That’s right. The White House has declared war against Fox news. Why? Fox News broadcasts the opposing view. In other words they practice journalism. I would not be so naive to say that Fox new is always unbiased. They have commentators who regularly speak against the left, just like CNN does. The problem is that the Obama administration loves CNN and MSNBC because the love is returned. These two stations have been in a love fest with this administration long before Obama was sworn in. Of course, MSNBC is the worst of the two. If they didn’t occasionally broadcast the weather MSNBC could not even be called a news station. CNN, formerly the Clinton New Network and now in the thralls of Obama, has yet to air a story in any way negative of the new president.

The First Amendment was not put in place to protect the government’s mouthpiece but to protect those who would speak against the government so that the people will hear more than the official side. This role has fallen to Fox News, the only station following its First Amendment mandate.

For too long we have been quiet and polite. While the left has shouted us down with vitriol and hatred we have politely stood by—too busy punching the clock and feeding for our families. Now the federal government is coming after those we love—the elderly and infirm—with a program that worsens their care while muddling ours and saddles our employers with much of the cost. It is time those who love this country and believe as the founders did that the worst enemy of freedom is a large intrusive government to act as the founders would have. Politics in the founding generation were far from gentle or genteel. In the days of Jefferson and Adams politics was a contact sport.

For the last few years there have been calls for bipartisanship and getting along from many of the more lily livered segments of our society. I have always responded to these calls by pointing out that the founders intended that our political system involve a verbal blood bath every two years or so to prevent a literal one every twenty years. We are the only nation with over 230 years of self-rule with only one instance of turning to guns and bombs to settle an issue. This alone should be proof that such a divisive, mean and abusive system works. Some out there will point out that the founders were opposed to political parties and will quote from Washington’s Farewell Address his views on the “baneful effects of the spirit of party.” I get sick of hearing these arguments because those making them overlook history. The same founders who spoke against political parties quickly found parties essential. Even Washington, who tried to appear above such, was more aligned with Hamilton’s Federalists than Jefferson’s Democratic Republicans.

People, it is time to take off the gloves and bloody our knuckles. It’s time to take to the streets and shout about what is being done to our nation. Leave Miss Manners behind and go after those who would reduce our nation to despotism. Of course we don’t want blood or physical violence and rather than running the left down with pitchforks and torches we will run them out with the ballot box. However, if we do not make our voices heard this great experiment in peaceful self-government will end in a blood bath as those who love freedom are forced to fend for themselves against a government who in an attempt to provide all physical needs find it necessary to rob its people of property and liberty. A peaceful future requires us to act and do so now.

We often hear about those without insurance and that they are unable to get basic health care. It is actually illegal for a hospital emergency room to not render aid and care for life and limb. These patients will sometimes find their costs covered by government programs, but often the hospital is forced to pass these costs on to other patients. Most of these people are honest people who simply have not been able to afford coverage, but those who defraud the system are a huge problem—giving false identification to prevent collection. My family and I went for many years without health coverage. We still managed to get very good care for an assortment of problems. Sometime we made payments and other times there was help from private charities.

Another claim is the number of people unable to afford healthcare. What about the people in that statistic who can afford it but choose instead to spend their money elsewhere? I purchase health insurance because it is important to safeguard my family. To do this I give up other things I could spend the money on. Many who claimed to be unable to afford insurance have cell phones, good sized homes, new cars and cable TV. Some of these people actually have insurance offered by their employer but they elect to do without preferring to risk a high cost and hoping the government will do it for them. People electing to do without insurance should be excluded from these studies and be left to their own devices when there is a medical emergency. You have a right to be stupid and if you are stupid enough to elect to be uncovered then you should deal with the consequences—rather than casting them upon the fed, the state, the doctor or your fellow citizens.

Barack Obama has claimed that under his system there would be no mandatory switch from private to public insurance. He proposes a government system that would compete with private coverage. It is claimed that this would keep market forces at work in healthcare to drive down costs. Imagine running a business with a competitor across the street. Competition is good for both businesses and for the customer so long as it is honest competition. However, if one company has unlimited resources and no need to turn a profit then there is no true competition (consider the Post Office). Add to this the power that the government has to regulate the industry and you now find a a private individual competing against a monstrosity that easily absorbs the highest of costs while driving other’s costs up through regulation.

