It is now clear that Harry Reid used the abortion debate as a smokescreen. How despicable! Now, I believe we must mount a massive response in the next 48 hours or ObamaCare could sail through. Here's why...

Just as we expected, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid rushed the debate on an abortion amendment - with virtually no notice or public debate - and cynically used it as a smokescreen attempt to appease pro-life Americans.

As you know, the Senate voted 54-45 to "table" the Nelson-Hatch-Casey pro-life amendment, meaning it has been set aside and effectively rejected. Reid rushed the vote on abortion to keep it out of the public eye.

If Reid's bill passes in its current form, our tax dollars WILL be used to fund abortions. As I have been sharing with you, I believe this has been their plan all along!

Meanwhile, just hours after the vote, Senate Democratic health care negotiators announced that they had reached a compromise on the so-called "public option."

This was another highly divisive issue in the bill, but with this compromise, Reid is now significantly closer to gaining his 60 votes. Obviously, this was also his plan: Get the abortion vote out of the way and negotiate around the "public option" obstacle.

By design, the abortion amendment never had a chance of passing. It's truly a slap in the face to the vast majority of Americans who do not want their tax dollars paying for abortion. He intends to force it down our throats!

++I am outraged at the entire ObamaCare process!

When President Obama spoke to the Joint Session of Congress in August, he said the health care bill would not fund abortion. He lied to Congress and to the American people!

As I assess Harry Reid's bill - over 2,000 pages with its abortion mandates, multi-trillion-dollar price tag to taxpayers, rising insurance premiums for most Americans, rationed care, and the imposition of government control over our health care choices and freedoms - it leaves me angry and disgusted.

If something is really good for America, why engage in dirty politics? Why retreat to the "back room" every week to try to strike a new deal to cobble together 60 votes? It's because a clear majority of Americans oppose this so-called "reform" and our elected officials know it.

That's why we MUST continue to oppose ObamaCare and the government takeover of the most advanced health care system in the world!

++The next 48 hours are crucial... please contact your Senators!

If pro-life and pro-family citizens are silent now, then Senators will feel justified in ignoring our viewpoint. Given the slightest opening, Harry Reid and his socialist allies will rush ObamaCare to passage.

An e-mail to me from Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel

This venerable and much honored WW II vet is well known in Hawaii for his seventy-plus years of service to patriotic organizations and causes all over the country. A humble man without a political bone in his body, he has never spoken out before about a government official, until now.

He dictated this letter to a friend, signed it and mailed it to the president.

Dear President Obama,

My name is Harold Estes, approaching 95 on December 13 of this year. People meeting me for the first time don't believe my age because I remain wrinkle free and pretty much mentally alert.

I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1934 and served proudly before, during and after WW II retiring as a Master Chief Bos'n Mate. Now I live in a "rest home" located on the western end of Pearl Harbor, allowing me to keep alive the memories of 23 years of service to my country.

One of the benefits of my age, perhaps the only one, is to speak my mind, blunt and direct even to the head man.

So here goes.

I am amazed, angry and determined not to see my country die before I do, but you seem hell bent not to grant me that wish.

I can't figure out what country you are the president of.

You fly around the world telling our friends and enemies despicable lies like:

"We're no longer a Christian nation", "America is arrogant", your wife even announced to the world, "America is mean-spirited".

Please tell her to try preaching that nonsense to 23 generations of our war dead buried all over the globe who died for no other reason than to free a whole lot of strangers from tyranny and hopelessness.

I'd say shame on the both of you, but I don't think you like America, nor do I see an ounce of gratefulness in anything you do, for the obvious gifts this country has given you. To be without shame or gratefulness is a dangerous thing for a man sitting in the White House.

After 9/11 you said, "America hasn't lived up to her ideals."

Which ones did you mean? Was it the notion of personal liberty that 11,000 farmers and shopkeepers died for to win independence from the British? Or maybe the ideal that no man should be a slave to another man, that 500,000 men died for in the Civil War? I hope you didn't mean the ideal 470,000 fathers, brothers, husbands, and a lot of fellas I knew personally died for in WWII, because we felt real strongly about not letting any nation push us around, because we stand for freedom.

I don't think you mean the ideal that says equality is better than discrimination. You know the one that a whole lot of white people understood when they helped to get you elected.

Take a little advice from a very old geezer, young man.

