions of dollars in AmeriCorps funds that were wasted or misspent and “it appears he has been doing a good job.”

Norman Eisen, the White House Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform, said “Mr. Walpin was confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the board to question his capacity to serve.” After the meeting, Eisen wrote, Walpin lost the confidence of the Corporation Board.  The White House conducted a review of the matter, and Walpin was fired. 

“It is vital that I have the fullest confidence in the appointees serving as inspectors general,” Obama said in the letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Vice President Joe Biden, who also serves as president of the Senate. “That is no longer the case with regard to this inspector general”.

The Inspector General Reform Act enacted last year dictates that the president must notify Congress of his intention to dismiss an IG 30 days before the termination takes effect.

The fired IG Walpin, a New York attorney, was appointed by then-President George W. Bush and sworn into office in January 2007 after being confirmed by the Senate, according to a news release on AmeriCorps’ Web site. Walpin graduated from College of the City of New York in 1952 and received a law degree in 1955 from Yale Law School. He was a partner with the New York City law firm Katten Muchin and Rosenman LLP for more than 40 years. He is 77 years old.

(Source: The above is a compilation of two stories by Bryan York and Pete Yost)    Links to both stories below:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/NEW-White-House-refuses-to-answer-Senates-questions-on-AmeriCorps-IG-firing-48285832.html

http://www.sacbee.com/830/story/1939952.html?storylink=omni_popular

So what is AmeriCorps and the Corporation for National and Community Service*?

In 1993, President Bill Clinton signed the National and Community Service Trust Act, which established the Corporation for National and Community Service and brought the full range of domestic community service programs under the umbrella of one central organization.

This legislation built on the first National Service Act signed by President H.W. Bush in 1990. It also formally launched AmeriCorps, a network of national service programs that engage Americans in intensive service to meet the nation’s critical needs in education, public safety, health, and the environment.

The newly created AmeriCorps incorporated two existing national service programs: the longstanding VISTA (Volunteers in Service to America) program, created by President Lyndon Johnson in 1964 and the National Civilian Community Corps (NCCC).

AmeriCorps is made up of three main programs: AmeriCorps State and National, AmeriCorps VISTA, and AmeriCorps NCCC (National Civilian Community Corps).

AmeriCorps State and National*:

 AmeriCorps State and National supports a broad range of local service programs that engage thousands of Americans in intensive service to meet critical community needs.

AmeriCorps VISTA*: AmeriCorps VISTA provides full-time members to community organizations and public agencies to create and expand programs that build capacity and ultimately bring low-income individuals and communities out of poverty.

AmeriCorps NCCC*: The AmeriCorps National Civilian Community Corps (NCCC) is a full-time residential program for men and women, ages 18-24, that strengthens communities while developing leaders through direct, team-based national and community service.

Corporation for National and Community Service*

AmeriCorps is a program of the Corporation for National and Community Service, an independent federal agency whose mission is to improve lives, strengthen communities, and foster civic engagement through service and volunteering. In addition to AmeriCorps, the Corporation also administers Senior Corps and Learn and Serve America. Together these programs engage more than 2 million Americans of all ages and backgrounds in service each year.

The Office of the Inspector General*

Created by the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993, the Corporation for National and Community Service Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducts and supervises independent and objective audits and investigations of Corporation programs and operations. Based on the results of these audits, reviews, and investigations, the OIG recommends policies to promote economy and efficiency and prevent and detect fraud and abuse in the Corporation’s programs and operations.

(Source*:  The above descriptions of AmeriCorp and the NCS are from AmeriCorps.gov) For more on AmeriCorps:

http://www.americorps.gov/

Unfortunately, while the organization’s mission as described by the website sounds noble, one can’t help but feel this is another poorly thought out government program ripe with opportunity for fraud and abuse. After reading about AmeriCorps on line I cynically wondered about possible connections to ACORN.

The first search I ran led to this:

ACORN took advantage of the federal agency a decade ago. As I wrote previously, ACORN, which is now notorious for its commingling of funds within its network of affiliates, used government resources to promote legislation.

A congressional report noted that there was “apparent cross-over funding between ACORN, a political advocacy group and ACORN Housing Corp. (AHC), a non profit, AmeriCorp [sic] grantee” that is a major affiliate of ACORN.

The government-funded AmeriCorps, which promotes public service, suspended AHC’s funding “after it was learned that AHC and ACORN shared office space and equipment and failed to assure that activities and funds were wholly separate.”

The report noted that, “AmeriCorps members of AHC raised funds for ACORN, performed voter registration activities, and gave partisan speeches. In one instance, an AmeriCorps member was directed by ACORN staff to assist the [Clinton] White House in preparing a press conference in support of legislation.” (“Report on the Activities of the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities during the 104th Congress,” Report 104-875, January 2, 1997)

Aware of this kind of abuse, earlier this year Sen. David Vitter (R-Louisiana) tried to block ACORN from using AmeriCorps funding to promote its own political objectives, but ACORN allies, including Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland), helped to defeat Vitter’s legislation. (Source: American Spectator, Matthew Vadum on 6.17.09) To read the complete article, go to:

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/06/17/americorps-and-acorn-go-way-ba

The reason offered for the termination also is interesting to say the least. The suggestion that Mr. Walpin, a 77 year old, “was confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the board to question his capacity to serve” based on a single meeting would never pass the litmus test for termination in the private sector. However, suggesting without substantial proof, that an older employee was possibly a little senile would almost guarantee a lawsuit for wrongful termination.