Private insurance companies and their clients will find themselves, through taxation, underwriting the public system that they compete against. The private companies will have higher costs from regulation and higher taxes to subsidize the wasteful government system they compete against. Families who choose to pay for their own coverage will discover that in addition to the cost of their own insurance they are expected to pay (taxation again) for those who choose to join the government system.

The losers in this system will be the American people as they see coverage choices dry up. Companies that now offer insurance will find themselves forced out. Employers who offer coverage will find it cheaper to pass that cost along to the government and stop offering health benefits. Workers who receive medical coverage as part of their retirement package will see those go away in favor of pushing them onto the government system.

While discussing back and forth the pros and cons of a government healthcare system, few are pointing out that the federal government has no power to interfere with the healthcare system. This is an affront to the limited government intended by the founders. The federal government was limited to certain powers and responsibilities. Anything outside of these is an issue for the people themselves or the states. We are never going to see a return to constitutional government and the freedoms it guarantees unless we begin telling our elected officials to stay within the scope of their duties. So join me in telling Mr. Obama and the Hip-pocket Congress: “Hands off my health care!”

After many hours of thought I drew a blank. Those who know me realize I am seldom at a loss for words, so I am shocked that I didn’t come up with anything. I can only assume that I set too high of a standard. To expect me to come up with nice things about Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy “they lied” Pelosi is just asking too much. For this reason, I decided to find something nice to say about a policy or action of theirs.

After a few more hours of thought something surprised me more than the earlier lack of words—I came up with something nice to say about the leftist junta currently running this country. Barack Obama and the Democratistas have spent so much money it is unlikely they’ll find enough to ruin the nation’s healthcare system. I did it! I said something nice! . . . Wait! That’s not so nice. Oh, well, there is another old saying that is easier to follow with this bunch—The truth hurts!

North Korea has been toppling on the edge for years. Unfortunately, they are poised to take thousands, or even millions with them. Is it really peace when you allow you enemy to get stronger and stronger. Peace is not a lack of bullets flying. Peace is only possible when there are no enemies left, or when they are fear your displeasure more than your presence. The best thing for our country is a strong foreign policy that calls such mad dogs as Kim Jong Il to task. Let’s see what happens first. Will Kim fall or will a Korean, Japanese or even American city go up in a mushroom cloud? The answer will come from a Chicago community organizer turned liberal Messiah We will soon know if he is the right person to answer that 3 AM phone call. I’m not feeling confident.

For those who wonder how this demand could be possible considering all Americans have sacrificed to liberate and rebuild the country, look no further than the example of the man in the Oval Office. An administration that distrusts it own soldiers, coddles enemy combatants, greets two-bit tyrants and bows before robed despots is no threat to anyone—except our nation’s heroes.

What I am anxious to see is whether President Obama has the moral fortitude to stand against this, or will he (as history portends) throw them under the bus. Will he stand up for our troops who sacrifice so much? Considering his past record, things don’t look bright for our brave men and women in uniform. I hope I am wrong, but I expect Obama to continue his well develop habit of bowing.

When a once mighty nation is knocked down, other countries quickly flex new found muscle against those who previously could have annihilated them. We see this happening as country after country seems to believe the US is no longer a threat. This once great country has been brought to her knees—brought to her knees by an election. People turned out in droves to make a ‘historic’ vote overlooking lack of experience, confusing charisma with strength of character and trading the respect of our allies and the fear of our enemies for international impotence. Thankfully, this is a country of second chances—a new election comes around every two years!

Under George Bush we had an expansion of government beyond the nightmare of any conservative. His Ted Kennedy meets Robert Bork agenda left many confused and weakened his base and party—he is the primary reason we have Obama and the hip-pocket congress. On social issues and the military he was very conservative. I give him credit for preventing attacks after 911 and teaching the world that you could stand in many ways in relation to the US but standing against her was not wise.

