Charlotte Tea Party Headquarters

Driving is dangerous. That’s easy to forget because we do it daily. It’s common and completely comfortable. But comfort breeds distraction, even under ideal conditions. Insert text messaging and distracted driving increases exponentially.

To lessen that distraction Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) introduced the Avoiding Life-Endangering and Reckless Texting by Drivers Act (ALERT). The proposal will coerce states to adopt laws banning drivers from texting while behind the wheel.

It’s hard to argue that texting doesn’t distract drivers from more pressing matters. Most of us have seen it happen. On the surface, ALERT sounds like a fine idea. However, to determine if Sen. Schumer’s proposal is legitimate we must dig below the surface.

Do we need the central government enacting anti-texting laws? Does Congress even have that authority? The answer is no to both questions.

Twenty-five states already have some form of ban on texting while driving. Those laws passed without federal prodding. Additionally, Schumer cites the regulation of interstate commerce as authority for his bill. He reasons that texting devices are produced, conveyed and used in interstate commerce; therefore Congress can take action under Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. However, Article 1, Section 8 allows Congress to regulate commerce only, not personal acts or the private use of products.

Under Schumer’s reasoning Congress could ban anything. Ready for a federal ban on applying make-up while driving? How about federal bans on tuning radios or changing CDs? Should Congress prohibit conversation with passengers, or traveling with children? All can be distracting and all can be considered interstate commerce under Schumer’s misapplication of Article 1, Section 8. In fact, Congress can claim authority over anything with such an interpretation.

Let’s also consider Washington’s bully tactics. If Congress has constitutional authority to enact ALERT it should do so outright. But no! Congress prefers to force state compliance by withholding highway funds, which is how ALERT accomplishes the texting ban. It is an authoritarian act and the antithesis of Congress’ enumerated powers.

Frankly, it’s inconceivable that free people need Sen. Schumer to pass a law to prevent them from doing what they can quit on their own. Anyone who knows they shouldn’t be texting is smart enough to stop without Schumer’s assistance. Additionally, legislating to prevent drivers from texting ignores the basic function of law.

Laws don’t stop bad behavior, they identify it. There are laws against theft, rape and murder. Yet theft, rape and murder occur daily. The existence of laws does not prevent lawlessness, nor does law prevent people not inclined toward lawlessness from committing crime. Honorable people won’t steal, rape, or murder even if those acts aren’t criminalized.

Punishment after the fact, not prevention, is all we can reasonably expect from the law. Sen. Schumer isn’t so stupid as to believe his bill will prevent texting while driving, but he thinks we are that stupid.

Laws simply determine acceptable social behavior. To legislate for the punishment of texting while driving is one thing. To pretend laws will prevent acts that are easily self-regulated is slavish and immature.

A ban on texting while driving is sensible. Leave it to Charles Schumer to expand, corrupt and spin the idea until it makes no sense at all.

This column originally appeared on American Thinker.

Anthony W. Hager's columns can be found at:

 TheRightSlant.com and Pundit House.

The following article was read by Rush Limbaugh on his radio show.

(Feb. 4, 2010 - See Story #7)

After losing a close game, the coach put his arm around the young rookie quarterback who came off the bench to try to spark a comeback for his team. In an unsettling retort to his coach’s encouragement, Tom Brady said, “I gave it my best shot coach, but remember, I inherited that situation.”

A young relief pitcher was called in with the game tied in the bottom of the 9th inning with a runner on third and no outs. As he takes the ball from the manager, Mariano Rivera looks into the manager’s eyes and says, “I’ll give it my best coach, but remember, I inherited this situation.”

These two scenarios seem unimaginable in the world of sports. In fact, if they had really happened, you may not have expected these two players would have ever become superstars.

Any player with that attitude would be toxic to a team. And that kind of attitude would not be tolerated for an instant from any coach, teammate, or fan for that matter. Their selfishness and egotism would always upset the balance and continuity of team play, making it very difficult to win. As a detriment to the team, they would be eliminated as soon as possible. (Contracts not withstanding)

However, there have been instances of players like this. Take Terrell Owens for example. He never took responsibility for a loss and always made sure any blame landed on someone else. He was shuffled from team to team and always with the same result – he didn’t last. Owens has great talent, but because he’s not a team player, he’ll always exit early.

