Death Panels Are in the Healthcare Bill

Some days, I am just stunned by what is occurring in America, and that is why sometimes you see some delays in my posts. Today though I am once again spurred into action, no longer stunned by the audacity of the Democrats but rather fighting mad. Earlier this month I wrote in a post:

The Democrat’s healthcare plan does not adequately address concerns for life either. The plan is going to create panels who will evaluate whether or not someone or something should be covered, and this may indeed put pressure on a government that wants to contain costs to not do everything in its power to protect the life of seniors in our society.

Many of Obama's supporters yelled "you lie" at this comment- they were right in a way- the new healthcare plan does not 'adequately address concerns for life', it totally disregards any concerns for life. The new Obamacare plan (or Pelosiplan, or Reidcare, or whatever you want to call all of the Democrat's tyrannical proposals) does indeed have Death Panels in it.

Section 1233 of HR 3200, entitled “Advance Care Planning Consultation", authorizes advanced care planning consultations for senior citizens on Medicare every five years, and more often “if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual ... or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility... or a hospice program." During these consultations, practitioners must explain “the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice,” and the government benefits available to pay for such services.

In other words, if you are on Medicare, every 5 years you will sit down with a government bureaucrat who will tell you how much you are costing the healthcare system and tell you about all of the benefits of you just killing yourself and stop being a burden on society. And if you get sick, or ill, or injured, the state will immediately set up a bureaucratic panel to decide whether you are worth keeping alive. Oh, you won't be forced to sit in front of this unelected death panel, who will decide whether you are to live or die, but you will be encouraged to do so by every doctor that you see, and bribed to do so with financial incentives. This will sway many.

It is in the bill. The Democrats are proposing Death Panels! Read the stinking bill yourself- it is there. This isn't propaganda. This isn't "Fox". This is the actual language of the bill. Death panels for old people. How in the world could any person on Medicare even slightly support this bill? How in the world could any person on Medicare support the AARP, which supports this bill? How in the world could anyone on Medicare vote Democrat, who support this bill?

They are going to put in place bureaucrats who may decide you are not worth keeping alive. And I am sure that if you have gotten a lot of medical attention lately you'll be deemed too expensive. And I am sure that if you have voted Republican in your life, you will be deemed too expensive. And I am sure that if you are a 'bad guy'- ie, anyone the Democrats don't like, you will be too expensive to keep alive, and will die, crying out for the medical care that you deserve and can pay for, but denied it by a tyrannical state that is bent on blocking your god-given right to life.

UPDATE: No matter how much you liberals clap your hands over your ears and yell "nananananana", reality does exist. Over at Daily Kos, they write "death panels still don't exist- they're still the idiotic creation of whack-a-doodle Republicans and Fox News". Read the stinking bill. I cited the section above. You can argue about the exact interpretation of that provision, but there is no way to say that talk about death panels is unfair or idiotic.

The truth of the matter is that the main reason why the government is taking over the healthcare industry is to keep down costs. People at the end of their lives cost a lot of money to keep going. Ergo, there is pressure on the government to not do all they can do to keep expensive old people alive.

There is a provision in the bill about end of life counseling. It is not unfair, unreasonable, or idiotic to suggest that that consoling may be a way for doctors to counsel patients to die, saving the system the cost of keeping them alive. In other words, death panels.

You can argue about the meaning of the provision, you can argue about the logic, but to reject engage in liberal behavior and clap your hands over your ears and say it is made-up or idiotic or unfair is simply to be a fool pawn leading our nation to tyranny.

Joking about Detroit

Detroit is no longer one of the most dangerous cities in the nation, so it is time to retire jokes like these...

The Detroit Red Wings hear about a young hockey player in Russia who is supposed to be outstanding, so they send one of their scouts to check him out. They end up drafting him and paying a big bonus.

He is suited-up in his first game of the season but the coach has not played him yet, but with 10 minutes left in the game the Wings are down 4 to 0 so the coach says,"what can I lose" and sends him in. He scores 5 goals and the Wings win 5 to 4.

After the game he gets on the phone to his Mother and says, " Mom I just want to share my game with you. I scored 5 goals and we won and the coach loves me, the fans love me and Detroit loves me!"

His Mom says, " Nice for you that you are having such fun playing your games, but let me tell you about my day. Your father was shot out in the street; your sister and me were ambushed and robbed, and your young brother has joined a gang of looters!"

Her son says, "Mom, I'm really sorry!" and his Mother says, "You should be sorry, it's all your fault! You are the one who moved us to Detroit in the first place!"

Detroit Free Press Circulation Drops Even Though I Warned Editor That Its Bias Would Cause This

Two years ago I exchanged emails with the managing editor of the Detroit Free Press. The topic of our discussion was the Free Press coverage of the Middle East conflict, specifically the situation where Hezbollah shot rockets into Israel and Israel responded, but as our email exchange went on, the topic widened to a larger discussion about the Detroit Free Press' bias with its reporting.

My overall point was that the Free Press was promoting only a liberal agenda in its pages, and was slanted heavily to the left, and that that would hurt the Free Press and it would have to cut service and lower its quality, and I didn't want that. Several times in our email exchange I expressed support for the Free Press and dismay that its current policies were going to lead it in the wrong direction. And I was right.

According to editorandpublisher via drudge comes this article (Top 25 Daily Newspapers in New FAS-FA) that points out over the past year that the Detroit Free Press has lost 10% of its customers. It has cut its daily delivery service, cut its comic section, cuts its sports section, and has dropped in paper and color quality. This is in no small part because of its liberal bias, and I predicted it 2 years ago.

When I confronted the editor of the Detroit Free Press with allegations of bias, he responded by rejecting my concerns and dismissing them, claiming that circulation was going up and his paper was becoming more successful. Liberal views do not usually match reality though, and the reality was that his liberal bias was in fact hurting his paper, as I alleged.

Our email exchange was telling. After I alleged bias in the Free Press news coverage, his first reply to me was to shift the blame on to the 'wire services.' He claimed that all his paper was doing was reporting the news, as it was told to them by the AP, and thus his paper had no bias. I told him that it was still his paper, and that if the AP was biased and all he did was repeat their bias, his paper would indeed be biased. I understood he was shifting blame and dodging the issue, and when I confronted him again, his reply was interesting.