Unfortunately, Bush’s expansion of government and runaway spending laid the groundwork for an administration with little respect for liberty and a hatred of capitalism. The Bush administration devised and pushed TARP bailouts, even forcing some banks to take money they didn’t need. This administration abused that leverage to seize an amount of control over the economic sector never seen before. The most recent example of this problem of failing to look long term is Homeland Security. It appears that the office created by Bush to protect the US against terrorists has turned against the most loyal, patriotic Americans among us as potential terrorists. The new profile of a terrorist is not a radicalized cell hidden in a New Jersey mosque or the mountains of Pakistan, but those Americans who are so dangerous as to believe in defending their country, to believe in defending their homes and, most shocking of all, to believe in the defending every American life—even inconvenient ones. The new terrorists for Barack Obama and his Office of Homeland Security are veterans who own guns and are pro-life. This makes sense though; as the bumper sticker reads: “Tyrants prefer unarmed victims.”

An idea for good in the hands of one president can be easily turned against our freedoms by another. Stop looking at any president—conservative, liberal or socialist—as savior and see them as potential oppressors. This was the example of our founders. Even George Washington, father of our country, was distrusted so long as he held that office. The potential for abuse was too great, even under a limited government. It is far greater now under this monstrosity of an expanded government touching all areas of our lives.

The people who are angry now are the producers. These people have responsibilities–kids to feed, mortgages to pay, taxes to file. This is why you don’t see the huge crowds; the folks on our side are busy trying to keep food on the table in the face of a confiscatory government.

People will get angry. But I am not sure it will be channeled the right way. We have long ago stopped being the nation that so distrusts government. We as a people have been indoctrinated to look for government help from cradle to grave and to believe that the government was our friend. Even our last Republican president and his cabinet believed this—look at the expansion of entitlements under Bush and the TARP fiasco that started with him. As the economy worsens it is likely that it will drive people even farther into Keynesian deficits or even into blatant socialism. We see the majority of Americans accepting the new regulatory climate of Geithner’s Treasury Department and hear the demands for more from certain sectors.

The only thing that will change this view of government is abuse. Once people realize that the nanny state has too high of a liberty cost they will either rise up and shake it off, or lay down in comfort as the government handles their medical care and retirement. It will all depend of whether we as a people are still motivated by the spirit of Washington, Jefferson and Madison or if we have accepted the shackles of fiscal slavery.

Within hours of being sworn in the 111th Congress changed the rules to strip the minority of an important tool in the fight against a liberal feeding frenzy. In any deliberative assembly there will be those for, against or undecided on any decision. These assemblies, when properly led take measures to restrict the power of the majority so that the minority is at least heard. The minority is allowed to speak its position and has measures it can take to cause the body to reconsider or delay the decision to allow them time to try to sway the assembly to their view. A democracy requires such protections for the minority.

One well known tactic is the filibuster. While still used in the Senate, the House did away with when when its size makes it too obstructive. In a traditional filibuster members who have unlimited time to speak in debate can prevent a vote by speaking for hours on end. Today the Senate can end a filibuster and force a vote with a vote of “cloture,” which requires 60 votes. If cloture fails the filibuster continues. For the history buffs, the record for the longest filibuster is held by Strom Thurmand when he spoke for over 24 hours.

Since the House limits the length of debate the members take other actions to slow votes. One of these has been a “motion to recommit promptly.” If this passes the bill goes back to the committee, improving good legislation or allowing bad legislation to die.

No one can be sure of their freedoms with over 500 people whose primary job is to make law. The people of this country are never more free than when the House and Senate get hopelessly deadlocked. The reason the founding fathers made it so difficult to bring a new law into being is because they knew an abundance of laws would erode our liberties. The best defense for the rights of Americans is a strong voice for the minority—regardless of who’s in the majority. This recent step empowers the majority to ram through legislation while gagging dissent. This will not improve the lives and expand the freedoms of the average American, but will warp our nation into a liberal Utopia. Such a pipe-dream society has never existed and every attempt to produce one has birthed tyranny and desolation.