I preface my political point with all of this because it is painfully relevant to our situation in America today. After playing for a full year and no longer considered a rookie, it seems obvious that America has recruited a President who continues to exhibit these same toxic characteristics.

For years Barack Obama wanted to play on the team. No, he begged to play on the team. He asked over and over to be put in the game. He was adamant and confident that only he could win. He even promised the team and fans that he would win. Yes, Barack Obama made it abundantly clear to the whole world that he was the one the team had been waiting for and he wanted the ball - in a big way!

So with great hope and anticipation for a game changer, America gave the ball to Barack Obama late in the fourth quarter when things weren’t looking so good.

The rookie took the ball and began to swell with pride as he reminded team America in the face of this great adversity -- they could count on him -- but he also made it very clear to the team that he inherited this whole situation.

With three years left on Obama’s contract, how is America’s franchise player working out for the team now?

Neil Braithwaite writes political commentary and satire and is a regular contributor to Americanthinker.com and PoliticalDerby.com.

A few days before Christmas I read a newspaper report about a stolen debit card. Apparently the victim’s wallet was taken from her purse, which hung from her shoulder, while she shopped. Such a theft is a shameful indictment on human nature, especially at Christmastime. But it’s not at all surprising.

The thief wasted no time in using the ill-gotten windfall. While the victim was submitting the police report a female suspect was making purchases at the same store where the theft occurred. According to the newspaper’s account the thief spent $400 in 15 minutes.

That’s a fair amount of money. It may not be a leap-from-the-window loss, but more than most people care to lose. An employee would have to earn $50 per hour just to cover the 15 minute spending spree, based on the eight-hour day. That’s an annual salary of $104,000. Not too shabby in these economic times.

But this pickpocket went through $400 in 15 minutes. A worker must make $1600 per hour, $64,000 per week, over $3.3 million per year to earn the equivalent of what this thief stole. The CEOs of Home Depot, Motorola, eBay, and UPS don’t earn that much, according to the Forbes 2008 list of executive salaries.

The 500 CEOs on the Forbes list received a cumulative salary of $6.4 billion in 2007, making the $400 debit card theft seem like child’s play. However, I’m not condemning CEO salaries. Although CEOs are routinely demonized, their earnings are child’s play compared to the federal government’s expenditures. Do you realize that those CEOs will have to earn that $6.4 billion each and every year until 2565 to offset 2010’s federal budget of $3,550,000,000,000? That’s $3.55 trillion. I think I smell pirates, and they aren’t cruising the Somali coastline or the corporate boardroom.

CEOs would fare a little better if they pooled their $6.4 billion to combat Congress’ recently passed $290 billion increase in the debt ceiling, which will float Washington for about six weeks. CEOs need only to chip in their next 45 years worth of collective earnings to satisfy government’s increased borrowing. The entire Forbes list can be funded for their entire working lives on what the federal government can spend in a month and a half.

Let’s see how these corporate “robber barons” stack up against other significant numbers. We’ll begin with the national debt, which increases faster than the human eye can follow. According to USDebtClock.org the national debt grows by $1 million every 25 seconds, standing at $12.3 trillion. Now let that figure roll around in your head for a minute or two. How long would our CEOs have to work to fund the current debt? Only 1,926 years. And that’s assuming the debt remains static, which it doesn’t.

In reality, the debt’s growth rate will consume the collective salaries of the Forbes top 500 CEOs in just two days. As for the middle class, the debt’s growth rate will erase a $40,000 annual salary every second.

2007’s CEO salaries could pay off our Social Security obligations in 2,207 years, Medicare Part D in 2,921 years and Medicare in 11,616 years. Our unfunded liabilities exceed $107 trillion. That’s 16,744 years in CEO pay. Worse yet, these unfunded liabilities could be satisfied only if you had 80 cents for every hour that has passed since scientists say the universe was born some 15 billion years ago. Sadly, those liabilities would increase by about $3 million before you finished writing your check.