He told me:

Neither side likes some of what it hears. We like what the wire services provide to us. Unlike the Internet sites, when our wire services do not make mistakes. There is no more reliable sources for information than the major wire services. You surely are free to believe anything you want to- from some kooky web site if you want- but here at the Free Press, we will stick with the wire services, regardless if you think they are biased.

He went on to justify his decision:

Circulation, by the way, is soaring, and so I don't think we need to change anything about how we run our newspaper.

I guess in retrospect I was right and he was wrong. By running his newspaper the same way, with a firm liberal bias and a reliance on liberal wire services like the AP and Reuters, the Editor of the Detroit Free Press choose to take his newspaper in the wrong direction and drive away customers. I guess I'm just confused why.

Less Government is the Solution, More Government is the Problem

Over and over when debating Obamacare supporters I hear the claim that the number one reason why government needs to take on a massive new expensive role in healthcare is because it has become too expensive. These Obamacare supporters think adding more government to the equation will make healthcare less expensive. They are so wrong.

The reason why healthcare is expensive is because of government. Adding government to healthcare in the past has resulted time and time again with a higher cost for healthcare. Government is the problem, not the solution. And this is not just rhetoric- the evidence and data supports the conclusion that adding more government involvement and interference in the private industry of our nation's healthcare has made it much much more expensive.

Presidential-candidate Harry Browne wrote about this back in 2002. He wrote:

It may be hard to believe, but back in the 1950s health insurance cost just a few dollars a month for most people -- and it was available to virtually everyone, including people with pre-existing conditions. The percentage of people covered grew steadily from the 1940s. And by the early 1970s, almost all Americans were covered by some form of insurance. Then the politicians went to work to load up policies with mandatory coverage of all sorts of conditions that may be of no use to you. More and more people decided that insurance had become too expensive and decided to risk being uninsured. By the 1990s coverage had dropped to under 70% of Americans.

In addition, many employers decided health coverage was too expensive. In 1980 fully 97% of the companies with 100 or more employees provided medical coverage. By 1995, only 77% were doing so. The growing number of uninsured people gives politicians more ammunition for more programs to force more costs onto insurance companies, and to push the price of insurance still higher.

Once again, the politicians are seizing the opportunity to save us from their own handiwork.

Over and over it is demonstrated that when government becomes more involved in an industry, that industry becomes less efficient, less responsive to market forces, and services suffer while prices go up. That is why our founding fathers designed a system where government would not have the authority to even think about doing what it does today- they knew that having government run health insurance companies, auto companies, banks, home loan companies, alternative energy companies, and all the other companies that the government now runs would only result in a poorer society.

Government is the reason why healthcare is expensive- the solution is in every way possible less government. Not a lot more government, not a little big more government, not even the same amount of government- the solution to healthcare costs is less government. LESS GOVERNMENT.

Granholm Orders Teachers Into Action and They Leap

As the Detroit News states, the fight over Michigan's school funding escalated Friday as Gov. Jennifer Granholm ordered educators to help persuade state lawmakers to raise taxes to avoid the surprising and drastic cuts to education that she recently made.

Within hours teachers and school employees around the state began to receive demands from MEA union bosses and school district superintendents calling for taxes to be raised. The line was parroted rapidly around the state- very soon after Granholm issued this order to educators, the Democrat's talking points were churning out over the email systems around this state.

One email sent to every employee in the district said this "the Governor had no choice but to reduce funding to schools"- which is a debatable point and one that both sides could argue, but school districts parrot out to their employees as a fact beyond repute.

Another email sent to every employee in another district said this "All of the insiders know that the Michigan law forces the Governor to make cuts to education"- always a good liberal talking point, the fact that 'everyone knows' especially those with 'insider knowledge' that we need to raise taxes, while all of the rest of us in the real world without hidden revealed knowledge about the secrets to the world go about working and paying taxes. As if poor Granholm had no other options- she couldn't cut her pet projects like lattes for movies stars or windfarms for connected friends or even the extensive staff for her husband.

From a district out of Wayne County comes this email from a superintendent "We must unite and demand more revenue sources for the state- contact your lawmakers and demand that they fulfill their obligations to Michigan's schools and raise taxes." Yup, that's right boys and girls, your taxpayer money is going to public employees who use that money to contact other public employees who then will demand more taxpayer money to provide more funds for more public employees to demand more of your money.

Granholm gives talking points out and the army of public employees move. The fight indeed escalates. Which side are you on?

UPDATE: In reply to all the nasty emails asking me which side I am on, I again quote Reagan- a rising tide floats all boats. Cutting taxes encourages prosperity, which leads to higher revenues to government, which leads to more funds for teachers, which leads to higher pay and better job security. So I ask you teachers out there- which side are you on?

Republican Engler cut taxes and put in place conservative policies- your pay went up and jobs were secure. Democrat Granholm raised taxes and put in place liberal policies- your pay went down and jobs became less secure. Results matter more than ideologies- teachers need to reject these marching orders and start looking out for themselves and vote Republican.

Revolution is Brewing

The sense of desperation and frustration and impending doom is hanging in the air. The election of Obama did indeed bring radical change to our nation, a change that it may never recover from. It isn't just the crushing and mind-numbing debt load, the nationalization of key industries like the auto industry and the banking industry, the attempt to implement drastic energy control and tax laws, the utter and total disregard for the Constitution, and the daily drama and crisis. It is the attempt to do more and more, including taking over the healthcare industry.

At each step, freedom loving patriots attended tea parties, rallies, marches and town hall meetings in order to peacefully express our unwillingness to be exploited by the power-grabbers in the federal government. Letter-writing and phone calls were made. On radio and television, the case is made to combat each enlargement of the state in our lives.

And at every step, we were derided and ignored. Our thoughts and beliefs were not listened to and plans were not adjusted accordingly- instead, under the most divisive and partisan President in our history, leading the most divisive and partisan and bitter party in the history of party politics, our country has sprinted to tyranny and change.

And many out there are getting close to the breaking point. The 2010 elections can't come fast enough, even though we all know that when the time comes, election fraud will be rampant and the reality that we are living in a nation of men who rule based on corruption and vote-buying will be sadly revealed to us. We hope beyond hope, and all the while grow more and more scared and depressed.

