We all know that that the negligence and cost cutting measures of BP have created a crisis in the Gulf of Mexico and the company should be held accountable for the damage they have cost the environment and the economy. But first, let's focus on stopping the oil and cleaning up the mess.

I have become increasingly irritated by the indignation and vilification of the Obama Administration towards BP.

First of all, rather than give a national address promoting his Cap and Trade agenda (which will put millions more Americans out of work and redistribute wealth from America to other countries) and demonizing BP, shouldn't the president be more concerned about finding a solution to stop the leak? This is just another example of his belief that you "don't want a serious crisis to go to waste". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yeA_kHHLow

Furthermore, why has the Obama Administration prevented the clean up effort at every turn?

13 countries have offered assistance with oil clean up, but the Obama administration declined.http://blog.heritage.org/2010/06/10/morning-bell-how-the-white-house-is-making-oil-recovery-harder/ I know. Many people will cite the Jones Act, but the Jones Act was waived by George Bush during 911 and could easily be waived with an Obama executive order. Besides, the Jones Act is just another example of how progressive laws designed to benefit the unions results in counter productivity. It amazes me how liberals want to ignore the law when it comes to immigration, but when we have a national crisis, they want to strictly  go by the book. (Such as, keeping oil skimmers from cleaning oil until an inspection of the life jackets and fire extenguishers is conducted).

Not only has the federal government not allowed foreign skimmers to clean up the oil, they also prevented booms from burning the oil. In addition, Bobby Jindl, governor of Louisiana, wanted to build island barriers to prevent the oil from reaching the shores of his state. After several weeks of deliberation, he was finally allowed to build 1/4 of the barriers he requested. http://news.discovery.com/earth/barrier-islands-approved-for-gulf-oil-spill.htmlTalk about too little, too late.

The conclusion here is that this administration is completely incompetent (this is what happens when we elect a teleprompter reader instead of a leader) or they are deliberately trying to thwart the clean up effort. Either way their actions are criminal. If this would have been any other president (Republican or Democrat) the people of this country would be calling for an immediate impeachment. It is time we take the Teflon suite off of Obama.

With all that being said, here is some food for thought. These are facts, make your own conclusion:

1. The Obama Administration is giving $2 billion to the Brazilian company, Petrobas
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/08/18/no-offshore-oil-drilling-for-the-usa-but-lets-pay-brazil-to-drill/

http://www.narbosa.com/2009/08/obama-gives-2-billion-to-brazil-for.html

who specializes in deep water off shore drilling, yet he talks about how we have to get away from our dependence from foreign oil and our "addiction" to oil, all together.

2. George Soros is a Petrobas stock holder and he repositioned himself in Petrobras to get dividends just a few days before Obama committed $2 billion in loans and guarantees for Petrobras’ offshore operations. http://michellemalkin.com/2009/08/19/obama-soros-petrobras-brazil-offshore-drilling-double-standards/

3. Soros also funds the Center for American Progress which seems to be pulling the strings behind the White House.

a.On May 4, for instance, the CAP’s energy and environment expert, Daniel Weiss, called on the president to name an independent commission to look at the causes of the Deepwater Horizon disaster. On May 22, he did just that.

b. On May 21, CAP president, John Podesta, privately implored White House officials to name someone to be the public point person for the spill response. A week later, the White House announced that Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen would hold daily briefings on the spill, wherever he would be on any given day.

c. On May 26, Weiss said the White House needed to demand that BP immediately set up an escrow account with billions of dollars from which claims for Gulf state residents would be paid out.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/06/14/wh-takes-cues-from-liberal-think-tank-on-spill/


It seems to me that we do indeed have an empty suite for a president whose strings are being pulled by SPECIAL INTEREST, except this special interest is American hating George Soros and like minded Socialists who want to destroy this country from within.

It seems the left are trying to undermine the conservative tea party movement by any means possible. Of course, we all know about the obvious: the race card. There is much to say about the Alinsky tactics of demonizing conservatives, but at this time, I want to discuss another tactic that is being used to discredit the conservative movement.

The left often try to use the past mistakes of the Republican Party as a way to criticize conservatives. Now, anyone who is paying attention knows that the current leadership in Washington has taken the over-spending of the past administration and put it on steroids. Also, the left like to claim that the Bush administration was often over-reaching in regards to power. The three dozen Czars,the constant executive orders and the cram down bills of the Obama administration are evidence of the hypocrisy of this claim.