Shape up and start acting like an American. If you don't, I'll do what I can to see you get shipped out of that fancy rental on Pennsylvania Avenue. You were elected to lead, not to bow, apologize and kiss the hands of murderers and corrupt leaders who still treat their people like slaves.

And just who do you think you are telling the American people not to jump to conclusions and condemn that Muslim major who killed 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded dozens more. You mean you don't want us to do what you did when that white cop used force to subdue that black college professor in Massachusetts, who was putting up a fight? You don't mind offending the police calling them stupid but you don't want us to offend Muslim fanatics by calling them what they are, terrorists.

One more thing. I realize you never served in the military and never had to defend your country with your life, but you're the Commander-in-Chief now, son. Do your job. When your battle-hardened field General asks you for 40,000 more troops to complete the mission, give them to him. But if you're not in this fight to win, then get out. The life of one American soldier is not worth the best political strategy you're thinking of.

You could be our greatest president because you face the greatest challenge ever presented to any president.

You're not going to restore American greatness by bringing back our bloated economy. That's not our greatest threat. Losing the heart and soul of who we are as Americans is our big fight now.

And I sure as hell don't want to think my president is the enemy in this final battle.

Sincerely,
Harold B. Estes

I recently asked my friends' little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up. She said she wanted to be President of the United States. Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there. So I asked her, "If you were President, what would be the first thing you would do?" She replied, "I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people.."

Her parents beamed.

"Wow...what a worthy goal," I told her. "But you don't have to wait until you're President to do that. You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and sweep my driveway, and I'll pay you $50. Then I'll take you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house."

She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, "Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?"

I said, "Welcome to the Republican Party."

Her parents still aren't speaking to me.

As an American, I am embarrassed that the U.S. House of Representatives has 220 members who actually believe the government can successfully centrally plan the medical and insurance industries.

I'm embarrassed that my representatives think that government can subsidize the consumption of medical care without increasing he udget deficit or interfering with free choice.

It's a triumph of mindless wishful thinking over logic and experience.

The 1,990-page bill is breathtaking in its bone-headed audacity. The notion that a small group of politicians can know enough to design something so complex and so personal is astounding. That they were advised by "experts" means nothing since no one is expert enough to do that. There are too many tradeoffs faced by unique individuals with infinitely varying needs.

Government cannot do simple things efficiently. The bureaucrats struggle to count votes correctly. They give subsidized loans to "homeowners" who turn out to be 4-year-olds (http://tinyurl.com/yzov923). Yet congressmen want government to manage our medicine and insurance.

Competition is a "discovery procedure," Nobel-prize-winning economist F. A. Hayek taught. Through the competitive market process, we producers and consumers constantly learn things that force us to adjust our behavior if we are to succeed. Central planners fail for two reasons:

First, knowledge about supply, demand, individual preferences and resource availability is scattered -- much of it never articulated -- throughout society. It is not concentrated in a database where a group of planners can access it.

Second, this "data" is dynamic: It changes without notice.

No matter how honorable the central planners' intentions, they will fail because they cannot know the needs and wishes of 300 million different people. And if they somehow did know their needs, they wouldn't know them tomorrow.

Proponents of so-called reform -- it's not really reform unless it makes things better -- have shamefully avoided criticism of their proposals. Often they just dismiss their opponents as greedy corporate apologists or paranoid right-wing loonies. That's easier than answering questions like these:

1) How can the government subsidize the purchase of medical services without driving up prices? Econ 101 teaches -- without controversy -- that when demand goes up, if other things remain equal, price goes up. The politicians want to have their cake and eat it, too.

2) How can the government promise lower medical costs without restricting choices? Medicare already does that (http://tinyurl.com/yectg7h). Once the planners' mandatory insurance pushes prices to new heights, they must put even tougher limits on what we may buy -- or their budget will be even deeper in the red than it already is. As economist Thomas Sowell points out, government cannot really reduce costs (http://tinyurl.com/yjvlzh9). All it can do is disguise and shift costs (through taxation) and refuse to pay for some services (rationing).

3) How does government "create choice" by imposing uniformity on insurers? Uniformity limits choice. Under House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's bill and the Senate versions, government would dictate to all insurers what their "minimum" coverage policy must include. Truly basic high-deductible, low-cost catastrophic policies tailored to individual needs would be forbidden.