I was reading an interesting blog today called Thought You'd Never Ask, and the author wrote:

Now perhaps it is time for dissenters to move into the second phase of the tea parties--where the tea actually gets dumped into the drink. Perhaps it is time to make ourselves not be so easily dismissed. Perhaps it is time to become more of a force to be dealt with.

Some are saying they will end withholding on their federal income taxes--creating an immediate drop in tax revenues that, if enough citizens participate in, cannot be ignored. Some are saying it is time to emulate the left's street-theater tactics: becoming a law enforcement (and hence a time- and money-consuming) problem by obstructing roads, being chained to railings, clogging the jails and the courts in Washington D.C., and what not. I am certainly not expert on such things, having never cared to study the methods of civil disruption as Bill Ayers and his ilk have. I have always considered such things to be beneath my notice as a good citizen. But perhaps the time has come to study the principles and tactics of civil disobedience and even adopt them as the last resort of self defense and achieving true justice.

Perhaps some people should break into Acorn buildings. Or spray-paint "Government Theft" on anything the federal government pays for that is clearly an unConstitutional or boondoggling use of taxpayer funds. I know there are a lot of people out there more clever than I am who can do something productive.

After all, it seems that most dissent against the government is about to be outlawed anyway. That is the leftist plan: make so many laws and vague, obscure, poorly-written regulations against regular citizens that they cannot live as law-abiding citizens anymore, even if they wanted to. And so it becomes a civil war to preserve our rights and our country that even little old suburban "soccer moms" like me have to eventually enlist in.

I keep hoping to wake up from this appalling nightmare, but it seems the ghouls in Washington are real. Our fellow Americans, sent to Washington to represent and protect our best interests, really do want to rob, impoverish, and enslave us and bankrupt our country.

The revolution is brewing, ladies and gentlemen.

Holy Smokes!

So what happens when you mix a little government in with our healthcare system? Maybe a little bit of sparks? But when you mix a lot of government in, watch out! (the analogy sucks, but the video is short and funny- holy smokes!)

Make Mine Freedom

Via The World According to Me I stumbled across this video called Make Mine Freedom. "Make Mine Freedom" is the name of a 1948 cartoon produced by Harding College to illustrate some of the good aspects of our American way of life and the perils it faces. It features one "Doctor Utopia" and his miraculous formula "Ism", which promises all things to all people, but ends up bringing nothing but slavery. There are some really good lines in there once it gets going, and the surprising thing is that a 1948 cartoon actually starred our very own President as Doctor Utopia!

Madness in Healthcare

Absolute madness. According to the Detroit News, Democrats in the United States House of Representatives are close to passing a health care package. At the cost of $871 billion dollars, it would create a government-run insurance company that would provide taxpayer-subsidized health insurance to millions of Americans (not those already on Medicaid), raise taxes on those families at the top income bracket, impose an array of new regulations on private insurers, and strip the industry of its long-standing exemption from federal antitrust laws.

No, no, no, no, no, no!

First no- the cost. The federal government is broke and does not have the money for this plan. That means they will borrow money from China, pay China interest on that money every day, never pay off the principle balance, and mortgage more of our children's future.

Second no- government-run companies? Seriously? I thought we learned over and over again that creating government run companies does not work- they are inefficient, corrupt, and provide poor services.

Third no- providing more health insurance coverage for those too rich for Medicaid? Really? Why didn't they just expand Medicaid, or some other government program, to cover more people? Then at least we could have had a sensible debate about the merits of the proposal. Instead we have to now create more new bureaucracies.

Fourth no- raising taxes? Raising taxes on the top income bracket is usually a very politically controversial issue- how are the Democrats hiding this in a healthcare proposal? What isn't in this bill? Raising taxes on those who are successful and prosperous is not going to make our nation a better place. Taking their wealth just because they make more wealth is not moral. There is no justification for it in this proposal, other than 'because we can take it and they have it'- and that line of logic is tyranny.

Fifth no- impose new regulations on companies? That is not going to make health insurance cheaper. I don't understand this at all- health insurance companies are struggling to keep costs down and the federal government is going to come along and kick them in the shins and impose new costly regulations on them? That is going to drive up the costs of health care coverage for you. You personally are now going to have to pay more money for the current service that you are receiving. That is not a way to help out.

Last no- strip the industry of its long-standing exemption from federal antitrust laws? So the thinking of Democrats in Congress, including my Congressman, is that by having people sue insurance companies more often for alleged lack of coverage or service will drive costs of healthcare down? Bizzaro world strikes again! Up is down, right is left, good is bad! Instead of putting in place tort reform and limiting trivial lawsuits, the Democrats doubled-down and said 'more lawsuits'! Wow.

This is pure and utter madness. Oppose with money, votes, phone calls, and visits. Start prepping for the revolution. Madness and tyranny are on the march.

The New Counter Culture: Liberty

James Hudnall , in a recent article over at Big Hollywood, wrote that in the 1960s a generation of young people dissatisfied with the status quo decided they wanted to change society for that they felt was the better. They resented the culture of the time and began a movement that they referred to as “counter-culture.”

But today, the 'establishment' is not the restrictive, conservative white-picket fence war hero's of the '50's- rather, today the 'establishment' are the hippies- those war-dodging self-righteous selfish types who spend their days lecturing others about being more friendly to the environment or to make peace not war or other meaningless garbage. Look around, the entertainers on TV, the comics in the clubs- the culture of the day is left, even though the nation is right. Heck, even “The Man” is a lefty tyrant!

So what then is the new counter culture? It is those people who love liberty and freedom- the new counter-culture are those people who have been raised on the soaring rhetoric of the Bible and the Declaration of Independence- the new rebels are the old rebels once again, those who fight against tyranny and oppression again.

The real change in our society, the real difference makers, are the youths who are out there at Tea Party's across the nation. Those who are going to shake the world and make a difference are not Harvard-educated community organizers committed to spending money they don't have on social re-engineering schemes, but those entrepreneurs who are standing up at town halls and yelling 'freedom'.

The new counter culture, ladies and gentlemen, is liberty.