As conservatives, who are concerned about the socialist agenda, radical fiscal policies, naive foreign policies, corrupt political practices, etc.; we must distinguish ourselves from the past practices of the Republican Party.

Before I go any further, let me say I am not advocating a third party. I believe a third party would destroy the conservative movement. As a registered Republican, I have been disappointed with the direction of the party; but I believe the Republican Party is much more in line with my conservative views. There IS a significant difference between the two parties. As conservatives, we need to take back the Republican Party before we can take back the country.

Now, back to our liberal friend's attempts to undermine our movement. When the lunatic left try to align our movement with the mistakes of the Republican Party, we need to point out that we, as conservatives, are advocating conservative policies that will benefit the country rather than blindly supporting a political party.

Here is an analogy. Let's say that the two political parties represent medical patients and the shortcomings of the parties represent symptoms. The tea party movement represents the doctor and conservative Reagan policies represent the cure. The distinctions are now obvious. Conservatives are not blindly following any particular political party (we are not the patients or the symptoms) we are trying to prescribe a cure.

Lately, I have done extensive research on the health industry because I want to be able to separate fact from fiction and decide for myself what the best policy should be for America. If only our lawmakers would do the same.

President Obama continues to demonize insurance companies, as he justifies the federal takeover of healthcare, by suggesting that insurance companies are driving up the cost of insurance, due to the lack of government regulation, for the purpose of making large profits.

Before I discredit this argument let me say that America has the greatest healthcare system in the world. Americans are overwhelmingly responsible for new developments and technologies that increase our quality of life. The primary reason for this is the fact that we operate in a free and capitalistic system where people have an incentive to take risk. Bottom line: Good, quality care along with new development and technologies cost money.

The fact is insurance companies earn a relatively small profit margin. Overall, the average profit margin in 2009 was 3.4%. Furthermore, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Factors Fueling Rising Healthcare Costs provide factual evidence of how health insurance premiums are spent:

• Physician Services                                33%
• Inpatient costs                                       20%
• Outpatient costs                                    15%
• Drugs                                                      14%
• Other medical services                          5%
• Government payments/ compliance      6%
• Consumer services/ marketing              4%
• Profits                                                     3%

Note that insurance companies spend twice as much money complying with government regulations as they earn in profits. Furthermore, according to Christopher J. Conover, “Health Care Regulation – A $169 Billion Hidden Tax” Policy Analysis No. 527, Cato Institute 2004, the total cost of health services regulation exceeds $339.2 billion. Conover also estimates that the high costs of regulation are responsible for 7 million Americans not having health insurance.

In addition, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Factors Fueling Rising Healthcare Costs concluded that underpayments in Medicaid and Medicare result in a shift of $88 billion to private insurers. This resulted in a 10% increase in the average premium or $1500 for the average household. That is significant.

In conclusion, the facts seem to suggest that President Obama is playing a shell game with us. He is using his “bully pulpit” and the new American tradition of class warfare to convince Americans that insurance companies are the reason for higher premiums. The truth is, as the facts indicate, the intrusion of government seems to be one of the primary reasons for rising health costs. Thank you Mr. President for being honest with the American people!

With all that being said, most would agree that we can make improvements in our system in order to provide Americans with the most affordable, cutting edge care as possible. More government regulation, however, is not the answer. The fact is, Medicare and Medicaid are bankrupt; and, as noted above, seem to be a significant factor in the overall increase of premiums.
In my opinion we need to focus on free market principles to improve our healthcare.

First of all, Americans need to be able to keep their insurance when they lose or change jobs. Federal tax incentives have created a world in which the vast majority of people get health insurance through their employers. As a matter of fact, the tax code actually punishes people who don't get their health insurance through an employer by denying individuals the tax deduction for health insurance that their employers get.

We need to allow people to have “ownership” of their insurance by lifting the government controls and allowing interstate commerce in health insurance.

We need to lift the antitrust exemption which protects insurance companies from competition.

We need to prevent the federal government from regulating insurance companies except for the basic laws and regulations that apply to all companies. This would allow insurers to offer a wide range of insurance plans and give the consumer more choice.

We need to allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do.

We need to end junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order not because they think it's good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued.

Call me crazy, but I believe these are common sense solutions. It appears to me that the agenda of Obama, Pelosi and Reed is not to lower the cost and cover more Americans. If that were the goal, they would look for solutions, such as mine, that would actually achieve that goal. Their proposals will increase costs, ration care, kill jobs and most importantly create the largest entitlement program in this country.