4) How does it "create choice" by making insurance companies compete against a privileged government-sponsored program? The so-called government option, let's call it Fannie Med, would have implicit government backing and therefore little market discipline. The resulting environment of conformity and government power is not what I mean by choice and competition. Rep. Barney Frank is at least honest enough to say that the public option will bring us a government monopoly (http://tinyurl.com/l7qoxv).

Advocates of government control want you to believe that the serious shortcomings of our medical and insurance system are failures of the free market. But that's impossible because our market is not free. Each state operates a cozy medical and insurance cartel that restricts competition through licensing and keeps prices higher than they would be in a genuine free market. But the planners won't talk about that. After all, if government is the problem in the first place, how can they justify a government takeover?

Many people are priced out of the medical and insurance markets for one reason: the politicians' refusal to give up power. Allowing them to seize another 16 percent of the economy won't solve our problems.

Freedom will.

by John Stossel, posted 11/13/09 2:48pm on freedompolitics.com

~John Stossel will soon host "Stossel" on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of "Give Me a Break" and of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity."

Apparently it’s not enough for our government that the heroes in America’s armed forces risk their lives overseas defending our freedom.

These days, our soldiers aren't even safe here at home stationed on secure military bases.

On November 5th, a lone gunman murdered 13 fully-trained, ready to deploy soldiers, and wounded 29 more, in the most shocking terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11.

How was Nidal Hasan, a psychologist, able to take down so many trained soldiers? Because the government thinks its better to keep it’s armed service members unarmed . . .

That’s right. Our military men and woman are banned from carrying the weapons they are trained and trusted to use in the heat of combat.

President Clinton authored this asinine policy back in 1993 when he declared all military bases “Gun Free Zones.”

As you know, “Gun Free Zones” do nothing but assure criminals, and now terrorists, that they will find unarmed victims defenseless against a homicidal rampage.

Maybe I’m crazy, but I’d rather the soldiers delivered a barrage of bullets to end Hasan’s attack the second he opened fire.

I’d rather Hasan was dead and the heroes he murdered were still alive.

But because of Clinton’s ingenious policy of an unarmed armed forces, this psychopath methodically executed soldier after soldier before a local traffic cop could arrive on the scene.

If we didn't have “Gun Free Zones” and our armed forces were . . . I don't know . . . ARMED, Nadir Hasan would have met bullets instead of bodies.

Please remember that the safety of our armed forces is of paramount importance whether it’s on the battlefield or here at home.

Please join the National Association of Gun Rights in our battle against "Gun Free Zones."

In Liberty,

Dudley Brown
Executive Director
National Association for Gun Rights

P.S. The National Association for Gun Rights is entirely supported by individual gun rights advocates.

Please join the fight to end "Gun Free Zones" and restore the Second Amendment! Donate to NAGR today.

CHEAP TOMATOES?

This should make everyone think, be you Democrat, Republican or Independent .

"As you listen to the news about the student protests over illegal immigration, there are some things that you should be aware of:

I am in charge of the English-as-a-second-language department at a large southern California high school which is designated a Title 1 school, meaning that its students average lower socioeconomic and income levels.

Most of the schools you are hearing about, South Gate High, Bell Gardens , Huntington Park , etc., where these students are protesting, are also Title 1 schools.

Title 1 schools are on the free breakfast and free lunch program. When I say free breakfast, I'm not talking a glass of milk and roll -- but a full breakfast and cereal bar with fruits and juices that would make a Marriott proud. The waste of this food is monumental, with trays and trays of it being dumped in the trash uneaten.

I estimate that well over 50% of these students are obese or at least moderately overweight. About 75% or more DO have cell phones. The school also provides day care centers for the unwed teenage pregnant girls (some as young as 13) so they can attend class without the inconvenience of having to arrange for babysitters or having family watch their kids.

I was ordered to spend $700,000 on my department or risk losing funding for the upcoming year even though there was little need for anything; my budget was already substantial. I ended up buying new computers for the computer learning center, half of which, one month later, have been carved with graffiti by the appreciative students who obviously feel humbled and grateful to have a free education in America...

I have had to intervene several times for young and substitute teachers whose classes consist of many illegal immigrant students, here in the country less then 3 months, who raised so much hell with the female teachers, calling them "Putas" (whores) and throwing things, that the teachers were in tears.

Free medical, free education, free food, day care etc., etc, etc. Is it any wonder they feel entitled to not only be in this country but to demand rights, privileges and entitlements?