Teachers Should Vote Republican

The Michigan Education Association endorsed Jennifer Granholm, and backed her campaigns with energy, money, and support. And in return? Falling salaries, threatened healthcare, and a pension that is under attack. And even though teachers are vocally against Republicans, they are forced to watch their endorsed politician cut funds for education that Republicans worked hard to solve.

This is why every teacher should vote Republican in 2010 and 2012- a rising tide floats all boats and the only thing that truly matters in life is results. Granholm may talk a good game, and may honestly want to help out teachers with her policies, but the reality is that by voting for Granholm and supporting Democrats like her in Michigan's government, teachers have hurt themselves in every way possible.

Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, whom teachers all across the state passionately support, slashed funding from education today. Teachers need to wake up and vote the right way next election- vote Republican.

States Have Demonstrated That ObamaCare will Fail

In my lecture on the pros and cons of federalism, I talk about how one of the greatest benefits of having a federal system is that states can experiment with policies and if they are bad policies only that particular state will suffer and not the whole nation. If states raise speed limits to 70, is there an increase in traffic deaths (no). If states legalize gambling, will it raise crime rates (no). Etc. Because of federalism, states can try out different ideas and policies on major issues facing our nation today- gay marriage, legalized pot, assisted suicide, etc- and if those policies work, other states can copy them, and if they don't, other states will not have suffered by our whole nation trying those policies. This is one of the major benefits of federalism. And we are ignoring it in the healthcare debate.

Peter Suderman, writing for the Wall Street Journal, points this out in his very good article "The Lesson of State Health-Care Reforms" where he argues that all of the major provisions of ObamaCare already have been tried in the states, and in each case, they've led to increased costs and reduced access to care.

Like participants in a national science fair, state governments have tested variants on most of the major components of the health-care reform plans currently being considered in Congress. The results have been dramatically increased premiums in the individual market, spiraling public health-care costs, and reduced access to care. In other words: The reforms have failed.

In his article, he talks about New York's guaranteed coverage regardless of prior condition policy and community ratings that don't take into account health policy, and judges them as an absolute failure. He looks at Massachusetts and find that states plan a failure. Maine offered a plan similar to the one that the Democrats are proposing the US do- it was a total failure. As was Tennessee's TennCare plan, which worked so poorly that it soon faced bankruptcy.

The point is that Obama and the Democrats are going to do things to our nation that have failed, failed badly, and failed consistently in every state where they were attempted. And they will fail again when the whole nation implements them. And then the Democrats will run around blaming everyone else for their failed policies and put in place more failed policies that will only hurt the nation more. That's Michigan's experience, and I suggest that you look to states like ours to see what happens when you put an inexperienced leader in charge who talks about change and hope but in reality only taxes and regulates until there are no more jobs left.

John Stossel Evaluates Cash for Clunkers

If you talk to Americans, most of them loved the Cash for Clunkers program, and support similar programs. But a further evaluation of this program proves that in the end, it achieved little good at great cost. John Stossel evaluated the program in a recent column on Real Clear Politics:

"The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups."

If you only look at the immediate effects, Cash for Clunkers appears pretty good. People traded in gas-guzzlers for more fuel-efficient new cars. The program cut carbon emissions slightly and gave the auto industry a boost.

"Manufacturing plants have added shifts and recalled workers. Moribund showrooms were brought back to life, and consumers bought fuel-efficient cars that will save them money and improve the environment," Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood bragged. American consumers and workers were the clear winners thanks to the Cash for Clunkers program."

But wait. Shouldn't that be some consumers and some workers? And only in the short run?

Let's start at the beginning. The government paid car owners to trade in their old cars, which will be destroyed. But the government is running a deficit. So it doesn't have $3 billion to hand out. It must borrow the money, which reduces the amount of money for other investments. Moreover, the government must raise taxes in the future to pay back the principal and interest -- or the Federal Reserve will monetize the debt through inflation. Either way, we pay.

That isn't all. Those car buyers were either going to trade in their used cars soon or they weren't. If they were, Cash for Clunkers simply moved up the schedule. The stimulation of the auto industry occurred earlier. Big deal. But if buyers planned to keep their cars longer, the program imposed costs that are less visible. Without the government incentive to buy cars, consumers would have bought other things -- computers, washing machines, televisions. The manufacturers and sellers of those products didn't get to make those sales. Why should the auto industry get privileges at the expense of others?

Then there are the mechanics who would have serviced those used cars. They've lost business. Some will be laid off. Nor should we forget low-income people who depend on the used-car market for their transportation. The cheap cars they would have bought were destroyed.

What about the alleged environmental benefits? Assuming that cutting carbon emissions is worthwhile, was Cash for Clunkers helpful? It's hard to see why. People who traded in inefficient cars for efficient ones will likely drive more and therefore use more gasoline. Even if carbon emissions are cut by a lot, economist Christopher Knittel says the program will cost more than $365 per ton of carbon saved.

Finally, there is something revolting about the government subsidizing the destruction of useful things. It reminds me of the New Deal policy of killing piglets and pouring milk down sewers to keep food prices from falling.

Leave it to politicians to think we can prosper by obliterating wealth.

Hat tip to Toxic Taxation for pointing out this article.

Warren Schools Blows Money on Wind Turbines While Teachers and Programs Are Cut

Yesterday Michigan lawmakers passed a school aid budget that slashes per pupil spending by $165, or about 2.3% from last year. That amounts to $2.6 million dollars for a school district like Warren Consolidated Schools. It is going to be devastating- that is a lot of money that school districts are going to be losing.

And yet, have school districts really been good stewards of the money they have already received from the state to teach students? Warren Consolidated Schools last year spent thousands of dollars that they are now desperate to have building a wind turbine for their magnet school in order to better indoctrinate students about green energy.

That's right ladies and gentlemen- even as a teacher it is hard to have sympathy for school districts that are facing horrible cuts to staff and programs when school districts around the state are blowing their money on projects like the Warren Consolidated Schools wind turbine.

And this turbine is not being built to provide cheaper cleaner power to the schools- at the cost of millions it will not even be able to power one single school in the district. Nope, this wasted spending is supposed to help the district with its plans to develop a curriculum on renewable energy for all grade levels starting next school year- and to make room for this curriculum, they have to cut from something- perhaps less science and math.

That's the full picture of what is going on in this nation now- the government kills all other industry in Michigan with high taxes, sends that money to school districts to build wind turbines, shoves environmental mythology down students minds, cuts teachers and programs, cries about having no money, and then tries to raise taxes even more.