We know socialists programs do not work and are the antithesis of what this country stands for. Social Security is a ponzi scheme that redistributes wealth. Government run healthcare will do the same, but at even greater peril to the American people because controlling our health means they control every aspect of our lives. Social Security is bankrupt and nationalized healthcare will send us further in debt.

Reagan’s words are truer today than ever before, “government is not the solution, it is the problem”.

Karl Rove sets the record straight. Even liberals are acknowledging the hypocrisy of the left regarding the war in Iraq during the Bush years. The strategic personal destruction of Bush was one of the worst political events in our nations history and resulted in undermining the interest of this country. Sounds like treason to me.

When are we going to say "enough"? How many trillions of dollars of debt are we going to allow our government to run up?


Does anyone really believe the healthcare bill was about insuring the uninsured? No. I believe most people who are paying attention realize this is a scheme to create a brand new entitlement program in order to insure more votes. In turn, the federal government will have increasingly unlimited power.



But, the problem is, how many of us are really paying attention?


We must reverse course or our fate will be the same as the Roman Empire.


Barak Obama promised to "fundamentally change America" and "spread the wealth". Unfortunately, many Americans did not understand the consequences. Elections do have consequences! With that being said, the future of the world's greatest civilization is now at stake. It is crucial that we begin to cast our votes for strong conservative principles that made this country the envy of the world rather than vote on "a cult of personality" and political correctness.

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”    Thomas Jefferson

In twelve years, my two sons will be out of college and ready to start their careers, their families and the rest of their lives. By then, I pray to God that He will give us, the American people, the strength and the resolve to take our country back from the progressives who have convinced so many of us that security is better than liberty.

Our tax dollars will go to defeat you, not defend you.

Cautiously optimistic that real change is on the way.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0110/On_to_Plan_C.html

thisThe senate is poised to vote on it's version of a health care bill this weekend. Yes, apparently there are an abundance of speed readers in Washington who are capable of reading 2,000 pages (of legal jargon) in less than 72 hours. This, despite the fact that 82% say Congress should post bills online for all to read before voting on them. Yes, that would be another strike against Obama's pledge of "accountability and responsibility". Hasn't he struck out by now? I would say he has the "hat trick" or possibly even the "golden sombrero".

Amazingly, 27% of Americans say they strongly approve of Obama's job performance Of course, this is a very low number, but it still amazes me that 1/4 of this country actually approve of his performance. Who are these people? Are they paying attention? What American in their right mind would stand for a president who continually goes around the world and criticizes and apologizes for America? What American would support a president who is quick to point out (in error) that the "Cambridge police department acted stupidly", yet in regards to the Fort Hood terrorist, Obama said


What American would stand for a president who appoints people such as Eric Holder, Van Jones, John Holdren, Cass Sunstein, Carol Browner and Mark Lloyd (Communists, Marxist and Socialists, of course, this is merely a coincidence).......or associates himself with the likes of Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers and Tony Resko? What American stands for a president who insists on giving admitted terrorist a trial within the American judicial system costing American tax payers millions of dollars and, essentially, putting America on trial?

Here is the point. Far too many of us are not paying attention. Or, if we are, we are doing nothing about the obvious deterioration of our nation. As Benjamin Franklin left the Constitutional Convention, on September 18, 1787 he was asked by a concerned citizen "what have you given us". Franklin replied, "A Republic, if you can keep it". You see, our Founding Fathers were concerned that the democratic institutions that were being put into place would eventually deteriorate and open the door for the tyranny that we are threatened with today.


After the election of 2009, I hope and pray that we have learned our lesson. Hopefully, we have learned that substance is much more important than style. Hopefully, we have learned that character is much more important than elitism.

There will be opportunities in 2010 and 2012 to implement REAL CHANGE. Change that will  incentivize success rather than apathy and laziness. Change that will give honor and respect, rather than disdain, to our military and our way of life. Change that will bring fiscal responsibility to all levels of government, etc, etc, etc.....

  The problem is we can't wait until 2010 and 2012. By then, it will be too late. I am imploring everyone to call their Senators (hopefully, you know who they are) and let them know you do not support the monstrosity better known as the health care bill. Please don't misunderstand my heart. I sympathize and pray for the needy. I am a faithful tither to my church which does a tremendous job of ministering to and helping the needy. In addition, I make a conscious effort to give to worthwhile charities. However, I am reasonable enough to know that I need to check my emotions at the door in regards to feeling sorry for the uninsured and recognize the trojan horse that is the health care bill.