Somehow losing $400 in 15 minutes doesn’t sound so bad now. The federal government can lose $36 million in that amount of time. Keep that in mind the next time a politician says the federal budget has been cut to the bone.

http://www.therightslant.com/

http://anthonywhager.blogspot.com/

We could write a wonderful tale of the man who humbled himself and learned a valuable lesson, but somehow tonight I don't think that will happen. I believe Obama will simply repackage his product. I'm in marketing. And political marketing is a strange animal. It is the only product you can take a distinct negative and pretend its a positive. "Fewer people were gored by bulls this year, so we are doing our job." Little comfort to those who DID get gored.

This year we all got gored, and bored. 412 speeches and counting for this man who loves to hear himself. I doubt many people care what he has to say. And if all he does is tell us we just don't understand he needs to know we are not stupid. Yes. We do understand. we understand you can't spend everything the world earns for the next fifty years in a one-year period. We understand you can't push people to believe in something they despise. We don't want to be Communists so stop telling us how marvelous it would be to place our futures in the hands of bureaucrats. We also know they are incompetent. We put up with them thus far because it just didn't hurt us enough.

Well it hurts now. We are gored. Stop goring us. Stop skewing a negative. The health bill has almost nothing to do with health care. You could have a one page document to fix health care problems, and insurance issues if that was the goal. But it isn't. It is about power and control. We won't give it up. Sorry you lose.

And tonight the President should come to us with his hat in hand. He will hold the hat. Talk about the hat. Show us the details of the hat and say how wonderful we would all look and feel if we just put the hat on. for a little while. We are not stupid. We don't want to wear it. And we won't be forced to buy it, subsidize it, mandate it or otherwise allows its intrusion in our lives. Your hat stinks.

I personally find it amusing that the world's most brilliant man, a messianic leader, has to come before us and beg his colleagues not to derail his whole agenda. But he deserves it. He is arrogant beyond belief. He has only trusted himself and he had no answers just a canned pack of lies he wanted us to swallow.

No more goring. No more hats. No more bitter medicine. Tonight if he were half the man he thinks he is he would resign and let someone else try to do what he should have been doing all along - his job.

Mr. President. Put down the golf clubs and get to work if you intend to stick around. And open those ears. You talk too much. But you've probably been told how brilliant you are your whole life. You are clever. There is a difference. About time you learned it because we already know.

Good luck America. Here comes nothing.

Was the Massachusetts Senate race a bellwether on government healthcare? Maybe so. Scott Brown made opposition to the Reid/Pelosi agenda paramount in his campaign. He won. And it’s significant for a Republican to have won the seat Ted Kennedy occupied for 47 years.

Does Brown’s election mean that healthcare reform is dead? Not necessarily. Maine Republicans Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe remain Senate wildcards. If just one of them defects—and both have been known to “reach across the aisle”—some form of healthcare bill could proceed. Thus far both have held the line.

This Republican solidarity is no surprise to Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY), who doesn’t think a GOP defection is likely. Prior to the election, Rep. Weiner said a Scott Brown victory would signal the death of healthcare.

Mr. Weiner likely means healthcare reform will die. In that case I hope he is correct. But considering the leftist’s mindset, Weiner may mean that healthcare will disappear altogether, as if it can’t exist without government.

Such flawed thinking about government is why we have a $12 trillion debt and more than $60 trillion in unfunded government promises. It is why the dollar is becoming play money and American businesses have difficulty competing. It is why we have a mortgage crisis and a housing bubble, and why we depend on a communist country half a world away to float our debt. In short, the idea that government can provide all things to all people is why we are on the cusp of national bankruptcy.

No one needs the government’s permission to receive healthcare. Each of us can do that on our own. Go to the doctor if you’re sick; you’ll be treated. If you lack insurance you can always pay the bill directly. Clinics also offer payment plans for patients who can’t afford to pay their bills in full.

What’s more, you don’t have to visit the family doctor every time you get a headache or experience post-nasal drip. Finally, hospitals and emergency rooms are required to provide essential medical care regardless of a patient’s ability to pay. All of this could change in the name of “reform”, leaving everyone dependent on the federal bureaucracy.

Dependence on the central government for daily and personal needs is the politician’s vehicle to reelection. Dependency is an enslaving cycle that robs people of their initiative, motivation, dignity, self-respect and, finally, their liberty. Need food? Call on government. Need housing? Call on government. Need medicine? Call on government. Need healthcare? Well, you get the idea.