Additional information may be obtained by contacting Mr. David Walsh, Administrative Consultant of Special Programs for Warren Consolidated Schools, at 586-698-4124.

Obama's Debt Is Going to Destroy Our Nation

As of Sept. 30, 2009, the national debt was almost $12 trillion and interest on that debt was $383 billion for the year, according to the Treasury Department's Bureau of the Public Debt. The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) estimated total government revenues at about $2 trillion, of which $904 billion is from individual income taxes.

That means that 42% of the tax money that you send to Washington is simply being used to cover the interest on the debt. The other 58% of the tax money that you work so hard to send to Washington is being used to provide more and more and more government services and to issue more and more government promises that are going to lead to to more and more debt. The principle on the balance is not being paid back, and there is no intention for it to ever be paid back.

In the first year of Obama's administration, the debt grew at a record pace. The Congressional Budget Office on Oct. 7 estimated the 2009 budget deficit to be almost $1.4 trillion- that is a stunning amount of debt to add, especially when our nation did not have to deal with a hurricane or terrorist attack or war- the only disaster that hit our nation in 2009 was Barack Obama being elected President.

I know my math is probably too simplistic- someone with an economics degree needs to correct it- but if $12 trillion in debt= 383 billion in interest, that is $32 billion in interest per trillion. Obama intends to add to the national debt over the next 10 years another 9.7 trillion (his own spending plans called for another 11.1, and he's already dropped 1.4, so that equals 9.7). That will mean another $310 in interest. If the economy does not recover and tax receipts do not surge (in fact, they shrank this year), then that means that the government will pay $694 in interest alone, while only collecting $904 from taxes.

If we continue Obama's policies for another 16 years, our nation will be in debt $29 trillion dollars and owe $907 per year in interest. We will owe more in interest than we bring in in taxes. If we continue Obama's economic policies another 20 years, the interest we owe on our debt will be greater than all revenues combined. America will be destroyed.

The numbers are sobering, even if my math is wrong. Obama's policies are going to economically destroy our nation in a fire of debt and interest. Anyone who supports his policies or his Democratic allies's are destroying the hopes and future of your children and grandchildren, who will have to live in a country that is bankrupt beyond any hope of ever emerging.

Obama's policies are going to send our entire nation to a debtors prison from which we may never again emerge.

How Politics Destroyed Battlestar Galactica

Friday night was once BSG night before it went off the air. But BSG went bad long before that. Jonah Goldberg understands politics and entertainment, and sometimes he writes articles that truly echo my thoughts. For years I tried to convince my brother to watch Battlestar Galactica because it was the best show on TV. But as the show went on, I changed my pitch to my brother and only tried to get him to watch the first couple seasons. By the end of the show's run, I no longer was trying to convince him to watch the show- liberal leftism combined with incoherent moral relativism had ruined the once great Battlestar Galactica.

In the beginning, I really felt the show tried to grapple with the post-9/11 world, but by the end, it had fallen back into a pre-9/11 world of moral ambiguity and emptiness. Where once strong characters and great human beings- who were full of all of the stuff that makes men great but also full of all of the failures of man- stirred the soul with striking action and stirring dialogue, the show degenerated into 'complex' characters who were boring and unlifelike, so much that they would die and come back again for no reason and the machines ended up being more human that the perfect morally relativistic humans they were trying to kill or love or save or something.

If you are a fan of the show, I suggest you take a look at Goldberg's column- he does a much better job at analyzing what went wrong with the great show Battlestar Galactica in his column and really articulates exactly what went wrong.

Oh, and if you haven't checked out Firefly yet, I suggest you do- that show ended before they could wreck it.

Partisanship Finds an Outlet: Oakland County Government Resolution Against Obamacare Brings Supporters and Opponents Out

Today the Oakland County Board of Commissioners debated a resolution that would state that the County is opposed to the healthcare reform bills currently supported by the Democrats in Congress. As is my habit, I was at the meeting, and was surprised to find the meeting packed- apparently the Democrats organized a large turnout, and the Republicans responded with their own late email asking people to come in. You could tell who the the Democrats were- they all wore the same sticker (Health Care Reform Now or something).

Before the Resolution was voted on, the floor was opened up for public comment, and 30-40 people came in front of auditorium and spoke for 3 minutes each. There were maybe 100 people in the audience, so a good percentage of the people there got to comment on the issue. In the name of journalism, I'm going to record some of the comments below, but for those of you who do not regularly attend meetings and who don't follow the political scene that closely, this might be a good chance for you to hear what sorts of comments are made by both sides.

One generality that I want to point to is that almost every speaker who supports Obamacare and spoke out against the resolution began their speech with comments about how America sucks, how our healthcare system is one of the worse ones in the world, and that the reason it is so bad is because evil insurance companies are involved in a grand conspiracy to cheat people out of their wealth. Almost every single supporter of Obamacare repeated this mantra in their speech, as if by saying these things would make them true.

Another comment I enjoyed from a supporter of Obamacare was (and I quote) "Republicans need to stop taking marching orders from fat loud-mouthed drug addicts." Apparently being 'fat' is something to attack someone personally about, and so are struggles with drug addictions. This kind of sensitivity and compassion is what you can soon expect from liberal government bureaucrats who are going to be making your healthcare decisions.

Another supporter of Obamacare said "Obama won the Presidential election overwhelmingly and he campaigned for exactly the type of plan that he is pushing for now so no one in this room has the right to oppose any of his policies." For fun, count how many wrong assumptions are in that statement. Also, I have seen this guy around- a couple years ago he was loudly speaking out against President Bush and the War on Terror in Iraq. Hypocrisy, liberal is thy name.

One women plaintively expressed the following comment "How can people even think about being against free healthcare for everyone- I don't even understand how you could oppose that." This is the depth of logic and reasoning that marks the left in our nation, a group that voters let take over on multiple levels of government.

Another gentlemen expressed the following sentiment "Insurance companies are full of evil people and the government needs to go after them with the full force of the state and drive them all out of business." I'm still quoting actual comments from people who support Obamacare.