Again, I am left with the feeling that this firing was politically motivated. It looks more like payback for holding a political ally of the administration accountable for unscrupulous behavior than a warranted dismissal. The fact that the administration did not follow the required protocol of notifying Congress 30 days in advance of their intentions and failed to provide a reason at the time the firing was announced, alone are enough to make the firing suspect. When you add to that, the triggering event appears tied to the investigation of a political supporter it becomes difficult to dismiss without questions. Also remember that the rules of dismissal for an IG are in place to prevent politically motivated retaliation.

Even more concerning is what else was Walpin working on? Considering all the threats to investigate ACORN and the relationship between ACORN and AmeriCorps were they next? Yes, this is just speculation on my part but the swift and decisive action by the administration raises questions. If the administration is offended by the questions there is a simple solution – follow the rules!

Ironically, neither the mainstream media nor the Congress (who’s job it is) seems interested in the case or investigating the “facts”. The Bush administration caught a lot more heat when they changed out U.S. Attorneys even though these positions are political appointments that serve at the pleasure of the administration, unlike the IG position which is supposed to be a non partisan watch dog. Also let’s not forget that Mr. Johnson agreed to return $425,000. Would he have willingly done that if there had been no wrong doing?

So is this the kind of openness and transparency that we can continue to expect from the Obama administration? So far the administration has trampled the Constitution and seems to make up the rules as they go. (Example: retroactive taxes on Wall Street bonuses) This is starting to sound like good, old Chicago style politics, take out the opposition by whatever means necessary to win. This is not the change that anyone was hoping for or can believe in. Is there any integrity left in Washington?

“A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are suffering deeply in spirit, and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public debt. If the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at stake”. – Thomas Jefferson

Welcome to The ABC White House Evening News – June 24, 2009

Good Evening, This Charles Gibson and welcome to The ABC White House Evening News…………….. Tonight’s top story – Health care Reform, The President says, “We have to do it and we have to do it NOW”! 

This is not a fantasy, this is going to happen. ABC News is going to provide the Obama administration unprecedented coverage on June 24^th to sell their program to nationalize health care. ABC News will devote extensive coverage to the issue. This will include an interview with President Obama and the First Lady on “Good Morning America“, live from the south lawn, followed by a telecast of “World News”, live from the Blue Room. They will finish with a one-hour prime time town-hall health care discussion with President Obama called “Questions for the President: Prescription for America” moderated by Charles Gibson and Diane Sawyer. 

The Republican National Committee claims this will be nothing but a “glorified infomercial” to promote the administration’s agenda. When the Republicans asked ABC for time to present their counter proposal they were flatly told no.

“I am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC’s astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue,” RNC Chief of Staff Ken McKay wrote in a letter to ABC News President David Westin.

The administration continues to successfully pimp out the media to advance its’ own agenda. Even Jon Stewart remarked that the recent NBC, The White House, Behind the Scenes, special had no actual news value. It was just propaganda for the President. The special has even been described as being similar to an episode of MTV’s Cribs, certainly not a flattering comparison.

Rich Noyes, research director at the Media Research Center, said the amount of time being dedicated exclusively to Obama’s platform presents a problem for those claiming fairness. “Will the opponents of President Obama’s health care plan get an equal shot at the debate on the airwaves? This is an awful lot of time that ABC is giving over to one side of the debate,” Noyes said. “This is an issue of such importance, the public really requires a balanced debate.” (source – Fox News) 

“The American people deserve to know that they’re not just watching the administration’s spin on their local newscasts — they’re paying for it, too.” Sen. John Kerry (Ironically, even a liberal gets it right once in a while)

What has happened to journalism? Why has the media become the public relations arm of the Democratic Party? What is it going to take to get a fair public debate on any issue with this administration? I’m tired of the President’s arrogant finger wagging and scoldings about how we must do everything right now because there is no time to wait. I am also tired of him telling us what HE will and will not accept. We need to remind the President that he was ELECTED to lead a democracy. The President and his czars need to understand that we are entitled to a debate of the facts and a say in the direction. We will not be dictated to. Despite the President’s continuous assertion to the contrary, health care is not destroying the economy –  government regulations and excessive interventions are. The public needs to wake up and engage! Make your voice heard. This is serious business.

This is potentially the most important policy debate in modern U.S. history. The economic impact of nationalizing health care or even simply expanding government provided health care to cover the uninsured could be a financial disaster. The government has already proven that they can not efficiently manage a health care program. Two of three biggest government liabilities are Medicaid and Medicare, right behind Social Security. When they were started in the mid sixties the Johnson administration promised they would be modest programs. They were to be funded by a small incremental tax. These programs were only supposed to help the elderly and the very poor. Yet today, they are  anchors around the neck of the country.

As citizens we should demand a full debate on this issue and we should hold our legislators accountable for the decision. We do not need an artificial deadline imposed. This should be fully vetted. Since the TARP legislation was shoved down our throats by the Congress and the Bush administration we have had a steady diet of spending and new government intervention. What is worse is that most of this spending and power grabbing is unconstitutional! We need to call a time out and take our time to decide the right solution. What is the objective – to lower the cost of health care so that it is accessible and affordable for more Americans or to create a government run health care system? After all if you were going to make a $1.2 trillion purchase with your own money you would probably want to do some research and investigate all your options before spending your cash. Oh wait, this is your money, your children’s money and your grandchildren’s money!

“We are so cleverly manipulated and influenced by the media and establishments on both the right and left, that the truth has become hopelessly lost in semantics.”- Jules Carlysle 

“It is true that you may fool all of the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all of the time; but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.” – Abraham Lincoln

“A dictator must fool all the people all the time and there’s only one way to do that, he must also fool himself.” –  William Somerset Maugham