To those who want to point out how much these illegal immigrants contribute to our society because they LIKE their gardener and housekeeper and they like to pay less for tomatoes: spend some time in the real world of illegal immigration and see the TRUE costs.

Higher insurance, medical facilities closing, higher medical costs, more crime, lower standards of education in our schools, overcrowding, new diseases etc., etc, etc. For me, I'll pay more for tomatoes.

Americans, We need to wake up.

It does, however, have everything to do with culture: It involves an American third-world culture that does not value education, that accepts children getting pregnant and dropping out of school by 15 and that refuses to assimilate, and an American culture that has become so weak and worried about "politicalcorrectness" that we don't have the will to do anything about it...

CHEAP LABOR? Isn't that what the whole immigration issue is about?

Business doesn't want to pay a decent wage.

Consumers don't want expensive produce.

Government will tell you Americans don't want the jobs. With 10% unemployment? I don't think so.

But the bottom line is cheap labor. The phrase "cheap labor" is a myth, a farce, and a lie. There is no such thing as "cheap labor."

Take, for example, an illegal alien with a wife and five children. He takes a job for $5.00 or 6.00/hour. At that wage, with six dependents, he pays no income tax, yet at the end of the year, if he files an Income Tax Return, he gets an "earned income credit" of up to $3,200 free.

He qualifies for Section 8 housing and subsidized rent.

He qualifies for food stamps.

He qualifies for free (no deductible, no co-pay) health care.

His children get free breakfasts and lunches at school.

He requires bilingual teachers and books.

He qualifies for relief from high energy bills.

If they are, or become, aged, blind or disabled, they qualify for SSI. If qualified for SSI they can qualify for Medicare .

All of this is at (our) taxpayer's expense.

He doesn't worry about car insurance, life insurance, or homeowners insurance.

Taxpayers provide Spanish language signs, bulletins and printed material.

He and his family receive the equivalent of $20.00 to $30.00/hour in benefits.

Working Americans are lucky to have $5.00 or $6..00/hour left after paying their bills and his.

Cheap labor? YEAH RIGHT!

THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS WE SHOULD BE ADDRESSING TO THE CONGRESSIONAL MEMBERS OF EITHER PARTY. 'AND WHEN THEY LIE TO US AND DON'T DO AS THEY SAY, WE SHOULD REPLACE THEM AT ONCE!'

by a California School Teacher

In a rational political world, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's 1,990-page health care reform bill released last Thursday would have been derailed months ago. With spending and debt already at record peacetime levels, the bill creates a new and probably unrepealable middle-class entitlement that is designed to expand over time. Taxes will need to rise precipitously, even as ObamaCare so dramatically expands government control of health care that eventually all medicine will be rationed via politics, says the Wall Street Journal.

The spending surge:

The Congressional Budget Office figures the House program will cost $1.055 trillion over a decade, which while far above the $829 billion net cost that Pelosi fed to credulous reporters is still a low-ball estimate.
Most of the money goes into government-run "exchanges" where people earning between 150 percent and 400 percent of the poverty level -- that is, up to about $96,000 for a family of four in 2016 -- could buy coverage at heavily subsidized rates, tied to income.
The government would pay for 93 percent of insurance costs for a family making $42,000, 72 percent for another making $78,000, and so forth.

At least at first, these benefits would be offered only to those whose employers don't provide insurance or work for small businesses with 100 or fewer workers. The taxpayer costs would be far higher if not for this "firewall" -- which is sure to cave in when people see the deal their neighbors are getting on "free" health care. Pelosi knows this, like everyone else in Washington, says the Journal.

Even so, the House disguises hundreds of billions of dollars in additional costs with budget gimmicks, says the Journal:

It "pays for" about six years of program with a decade of revenue, with the heaviest costs concentrated in the second five years.
The House also pretends Medicare payments to doctors will be cut by 21.5 percent next year and deeper after that, "saving" about $250 billion.
ObamaCare will be lucky to cost under $2 trillion over 10 years; it will grow more after that.

From "The Worst Bill Ever" - Wall Street Journal on 11/2/09

Lord Christopher Monckton, the former advisor for science policy to Lady Margaret Thatcher, believes that if the U.S. signs any climate treaty coming out of the Copenhagen climate change conference in December, it could subject the United States to a global dictatorship. Monckton explains his concerns.