Let's not kid ourselves. This bill is not about insuring the uninsured or getting health care costs down. If that were the case, our representatives would be looking at real solutions, such as, tort reform, medical savings accounts and competition across state lines. This bill is about creating a massive government entitlement program that will "spread the wealth" (re: Joe the Plumber, just another forecast into the heart and idealogy of Barak Obama that so many of his sycophants refused to acknowledge).

Ask your representatives why the House bill and the Senate bill have to be more than 1,000 pages and 2,000 pages respectively. The entire Constitution is less than 20 pages.

Ask them if the bill is so great why they (our representatives) will not participate in the plan.

Ask them why the House bill proposes to spend $1 trillion (conservatively), yet only insures an additional 10 million people. Do the math, that is $100,000 per person.

Ask them if it is so crucial that we pass this bill this week (obviously without reading it), why it will not be implemented until  2013. Don't forget, however, that the increased taxes will start immediately.

Speaking of taxes, read this to get a sampling of the litany of taxes that are in the bill.

However, the one that really gets me angry is the 8% increase in payroll taxes that companies will have to pay for each employee. This will break the backs of small businesses and drastically increase the unemployment rate, which is already at 10%.

Currently, small businesses are paying roughly 7.5% in payroll taxes per employee. An 8% increase would mean that small businesses would have to pay more than twice as much in taxes for each employee. The bottom line is that, in order to maintain their business at the current profit margin, small businesses will have to cut their payroll in half. Wow! This sounds like a great recipe for a struggling economy that is still losing jobs.

Upon the election of Barak Obama, we were told that we should embrace it because it was an "historical" election. Well I certainly agree with that, but the premise is quite different. Indeed, the election of Barak Obama was historic. It was the culmination of wealth envy, white guilt, political correctness, entitlement mentality and the overall emasculation of American society.

Today, one year later in the midst of a recession, a more significant chapter in history will be written. Americans will either embrace the ideas of their Founding Fathers, or they will embrace the ideas of the tyrants that our Founding Fathers fought so hard to defeat. Will we embrace liberty, which has led to the greatest nation in the history of the world; or will we embrace the "security" of government which ultimately leads to tyranny (See Mark Levine's "Liberty and Tyranny")?

"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke 1729-1797

"...There is no nation on earth powerful enough to accomplish our overthrow. ... Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants, and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing." - Daniel Webster, June 1, 1837

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage." Alexander Tyler (A Scottish professor)  1897

Foreign influence is truly the Grecian horse to a republic. We cannot be too careful to exclude its influence.

Alexander Hamilton, Pacificus, No. 6, July 17, 1793

Welfare's purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence.

- Ronald Reagan

There are far too many points to be made in rebutting Obama's speech. Here are a few thoughts:

Obama said "My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there is choice and competition".

      Great! Then shut up and get out of the way! You are stifling competition, sir!

Obama said "Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75% of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90% is controlled by just one company. Without competition, the price of insurance goes up and the quality goes down."

     This is a direct result of government regulation! Once again, I urge you to get government out of the way.

Obama said "Now, I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. They provide a legitimate service, and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors. I just want to hold them accountable. The insurance reforms that I've already mentioned would do just that. But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange.

      Do you honestly think insurance companies  will be able to compete? The unintended consequence (which is actually intended) is      that private companies will be put out of business.

Obama said "There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false - the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally."

      Technically he is right, but when you consider the fact that people will not be required to show ID, then the obvious conclusion is that illegals will be covered on the backs of the American tax payer.

Obama said "we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens.......is a lie, plain and simple. "

        This claim by Sarah Palin and others did not claim that the bill would actually set up death panels, but when one stops and considers that government bureaucrats will bemaking life and death decisions about patients rather than the patient's doctor then one can legitimately claim that death panels will be an "unintended consequence".

I honestly can't take anymore of this man's arrogance!

As the president tries to take control of 15% of the economy by “reforming” healthcare, it is important that we take a close look at the facts.  Obama and the liberal Democrats are relying on their propaganda machine and overall ignorance of the American people to seize control over, what will amount to, almost every aspect of our lives under what can only be described as “false pretenses”.