After one guy stood up and gave a speech against Obamacare, there was shouting and cries of "you lie". People sat quietly through speeches in support of Obamacare (with only an occasional quiet laugh or chuckle at the foolish statements these people uttered) but almost every single person who spoke against Obamacare was yelled at, swore at, and shouted down. Free speech for liberals is only for those who say what they want. At one point the police even came in the chamber to keep order because a liberal wanted to physically fight everyone who disagreed with him- a bully just like his hero Obama.

Logical fallacies were present in almost every liberal proponent of Obamacare- one girl said "There is nothing right now stopping the free market solving the healthcare problem- the free market had its chance and failed and now the government needs to step in." There is no free market in healthcare- there is a direct correlation between increasing government involvement in healthcare and the rising cost. Healthcare is very far from 'free market' and thus it is a problem- the more government you inject into an issue the worse it gets, and that's not an argument in favor of more government, that is an argument against government in the first place.

After someone stood up and gave a great speech about America being founded on the ideas of freedom and liberty, several speakers stood up to reject those ideas and said that "America was founded on equality and altruism, not freedom and liberty"- these people who support Obamacare obviously have little knowledge of the history of our nation. Or perhaps they are mixing up the French Revolution with ours and support the ideas that led to terror and dictatorship in France as opposed to the ideas that led to greatness and law in our nation.

Some people wondered why the Oakland County Board of Commissioners took up a resolution such as this anyway- after all, what contribution can a county board make to this debate. The problem with this very important debate on healthcare is that it is not being debated in the open- it is being done behind closed doors by elites who wish to hide their actions from the light of day. And people on both sides, for and against Obamacare, want to speak on the issue, want to exercise their rights, want to petition their government, want to gather and assemble and battle it out in the forum of ideas, and this is being denied to them by the Democrats who seek to rule us. That is why the Oakland County Board discussed this issue- to give people a forum and a voice and an outlet to their thoughts, feelings, and frustrations.

The Resolution by the Oakland County Board of Commissioners stating its opposition to the Democrats healthcare plans passed by a majority vote.

Tyranny: Healthcare Reform Threat to Life, Liberty, and Property

Our healthcare system has many market characteristics in it, and this has allowed people the freedom necessary to build a system that although not perfect, has provided quality coverage to almost all Americans at a good price. And yet now Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the Democrats in Congress want to change all of this and overhaul the system with this healthcare reform bill, and I am hear today to say that everyone should be against this plan.

There are problems in the system, and this plan does nothing to address those problems. It does not address the problem of portability. This Democrat plan does not address the issue of tort reform. It does not increase competition across state lines. Indeed, this healthcare plan that the Democrats are proposing does not do anything to advance the liberty and freedom and choices of the people of this great nation.

The Democrats healthcare plan is going to need my tax money to be put in place, and thus it does not increase the protection of my property from government, and recent reports and reviews by several groups in government and business have concluded that this healthcare plan will indeed end up costing most American’s more money in the end, further eroding my property.

The Democrat’s healthcare plan does not adequately address concerns for life either. The plan is going to create panels who will evaluate whether or not someone or something should be covered, and this may indeed put pressure on a government that wants to contain costs to not do everything in its power to protect the life of seniors in our society.

Nor does the plan adequately address concerns that taxpayer money and government support will not be used to support or encourage abortions. It is not hard to imagine that a government that is concerned with keeping down the costs of healthcare coverage may somehow with some policy push for the abortion of special needs children who will indeed be a great cost on a national healthcare system.

My objections to the Democrats healthcare plan are based on an understanding of what the proper role of government in our society should be, as written about by those great men who founded our nation. They wrote that the purpose of government is to protect my life, my liberty, and my property, and not to create vast bureaucracies of unelected officials who will control my life, my liberty, and my property.

Do not become blinded by anecdotal stories. Do not be fooled by rhetoric. Do not be misled by your own ambitions or desires. This proposal to gain more control over our health care by the Democrats is not about specifics, clauses, or numbers, although those are important to the debate. No, this issue is instead a fundamental question about freedom, life, and property in our nation.

I encourage everyone to support efforts to speak out against the Democrat’s healthcare proposal. Contact by email or phone your Congressmen, Senators, Governor, state officials, even county officials. Sing the song of freedom and liberty. Freedom and liberty are precious in this world, and are now under attack, not by evil people who seek your harm, but by people who through good intentions and intellectual reasoning would lead us into tyranny.

Hiroshima vs Detroit, 64 Years After WWII

This has been making the rounds lately, on email and in conversation, and I thought that you should all take a look at it. What the following site has done is compare dozens of pictures of Hiroshima and Detroit using two time periods- right after WWII and current days. It is stunning- Hiroshima went from being nuked to being a vibrant city full of life and growth. Detroit went from being a vibrant city full of life and growth to looking like a city that had been nuked. What the heck happened?

Check out these stunning pictures at the following site:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2349112/posts

UPDATE from March 1, 2011: Apparently Glen Beck reads my blog, because he talked about this on his radio program and now the Detroit News has a bunch of editorials about this. I guess that means I am driving the media now- I honestly can't do any worse than Obama and the Democrat's driving of our country off a cliff over the last couple years.

Obama Orders Development and Prosperity Stopped in an Arbitrary and Tyrannical Manner

The world may be giving Obama prizes for hope and togetherness and stuff, but here is the states we have to live with his domestic polices, which recently includes Obama's decision to block the development of energy production and the jobs and prosperity that this development would have provided.

There are still businesses out there that wish to grow and invest in our nation and its bounty, but Obama and his policies are increasingly blocking that hope and changing the course of our nation from one of prosperity to one of poverty. As unemployment grows and our nation sends cash to energy-rich nations, Obama orders that 60 oil and natural gas wells that were in development be shut down.

After businesses expanded great effort and money to win contracts to drill for oil and make America more energy self-sufficient, provide jobs and money for our nation, and restore hope in our future as a great power, Obama and the Democrats swooped in after the contracts were awarded and arbitrarily shut these drills down, claiming the process was flawed. These actions are the arbitrary actions of a tyrannical government, not the law-abiding and rule-of-law actions of a government that is fair and honest towards all.

77 government-owned parcels, covering some 100,000 acres in eastern and southern Utah, were leased by the government last year by private companies that went through the correct processes and channels of government to win these leases. Then, after Obama took office, he broke those agreements and ordered development by those companies to immediately be shut down on the pretense that the agreements were 'rushed'.