"This treaty of Copenhagen, which is going to be negotiated by the states' parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in December, is going to...establish for the first time in human history a global government," he warns.

Monckton contends that the word "government" appears twice in paragraph 38 of the draft, and that paragraphs 36 through 38 explain that the purpose of the treaty is to establish a world government. "Whose job," he explains, "will be to transfer wealth from the wealthy countries, such as the United States most of all, to Third World countries -- and the excuse for this transfer of wealth is so-called 'reparation.'"

Reparation for so-called "climate debt," he adds. Monckton notes that the U.N. believes the U.S. owes the world this debt because of its use of fossil fuels, which he says are mistakenly blamed for causing "manmade global warming." He adds that this world government will have the ability to make the U.S. pay. Monckton is hopeful that the U.S. will lack the willingness to ratify such a dangerous treaty.

"It must be passed by a two-thirds majority in the Senate, which is 67 out of your 100 senators," says Monckton. "Now I don't think that Obama will find it at all easy to get a two-thirds majority...but during his election campaign one of his advisors said that he [Obama] regarded the U.S. Constitution as merely a piece of paper...and he saw it as a barrier to the things that the Left around the world want to do -- and therefore they were going to find ways of circumventing it."

One way of doing that, says Monckton, is to amend the Copenhagen Treaty to the current cap-and-trade bill in the U.S. House and Senate and get it passed by a simple majority. Monckton notes that if Obama takes this route, then the treaty merely becomes domestic law and can be overturned later on.

Provided the Senate stands firm against such a move, Monckton says the U.S. will remain "unsullied" by this new "dictatorship" being established by the Copenhagen Treaty.

"We sleep-walked into a dictatorship in Europe," he laments. "Alright, it appears to be a benevolent dictatorship for now, though it's a very expensive one -- but you still don't want [America] to go there. Democracy is valuable.

"In this country [the U.S.], which is the cradle of freedom, I hope you will cling to your democracy, [that] you will all fight this sinister treaty, you will say no to it very, very firmly -- and [that] you will remain the beacon of freedom for the world."

by Pete Chagnon OneNewsNow on 10/23/09

Listen to the full interview with Lord Monckton

Canadians have a health care system that should be the envy of no one, says Investor's Business Daily (IBD). It's not free, it's funded by taxpayers, and it isn't truly universal. Two Canadian Supreme Court justices made this clear three years ago when they concluded that "access to a waiting list is not access to health care."

Delayed treatment in an overused system has been the root of much unnecessary suffering, says IBD:

To prevent premature deaths and the needless misery that are hallmarks of Canadian care, the British Columbia Automobile Association began offering waiting-list insurance to some of its members in August as part of a pilot program.

Those who bought the coverage would receive treatment in a private clinic in British Columbia or the United States if they were placed on a government care waiting list longer than 45 days.

The program, which took two years to develop, never got beyond the pilot phase, however.

The association shut it down when critics howled and government officials checked to see if such a program was actually legal in Canada.

"This is an example of a company that's actively soliciting for clients that have the ability to pay for the privilege of queue-jumping," said Adrian Dix, a member of B.C.'s Legislative Assembly. "In my view, and in the view of the legal opinion that we obtained, it is illegal, and it violated both provincial and national health legislation."

It's hard to understand why an elected official, or anyone else, would knowingly trap people in a system that can't take care of the public it is expected to serve. Yet there are many Canadians who would, in the name of "fairness" and "equality," deny others' right to take care of themselves outside of the collective. They are outraged that some of their countrymen could escape the agony of the waiting lists while others languish in the bureaucratic wreckage, says IBD.

But the real outrage, to quote Brian Day, former director of the Canadian Medical Association, should be that a government would actually force "a citizen in a free and democratic society to simply wait for health care, and outlaw their ability to extricate themselves from a wait list."

Source: Editorial, "Canadian Patients Feel Wait Of The World," Investor's Business Daily, October 23, 2009.

As even the Associated Press admits, the government takeover of health care will, despite what the president has told you, involve the use of taxpayer funds to pay for abortions.

The AP says flatly, "The proposed legislation would permit government-sponsored health plans, open to non-Medicaid patients, to cover abortions."

So when the president or members of Congress say abortions aren't covered in health care reform, they aren't telling you the truth. And when the president's spokesman says that federal law would prevent taxpayer funding of abortions in the health care plan, he's not telling you the truth either.