First of all, staying true to form, the president continues to talk about the “broken” healthcare system. Really, does this guy have anything positive to say about America? During the campaign, Obama supporters always referred to his inspiring message, yet his presidency has been anything but inspiring. From his apology tour around the world to his obvious disdain for doctors, law enforcement, military, Christians, small business owners, etc. ; he seems much more interested in fulfilling a political agenda than encouraging the very people and economic system that has enabled us to be the greatest country in the history of the world in 230 relatively short years. Barak Obama has almost single handily killed the idea of American Exceptionalism.

The fact is, our healthcare system is far from broken. There is no doubt that improvements are needed, but overall, Americans are more than happy with their healthcare. However, if we allow the Democrats to pass their health care bill, we will be stuck with a system that will certainly fail. Do we want the same people responsible for Social Security, MediCare and MediCaid to be in charge of our health care system?


Another “false pretense” being used by our president to leverage his plan is his idea that “every American should have access to health care”. The fact of the matter is that every American already has access to healthcare. The word “access” is political spin for “free”.  Unfortunately, most people now believe they should have routine doctors visits for free. The purpose of health insurance is to protect people from catastrophic health issues. We have to change the mindset that we are “entitled” to have routine doctors visits paid for.

We are told that it is unjust to have 45 million uninsured Americans. Once again, the man who promised to bring honesty, accountability and transparency is lying. The 45 million is a distorted figure. According to Mark Levin’s “Liberty and Tyranny”:

    * about 9.5 million are illegal aliens
    * about 17 million are people who make over $50,000, are self-employed and choose not to buy healthcare
    * 18 million are between the ages of 18 and 34 and choose not to buy health care
    * only 30% of the no elderly who became uninsured in a given year remained uninsured for more than twelve months. Almost 50%        regained their coverage after four months.

I am sure President Obama realizes that if more Americans did their homework and knew the facts that his plan to overtake our  system would be dead on arrival.

Finally, we are told that the price of health care is extremely high and needs to be regulated. There are two factors that must be considered in regards to health care cost.

First of all, one major factor in the high cost of health care is the incredible technological and scientific advances that are being made. These advances are a significant factor in improving and extending the quality of life of millions of Americans. This is hardly a symptom of a broken system. Rather than criticizing the greatest health care professionals in the world, our president should be praising them.

Another major factor in the high cost of health care is frivolous lawsuits. Why are the Democrats and president Obama not talking about tort reform? Wait….oh yeh! Trial lawyers are big time campaign donors. Seriously. How do we talk about health care reform without talking about tort reform?

It is crucial that each of us contact our representatives and tell them we are not going to stand for any legislation that gives more power to the federal government and takes more freedom from the American people. The goal of the Democrats is not to fix health care, but to establish even more entitlement programs that will, consequently, keep them in power for decades to come.

• "The 150,000 jobs, it comes precisely under the methodology I was just describing, that is we have -- we -- we know -- we know spendout, we know the types of spendout, we can assign multipliers to different parts of the plan.  For example, tax cuts generate a smaller multiplier than direct government spending.  Once you know the spendout and the type of spending that you're engaged in, then you can derive an estimate of how many jobs you believe you created relative to what would have occurred in the job market were you not doing that spending."

• "Now, if George Bush had tried, ever, at a single time during his eight years of presidency to talk about the jobs saved, he would have been laughed out of the briefing room, and so would have his press spokesman.  And if in the midst of unemployment reaching 9.4%, on the way to double-digit 10%, in the midst of 1.8 million jobs having been lost since Obama took office, if George Bush faced the same circumstances and touted 150,000 jobs saved or created, he would have been laughed at and editorialized out of the office."
• "We've lost 1.8 million jobs since Barack Obama took office and got the stimulus bill passed.  We were at 9.4% unemployment.  Do you believe these exchanges?  Do you think reporters would be asking for clarification on 600,000 jobs created or saved were it a Republican president who came up with this fallacious notion?  Absolutely no way.  This is the government-run media asking for guidance on how to report this so they can sell it to their viewers, readers, customers..."
• "reviewing the eight years of the George W. Bush presidency, using the Jared Bernstein economic projection formula....George W. Bush was the greatest economic leader in decades.  His economic plan, his tax cuts, created and saved over 32 million jobs.  He created or saved four million jobs a year for eight years following 9/11.  Create or saved 32 million jobs, unprecedented in American presidencies."