Politicians like Anthony Weiner believe that all good blessings flow from government. In return, all power and authority returns to those who wield government’s reigns. It’s a tidy little circle, and the antithesis of liberty.

Rep. Weiner, not all Americans are the pitiful, selfish, pathetic, whining beggars you need to maintain your House seat. Perhaps your district is comprised of such people. But that cannot be the case for the nation overall. If so, we are doomed as a nation and a people, for freedom cannot survive on dependency. Furthermore, centralized systems eventually collapse under their own weight.

No Mr. Weiner, America isn’t a nation of whiners, although we have our share. America wasn’t established, secured, or built by people who waited on government programs. Ours is a nation founded upon the independent spirit of each individual.

We can make our own decisions. We can reap our rewards and suffer our consequences--in healthcare and other matters--just fine without you, Mr. Weiner. Finally, healthcare will not die without your magic finger. In fact, minus government’s manipulative hand, it will be much better and more readily available.

Here’s hoping that Mr. Weiner is correct about healthcare reform being dead. Here’s hoping, too, that America will tell congressmen like Weiner that we’re sick and tired of government meddling. We are not the whiners he believes us to be.

Anthony W. Hager's archives can be found at:

http://www.therightslant.com/ 

http://anthonywhager.blogspot.com/

I'm from upstate NY not far from the Massachusetts border ( and I can spell the names of the states ), and I can tell you two things from the experience of growing up as a rural yankee in F. D. Roosevelt's home town.

1. Every year the joke went, Franklin Roosevelt would be at his Hudson River mansion and would call a meeting of the county delegation of Democrats. And every year they would meet on the front lawn, Roosevelt, and the other two guys. (Pause for laughter) Because as anyone knows the independent streak and conservative bent of the MAJORITY of Mass. and NY and adjoining areas were legendary.

2. Equally legendary is the stranglehold the eastern bloc of Democratically controlled machine politics had on the Boston area and its suburbs. Making up a large portion of the electorate of the state, yes the Democrats are huge there. But not so much elsewhere outside the city. Like NY the state has a mind of its own apart from the concentrated liberal throng. And like NY for decades the liberals run the show. Spending like crazy, taxing like crazy and driving business away. Not to mention insane rules and ideas. But every once in a while, the machine gets a gut punch.

And tonight they may dismiss the impact, or even try to say it has nothing to do with anything happening in Washington, but like the rest of the county where i'm from, they knew from watching Roosevelt and the other two guys decide how things were going to be on that lawn, they knew that they were the silent majority. And today, you and I, we all, the middle of this nation, the rational, the common sense, the straightforward, the conservative, truly are the silent majority. And the sleeping giant has awakened.

We had inkling of it in Virginia and then in New Jersey. We saw the President act the clown in Copenhagen and get rejected twice in a week. Now we know two new things.

1. The communist agenda is a failed idea, and those who continue to support the notion that it is “good” for America, are out of step and out of touch with common sense Americans. We don’t want what you are selling Washington. So drop it. Or we’ll drop you. and

2. The glamour and rhetoric only last so long, even with the media cheerleading, even with powerful party machines controlling the votes of dead people, even with all their self-assuredness that they are in charge, like the two guys on the lawn, their day is over. This is no longer just a pipe dream, a complaint or a wish that things will change. Change is a funny thing. It happens when you least expect it, but also when you make it.

A man, perhaps not the ideal man as Obama claims to be, set out in a pickup truck to speak his mind to his neighbors and look where we are now. That same man is trading barbs with a very arrogant and self-assured President who made vicious remarks about tea partiers, about the center, about conservatives, about normalcy and American ideals. We see the emperor for who he is and it is not pretty. It is petty.

The party is over. The czars need to go. The agenda needs to go. We did not elect that and many are correcting their mistakes. For the administration, the Congress, the cabinet and all the governmental agencies who don’t comprehend what just happened in Massachusetts tonight let me be very clear in words that will echo from only a few months ago - we won.

And we won big.

We are coming after every member of Congress who tries to step on our desires and we are coming strong. We will not be treated like children. Your days are numbered, and the number is up this November. It was fun while you had dictatorial control, but now its over. We may not know who will replace you. We may not have our acts completely together yet. We may not understand the machine where we live, but we don’t have to care anymore. We’ve seen what we can do. So show us some respect you elected clowns.