Never before in the history of our nation has a President separated the history of our country into a pre- and after- era- and then determined that whatever happened before him- whether it was legal and proper or not- is no longer valid and everything that happens after him is now valid. Our country is bigger than one man, our laws are higher than one man, and our policies stretch from President to President without regard to who holds the office- until Democrat President Barack Obama took office and began to exercise his authority in an arbitrarily and tyrannical manner.

Perhaps the leases were given in a rushed manner- but no more so than the stimulus bill or the healthcare bill is being rushed through Congress. Being 'rushed' does not make the agreements any less valid and lawful, unless there were laws broken or improper actions taken, and the Obama Interior Department has not even suggested that. The whole basis for the US government breaking agreements and promises made was that 'Bush rushed'- and that line of logic is not an argument that should hold up in a court of law.

Our nation is slipping into tyranny and arbitrary actions by an increasingly unlawful and unbalanced government, all under the support and guidance of the Democratic Party of the United States, and you need to exert every action at every election to do what you can do to stop it and return our nation to the greatness to which it was once the envy of the world.

Will Peace Prize Affect Obama's Decision Making Process?

Our President won a Nobel Peace Prize today. There are a lot of great articles and posts already on this project, and I don't want to re-invent the wheel here, so if you are looking for some good takes on Obama winning the Nobel Prize, check out this article, this article, or this article.

What I wonder about though is how Obama winning the Peace Prize may affect his decision making process on Afghanistan or Iran. Right now, our President has two very important foreign policy issues to deal with, and both of which may require him to make a hard decision. This Peace Prize was given to him partly for his willingness to sit down and talk with dictators and willingness to consult with international opinion rather than going it alone, and now that he has it, he may be reluctant to anger or upset the international community with tough hard decisions.

For example, within the next year Iran will have nuclear weapons and the capability to deliver those warheads to Israel. What will Obama do about this? Will he conduct diplomacy and work with the international community to strike agreements which Iran will never follow? This is the type of work that will win him international awards like the Peace Prize, but also the type of work that will do little to make the world safer for freedom and democracy. Don't misunderstand- diplomacy and agreements are great, provided that they lead somewhere- experience though has shown that appeasement and agreements that mean nothing do not make the world a better place.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban are resurgent and the terrorists are focusing all of their energy on defeating us there. They tried in Iraq, and our response was to thumb our nose at international appeasement and go it alone, and win, and make Iraq a better place in spite of the world looking down at us. Now the terrorists are trying it in Afghanistan- concentrating forces and money there, trying to drive us out of that country so they can have a nation from which to attack all decent nations in the world. What will Obama do? Will he do what it takes to win, restoring order and peace in Afghanistan and making the world a better place, even if that means the world community no longer awards him?

Or will Obama feel pressure now that he has won the Peace Prize to not make enemies, even of evil people, and to not make war, even on countries that make war on us, and to give in to the demands of dictators, even if it makes the world a less safe place? Will Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize affect his decision making process? I certainly hope not.

The 2009 Democratic Party Constitution

In my wanderings around the internet, I finally found the Democratic Party's real platform. According to it, the Democratic party is the party of the people and supports increased voting rights for all, specifically workers groups and the poor who have not had a proper voice in government. The real platform for the Democrat Party includes such important social and economic rights like the rights to work, rest and leisure, health protection, care in old age and sickness, housing, education, and cultural benefits.

Today, the Democratic Party is committed to these goals. They are pushing for government run health care, they are pushing for increased government programs for elderly, they are fighting for union labor, and even have begun to push more government involvement and funding in the arts.

Furthermore, this constitution that the Democratic Party is pushing attempts to put in place more commissions and bureaucratic agencies that will run our nation and make choices for us.

The surprising thing is, the real platform of the Democratic Party is the 1936 Soviet Constitution.

Democrats Plan for Healthcare

The greatest threat to the Democrat's plan to nationalize health care is the American people and their elected Representatives and Senators. And that is why the Democrats are currently working day and night on crafting a plan to short circuit the democratic process in our nation and instead impose their elitist agenda on what Democrats view as their subjects. Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and every Democrat at every level of government who supports them is demonstrating with their actions what they think of you, your family, and your friends- they think you are an idiot and they are going to do everything they can do to keep your voice out of this process.

According to CNS News, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (Democrat, Md.) is considering having the House vote on the Senate health-care bill without ever seeing it and without ever making any changes in it, which would allow the bill to go directly to Democrat President Barack Obama. The goal of the Democrats is to pass a bill that will radically alter America without having to pass through a House-Senate conference committee and the resulting second round of votes in the House and Senate and the longer period of public scrutiny of what the text of the proposed law actually says.

The Democrats are not designing great legislation. They are not working day and night to create good public laws. They are not working to make the process bipartisan. The process is intended to be one of the least transparent in the history of legislation making. The goal is to twist rules and use little-used procedures to do things in the dark of night that will not stand up to the light of day. And this is what a vote for Democrats in next year's election encourages- elitism and contempt for your voice.

Such a process of events would greatly shorten the time the public has to study and debate the final text of the health care bill, which is a desirable aim of the Democratic party- to create laws the radically alter our nation in as fast as time possible with as little input as possible in a manner that is as undemocratic as possible. Furthermore, the current plan of the Democrats is for Senate Majority Leader Reid, who is in real threat of not being re-elected, to personally write the bill and all of its provisions with no input from anyone else, and then have that bill be voted on without being seen or amended by the House.

This is scary stuff. If your Senator has not yet been contacted yet, I advise you to do so and tell them that this is not the way that America works. And next election, I expect you to donate your time and money and energy to doing all you can to defeat any Democrat at any level who supports this sort of plan.

Thanks to motorcitytimes.com for the hat tip.

Big Government Health Care PSA

One of the most defining features of the debate over the government takeover of the health insurance industry is the lack of coherent logic by those who want the US government to nationalize large segments of the economy. The advocates claim they want this because there isn't enough choice and the cost is too high, yet they ignore the fact that having one big government provide insurance is less of a choice and that the federal government usually does things at a substantially higher cost than private industry. The advocates arguments are full of holes and logical fallacies that would be sad and funny if they weren't so dangerous.