The Hyde Amendment prevents Medicaid funds - and Medicaid funds only - from being used for abortions, but that restriction wouldn't apply to the government takeover of health care.

In fact, under the Capps Amendment in the House bill, the public option would be required to offer abortion services, and every American would have to have access to at least one health care plan that included abortion.

The full Senate will soon be debating its huge health care bill. Contact both of your senators today and tell them firmly but politely that they can't "Hyde" any longer, that abortion is not health care, and that they must remove abortion from any health care reform bill they consider.

Take Action

Originally from an American Family Association email to me on 10/21/09

Last Monday was a profound evening, Dr. Charles Krauthammer spoke to the Center for the American Experiment. He is a brilliant intellectual, seasoned & articulate. He is forthright and careful in his analysis, and never resorts to emotions or personal insults. He is NOT a fear monger nor an extremist in his comments and views . He is a fiscal conservative, and has received a Pulitzer Prize for writing. He is a frequent contributor to Fox News and writes weekly for the Washington Post.

The entire room was held spellbound during his talk. Here is a summary of his comments. Even two democrats at the table agreed with everything he said.

Summary of his comments:

1. Mr. Obama is a very intellectual, charming individual. He is not to be underestimated. He is a cool customer who doesn't show his emotions. It's very hard to know what's behind the mask. The taking down of the Clinton dynasty was an amazing accomplishment. The Clintons still do not understand what hit them. Obama was in the perfect place at the perfect time.

2. Obama has political skills comparable to Reagan and Clinton . He has a way of making you think he's on your side, agreeing with your position, while doing the opposite. Pay no attention to what he SAYS; rather, watch what he DOES!

3. Obama has a ruthless quest for power. He did not come to Washington to make something out of himself, but rather to change everything, including dismantling capitalism. He can't be straightforward on his ambitions, as the public would not go along. He has a heavy hand, and wants to level the playing field with income redistribution and punishment to the achievers of society. He would like to model the USA to Great Britain or Canada .

4. His three main goals are to control ENERGY, PUBLIC EDUCATION, and NATIONAL HEALTHCARE by the Federal government. He doesn't care about the auto or financial services industries, but got them as an early bonus. The cap and trade will add costs to everything and stifle growth. Paying for FREE college education is his goal. Most scary is his healthcare program, because if you make it FREE and add 46,000,000 people to a Medicare-type single-payer system, the costs will go through the roof. The only way to control costs is with massive RATIONING of services, like in Canada . God forbid!

5. He has surrounded himself with mostly far-left academic types. No one around him has ever even run a candy store. But they are going to try and run the auto, financial, banking and other industries. This obviously can't work in the long run. Obama is not a socialist; rather he's a far-left secular progressive bent on nothing short of revolution. He ran as a moderate, but will govern from the hard left. Again, watch what he does, not what he says.

6. Obama doesn't really see himself as President of the United States, but more as a ruler over the world. He sees himself above it all, trying to orchestrate & coordinate various countries and their agendas. He sees moral equivalency in all cultures. His apology tour in Germany and England was a prime example of how he sees America , as an imperialist nation that has been arrogant, rather than a great noble nation that has at times made errors. This is the first President ever who has chastised our allies and appeased our enemies!

7. He is now handing out goodies. He hopes that the bill (and pain) will not come due until after he is reelected in 2012. He would like to blame all problems on Bush from the past, and hopefully his successor in the future. He has a huge ego, and Dr. Krauthammer believes he is a narcissist.

8. Republicans are in the wilderness for a while, but will emerge strong. Republicans are pining for another Reagan, but there will never be another like him. Krauthammer believes Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty & Bobby Jindahl (except for his terrible speech in February) are the future of the party. Newt Gingrich is brilliant, but has baggage. Sarah Palin is sincere and intelligent, but needs to really be seriously boning up on facts and info if she is to be a serious candidate in the future. We need to return to the party of lower taxes, smaller government, personal responsibility, strong national defense, and state's rights. My sentiments exactly!

9. The current level of spending is irresponsible and outrageous. We are spending trillions that we don't have. This could lead to hyperinflation, depression or worse. No country has ever spent themselves into prosperity. The media is giving Obama, Reid and Pelosi a pass because they love their agenda. But eventually the bill will come due and people will realize the huge bailouts didn't work, nor will the stimulus package.These were trillion-dollar payoffs to Obama's allies, unions and the Congress to placate the left, so he can get support for #4 above.