And we will win.

We will win big.

And that’s change you can believe in.

You’d be hard pressed to find anyone passing the hat for “Big Finance” these days. But why do people assume that financial institutions are inherently evil while government is inherently good?

The mortgage bubble and resulting financial problems weren’t a free market problem. They resulted from government manipulation. Yet in many minds government is seen as the savior while banks are the drunks at the Baptist picnic. For that reason alone Rep. Peter Welch’s Wall Street Bonus Tax Act will garner some degree of support.

Welch’s bill (H.R. 4426) promises a 50-percent tax on excessive bonuses paid at banking institutions that received bailout money. It’s a classic leftwing tactic. Welch plays the class envy card, reminding financiers that they owe their reemergence to “hardworking Americans.” However, I would remind Mr. Welch that most “hardworking Americans” opposed TARP--the plan that provided the funding--from the outset. Yet Congress passed it anyway.

Hundreds of institutions became beneficiaries. Some have repaid the money; some haven’t. But banks had to practically beg the Treasury Department for permission to repay their TARP debt. And political connections played a role in the distribution of TARP funds from the start.

A University of Michigan study claims that banks in congressional districts where the representative sits on the finance committee were 26-percent more likely to get bailout funds. That figure is even higher if a bank’s executive is on a Federal Reserve Bank board.

Such backdoor shenanigans in Congress are nothing new. Representatives exchange favors with the well-connected every day. Therefore, how can anyone believe that in taxing bonuses Rep. Welch has any interest at heart other than his own?

I’ll win no popularity contest if I’m perceived as defending banks and their bonus packages. However, my goal isn’t to exonerate or condemn banks. I’m here to defend the free market process. There is a better method than congressional meddling for determining which financial executives deserve bonuses. There’s also much to fear when Congress uses the tax code to control compensation.

First, Rep. Welch only wants to tax “excessive” bonuses. Who is he, or the federal government as a whole, to decide what is and isn’t excessive? Basically, “excessive” means beyond a necessary or proper limit, which is an arbitrary concept at best.

What may seem excessive in one circumstance can be quite routine in another. Once Congress seizes the right to determine appropriate compensation for bank executives it has established precedent to set “proper limits” on salaries for anyone. Who will be next? Barbers? Truck drivers? Play-by-play announcers? Should healthcare reform include wage controls in the medical field? Don’t bet the farm that it won’t.

Such authority in the hands of government isn’t just dangerous to our liberty, it is fatal.

Does that mean I favor bonuses for bank execs? That depends. As stated, there is a better way to set wages. I prefer to see the free market, not pandering politicians who are seeking reelection, determine compensation.

If you’re unhappy with the bonuses paid at your bank you can do business elsewhere. If you stay, then bonuses must not bother you that much. In addition, government bean-counters shouldn’t force, cajole, or lure banks into nonsensical lending practices. Banks should operate on sound financial principles, not politically correct notions about social justice.

Good practice and due diligence are rewarded in the free market. Wise and prudent banks will prosper while depositors and investors will flee foolish institutions in droves. Government manipulation serves only to protect the irresponsible, defer risk and send the entire system tumbling like a house of cards.

Government’s market interventions have proven destructive. Allowing government an inroad to wage controls promises a similar, or worse, result. If Congress can punish banking executives for their compensation the door is wide open to do likewise to everyone.

Anthony W. Hager writes and blogs at www.therightslant.com/ and http://anthonywhager.blogspot.com/.

Here were some of the actual remarks the President almost made the first three hours after the Christmas airline terror incident:

PO: Hi. thank you all for being here. i know we are interrupting your day on the beach, just as I had to give up my 35th day of playing golf because some joker almost caused a man made incident on a plane earlier today. 

Ummm. Uhhh. thank you. I want to give a shout out to my friends who went to the hospital with their kid because she stepped on a seashell. And those things can be really pointy. Ummm. uhhh. ummm. and leave marks. fortunately, we had word from the doctors and the specialists we flew in from california that she will be just fine. A little bruising and it did not break the skin. ummm. uhhh. duh. ummm. Michelle and the whole family and I are having a good time, but again, we want to stress that we could have had a better time if none of this airline thing, yadda yadda yadda, ummmm, uhhh, doh, had occurred.

some people are confused about the timeline of events. the men we pressed Bush to release from guantanamo had received art therapy in saudi Arabia before I took office, so again, ummm, uhhh, I am not responsible for their, for their, ummm decision to promote more man made incidents, like this attack from the pantyhose bomber.

As homeland scrutiny director napolitano said earlier that they system worked. We had all the intelligence we needed on this guy, but an ally, the Dutch, who were friends of George Bush, failed to stop the man from boarding the plane, so ummm uhh I can't really be held accountable. my administration has taken drastic action to stop these kinds of attacks. i have promoted art therapy in a dozen countries, and i have interrupted at least 5 golf games to speak to you people.

ummmm uhhhh, duh doh, ummm, i almost forgot to say hello to the representative from hawaii who will be running again in a few months and we are holding a fundraiser tomorrow night at the Wakahini wahinai hilton. it's $1200 a plate and i know the tuna is really good so don't miss that.... Ummm. uhhh. ummm. duh...duh ummm. So to summarize, the slaughter of innocent people was avoided and we did our jobs effectively and George bush didn't, and that's why i am here. I have been working hard on the change you can believe in, and so you must believe things have changed. ummmm.

And napolitano just said the system failed so that proves that what we said just a few minutes earlier is a good indication of how flexible we are to change, especially when confronted with facts. And so i want to thank the TSA, and homeland security for keeping us safe. Oh, and that Dutch guy will not be prosecuted by Barbara Boxer as I have asked her not to hold hearings on why he left his seat and burned his hands grabbing the other man's crotch that was on fire. So, in summary.

I did a great job. thank me for the holiday season. ummm. everyone is good and the kid is not cut on the seashell. now Ill rejoin my golf buddies before it gets too late to continue. have a great holiday and new year and know that my administration is focused like a razor on keeping all Americans and yemeni bombers safe.

thank you.

"Debating While Impaired…or better stated, Debating While Insolent"

from "A Scarlet Stethoscope", http://rnadvocate.blogspot.com/2009/12/issuing-dwi-to-united-states-senate.html

Since the Christmas Eve vote in the Senate, I have been sent several articles about the vote, the preceding debate, and various analyses of what Senators and pundits on both sides had to say.

I’ve remained unusually quiet since that vote for a number of reasons.

The main reason is because I am furious, and that makes it difficult to present information in a manner that is even close to objective. And I’m still furious, so this is not exactly an objective post.

There is one issue about this healthcare debate that I want to bring to the forefront – and I am calling Democrats and Republicans alike on the carpet.

Let’s take a look at an excerpt from an article by Dana Milbank of the Washington Post, written Wednesday, December 23rd, entitled “In a sleep-deprived Senate, a punch-drunk holiday” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/22/AR2009122203698.html?wprss=rss_print/asection :

“…Perhaps the senators should be given some slack for their strange words and actions on the Senate floor this week, in which they treated the country to everything from catnaps to poetry readings. These people are tired, after all. Enacting health-care reform has gone from a legislative activity to an endurance sport.

“They've been kept in session more or less constantly since Thanksgiving, and in the final days it has become a standoff, some sort of a test of machismo. Republicans forced the delay, and Democrats, up against a Christmas deadline, responded by forcing votes at odd hours, 1 a.m. Monday and 7 a.m. Tuesday.

“Just before the vote early Monday morning, a weary Reid was speaking on the floor when he confused aged Americans with African Americans. Speaking about an endorsement from a seniors group, he said: "These are some of the reasons that AARP, the American Association for the Advancement of Colored Peop -- I'm sorry, the American Association of Retired People, not the NAACP. I'm sorry about that, Mr. President."

“…Falling asleep at their desks? Snacking on the floor? Being forced to listen to the poetry of Roland Burris? Finally, Republicans could take it no more. Tuesday afternoon, they ended the protest and agreed to expedite the vote. It was time to settle down for a long winter's nap.”

Being a nurse, this throws me into a rage.

This debate is about healthcare. It is about my patients.

 It is about the millions of patients that currently have health insurance through their employer, or their spouses’ employer, that stand to lose that coverage if this bill is enacted. Patients with cancer that are scared that they may not be able to get the advanced treatments they are currently receiving – advanced treatments that are keeping them alive – under this healthcare bill. It is about patients that depend on community specialty clinics like the one that I work at that may have to migrate to major medical centers to wait in line for care that cannot wait.