10. The election was over in mid-September when Lehman brothers failed, fear and panic swept in, we had an unpopular President, and the war was grinding on indefinitely without a clear outcome. The people are in pain, and the mantra of change caused people to act emotionally. Any Dem would have won this election; it was surprising it was as close as it was.

11. In 2012, if the unemployment rate is over 10%, Republicans will be swept back into power. If it's under 8%, the Dems continue to roll. If it's between 8-10%, it will be a dogfight. It will all be about the economy. I hope this gets you really thinking about what's happening in Washington and Congress. There is a left-wing revolution going on, according to Krauthammer, and he encourages us to keep the faith and join the loyal resistance. The work will be hard, but we're right on most issues and can reclaim our country, before it's far too late.

--------------------------------------

All our futures and children's futures depend on our good understanding of what is really going on in DC, and our action pursuant to that understanding!! It really IS up to each of us to take individual action!! Start with educating your friends and neighbors!!!

As government attempts to gain more and more control over our lives, they will simultaneously try to limit the amount and availability of guns for legal ownership. This is evidenced by this newest attack on our Constitutional rights by Nancy Pelosi and the House.

I’d like to give you the heads up on "HR 45" - the Blair Holts Firearms Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 - introduced by Representative Bobby Rush (D) Illinois. These are the “suggested” requirements of this proposed national bill:

1.Require Licensing to anyone who wants to own a gun.
2.Require each gun owner to submit a current passport size photo to the government.
3.Require the individual to submit to a thumbprint for the government database.
4.Creation of a Federal Firearms Card.
5.Must release any mental health records to the government - so they will be able to decide who can and who cannot own guns.
6.You would then have to pass a "test" administered by the government that would test you for the following: the safe storage of arms, the safe handling of arms, proper use of firearms in the home and the legal responsibilities of firearm owners.

Imagine those requirements? Whether this Bill gets put in the schedule for Congress or not - just know - this is just the beginning of the attack - it will come in waves over the next 2-4 years. The government will slowly try to limit our availability to guns, ammunition and the rights of gun owners.

Once the government alienates and disenfranchises enough hard working, tax paying Americans these elected officials - do not want us armed - simple as that. Which is why I say that right now, one should own guns - to prepare for whatever direction this country takes. Even the Declaration of Independence talks of the people’s right to "alter or abolish" a government when it becomes "destructive to these ends." We cannot let these documents become meaningless - our founding fathers knew that this is where our form of government could lead.

An American has the right to protect themselves. As it clearly says in the 2nd Amendment - "The right of the people to keep and bear arms - shall not be infringed." We must all rise up to block any attempt by this radical government to infringe on our 2nd Amendment - this Amendment may be our last hope - our last coat of armor and the founding fathers knew this - which is precisely why they wrote it into the Constitution. Remember, when it all began, that it was the states who were dominant and the Federal government was small - we must go back to these roots if America is to thrive once again.

This issue of gun "control" should clearly be decided by each individual state as they choose fit. Let their people vote on it and make their own decision - we do not need these corrupt Federal politicians deciding the 2nd Amendment fate for each end every person in this country - they need to butt out! The people know that they need to bear arms now more than ever - because of our crazy out of control government.

We must rise up as a people and protect our sacred 2nd Amendment rights because if these rights are slowly eroded away then along with them will be other cherished Constitutional rights. We must stand tall to protect out Constitution. Right now it’s the only thing between us and complete Socialism - which is desired by our elected officials.

Don’t let them fool you. In today’s news we saw Obama saying he was "against" the Fairness Doctrine - but in reality he just knows that it would cause a HUGE backlash against the government and free speech - he doesn’t want to go there right now - he just wants to slowly and "behind the scenes" sink this great country into a Venezuelan type of Socialism - are you ready for it? Or are you ready to fight against it?

download king of marvin gardens the What gets me is that every member of the Senate, the House of Representatives and the White House including the President has sworn under oath to uphold the Constitution - based on what is happening in Washington right now and this proposed bill I would say that NO ONE is upholding the Constitution - NO ONE is even thinking of the Constitution, so that leaves it up to us - the tax payers - We the People. Please, make your voice heard today.

Originally posted on AmericansForTheConstitution.com website 10/18/09