It is about doctors, nurses, and healthcare workers all over the country that are concerned about the future of their jobs. It is about the future of hospitals and doctors’ offices that could easily buckle under the reimbursement cuts this healthcare bill will inflict, if it is passed “as is”.

It is about millions of middle-class Americans will be mandated under this bill to buy health insurance – that cannot afford health insurance at current rates and still be able to pay their rent and grocery bills at the same time. These are hard-working Americans that would face jail time if they didn’t buy health insurance…but according to this bill, they make too darn much money for a government subsidy. Make no mistake about it: if Americans are not able to purchase health insurance across state lines, the cost of health insurance premiums will continue to skyrocket, whether this bill passes or not. If there is no reform of the medical malpractice crisis, the cost for hospitals and doctors offices to stay in business and the costs for drug research and development will not budge…they will continue to rise. But now, we have a bill that says we pay it or go to prison.

This debate is about the life or death of healthcare in this country.

Forgive me for being a bit crude here, but I can’t think of a more fitting way to word this:

This debate should NOT be about “machismo”. It is not about who can stay awake the longest. It is not about who can hold out the longest in a political game of chicken.

It is an embarrassing and disgusting truth that the healthcare debate has turned into partisan pissing contest in the United States Congress.

 Democrats are slamming the door on Republicans wanting to offer up alternative plans that include tort reform and allow purchase of health insurance across state lines. Republicans are resorting to stalling tactics and firing back at the partisan mudslinging being shot at them – mudslinging that does not even deserve the dignity of a response.

Not during a debate about human lives.

To the United States Senate: let me put this in perspective for you. If I was at work right now and responsible for administering your chemotherapy – if I was your nurse, and my speech was as jumbled, slurred and incoherent as this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1byjtWkE2PY

(I apologize that the 'embed' feature wasn't working on this, but this should be a direct link)

If I was about to give you an injection, if I was teaching you about your medications, if I was responsible for your care, and couldn’t tell the difference between the AARP and the NAACP, do you think I would be fit to provide nursing care to you?

Then could someone please explain to me how these people can be qualified to preside over healthcare reform in this country?

In considering the movement building in the states to recognize states rights over the Federal government and its latest attempt to forcibly make people join and pay for insurance they don't want I ran across a very insightful thought about secession.

As you may know 9 states have already passed resolutions reinforcing that the tenth amendment reserves to them all rights NOT granted to the Federal government and 12 other states have resolutions pending.

I found this and believe it is quite true in its analysis.

Keep in mind the first time a shot is fired in "defense" of the Federal mandates and their enforcement upon individual citizens. I believe the same logic applies to a Federal government that attempts to force citizens to comply with a law not made by representative republicanism but by autocratic rule, especially one made in direct conflict with the Constitution but as of yet undeclared as such by any court. I find it hard to fathom a US soldier would shoot at a US citizen or former citizen now declared seceeded, but I DO find it possible if this President creates his own "civil defense" force as he stated he would in his campaign. Half a million men strong with the same armaments and equipment and training as our armed forces...

Again I ask as 18 months ago- What would be the purpose of such a force? We already have a civil and military authority in this nation - just not one that directly answers to a dictatorial President. That may be coming soon my friends. Will your relatives and acquaintances wake up by the time of its formation?

The QUOTE:

"For secession to be succesful, you don’t need any rights guaranteed to you by the Constitution. If a state, say Texas, votes to secede from the Union, the ONLY challenge that the Federal government could make is either a political one (isolation, pressure on foreign governments to not recognize Texas as a country, embargo, etc.) or a military one. But the reality is that, in this present day, any military action would be broadcast across the world and repeated on every possible medium ad nauseum. The second that a soldier of the Federal government shot at a former U.S. citizen, the power and legitimacy of the government would disappear. Anyone can see that the person getting shot could have been from any state, any community. The country would be divided between those that sympathize with the secessionists and those that demand that all states remain with the Union. As soon as it is demonstrated that your government can and will kill you if you disagree with it, whether or not secession is legal, the Union will have been dissolved."