And now celebrities have gotten in the act, supporting the Celebrity-in-Chief and his plan to pretend and act his way through important decisions. Will Ferrell and others have created a video in support of the nationalization of our economy, view it here. And in in response there have been several video's produced that are quite amusing. My favorite is here:

Five Supreme Court Cases to Watch This Term

Time magazine put together a report on the Five Supreme Court Cases to watch this term. There are some interesting ones in here:

Case #1: Salazar v. Buono
At issue: Whether the government can permit the display of a crucifix on public land as per the Establishment Clause.

An 8-ft.-tall crucifix has stood on an outcrop called Sunrise Rock on the Mojave National Preserve since 1934, but in one of the court's earliest arguments of the term, the Justices will be asked to consider whether it should be removed. The battle has been brewing for a while - the cross, erected without government approval, was slated for removal by the U.S. National Park Service after a request from Buddhists to create their own memorial near the site was denied. But in 2000, Congress hastily passed a law prohibiting the use of public funds to remove the cross, in essence tying the National Park Service's hands. Congress declared the cross a National Memorial in 2002, and in 2003 it gave the small parcel of land to the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) - the group that constructed the original cross.

My view of this case at first glance is that the 1st amendment does prohibit the government from favoring one group over the other, so I'm inclined to say that to be fair, the cross should be removed. But I'd want to know more about the decision making process- why was it left there so long- and whether there is any historical value of the cross now.

Case #2: Maryland v. Shatzer
At issue: The scope of the rights of police suspects, as given in the court's landmark 1966 decision, Miranda v. Arizona.

In Maryland v. Shatzer, Michael Shatzer was questioned by police about sexual abuse of his 3-year-old child, and after being told he had the right to counsel as part of his Miranda rights, declined to answer any questions without an attorney present. The officer never pursued Shatzer further, but nearly three years later, a different detective questioned Shatzer, at which point he admitted abuse. Shatzer now argues this confession is inadmissible because the second police officer, who was unaware of Shatzer's original Miranda request, questioned him without an attorney present.

My view of this case is that the Miranda rules were designed to protect those people who didn't know their rights. In this case, Shatzer knew his rights- they were told to him earlier- yet he still answered questions, and then later was told that he had forgotten his own rights and so the he wants the evidence inadmissible? No way- the cops read them off, that's all they need to do, and if you don't listen or forget, that's your fault.

Case #3: Graham v. Florida / Sullivan v. Florida
At issue: Whether life imprisonment for juveniles on nonhomicide charges constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

The Eighth Amendment precludes cruel and unusual punishment, but it has long been left to the Supreme Court to define exactly what that term means. This court will be asked to consider it again in a pair of cases on the docket. In Sullivan, the petitioner was 13 years old when he was indicted as an adult and sentenced to life in prison without parole in Florida for sexual assault of an elderly woman. In Graham, a 19-year-old violated his parole by committing attempted armed robbery while on parole for two previous robbery attempts he had committed while he was a minor. He too was subsequently sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

My view on this case is that cruel and unusual punishment most definitely does not mean life in prison. That is a humane and usual punishment. I can't understand how these cases are even controversial- this should be pretty easy to determine. If the Supreme Court interprets life in prison as cruel and unusual, soon it could interpret prison as cruel and unusual, and then a stern talking to as cruel and unusual, and then there are no more punishments in liberal utopia unreal world.

Case #4: National Rifle Association v. Chicago / McDonald v. Chicago
At issue: Second Amendment rights to gun ownership.

A pair of cases challenge Chicago's 27-year-old ban on handgun sales within the city limits. Originally designed to curb violence in the city, the ban has long irked Second Amendment advocates, who take an expansive view of the amendment's wording that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." But the Supreme Court had long held that the Second Amendment pertained only to federal laws, until a 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller struck down a ban on handguns and automatic weapons in Washington, D.C. The ruling marked the first time the Supreme Court acknowledged an individual right to bear arms, and it opened the door for these challenges to the Chicago regulation.

My view is that in the Heller decision the Supreme Court recognized an individuals inherent right to keep and bear arms and that that right could not be infringed (ie, the 2nd amendment), and that therefore under the 14th amendment clause, the 2nd amendment is now incorporated to the states, and thus the Chicago anti-2nd amendment laws are unconstitutional. Another easy one.

Case #5: American Needle v. National Football League

At issue: Whether sporting leagues should be exempt from antitrust regulations.

Experts say American Needle may turn out to be the most important legal decision in sporting history. The sportswear manufacturer contracted with NFL teams to produce hats and headgear with official team logos. But the NFL decided to give an exclusive leaguewide license to Reebok in 2000, leading American Needle to sue, claiming the NFL's action violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by limiting the market for who could produce team-branded merchandise.

The fundamental question for the court to decide is whether the NFL should be considered a single entity or a collection of 32 individual businesses. The answer to this question has repercussions beyond the production of licensed merchandise. If the NFL is considered a single entity, it would largely be exempt from antitrust laws, giving the league not only continued right to grant exclusive licenses for team apparel but also the ability to make decisions on a leaguewide basis. This opens the door to the NFL - rather than individual teams - determining things like ticket prices and player salaries. Indeed, the bargaining power of the NFL Players Union is based on antitrust legislation that the league would largely be immune to if it receives a favorable ruling from the Supreme Court. Other sporting leagues are watching the American Needle case closely; many have filed briefs in favor of the NFL's position.

My view on this one is that the NFL is a single entity and thus exempt from the Sherman Antitrust Act. So is the NBA, NHL, MLB, MLS, MMA, and any other league. They have a single commissioner and play under unified rules, and thus are their own single entity.

AU: Pushing for Conservatives of Color

One of the biggest problems facing the Republican Party is the perception that it is not welcoming to minority groups. To many Republicans, this upsets us- after all, our party freed the slaves, our party fought against slavery, our party fought the racial segregation in the south, our party passed the Civil Rights bills over Democrat's objections, and our party today pushes an agenda that minority groups should support.

The Republican Party has pushed for educational reform and accountability- not to help out the rich kids in the white schools, but to help out those stuck in failing schools in predominantly urban areas. The Republican party has pushed for welfare reform- not to hurt minority groups but to help them to gain dignity and freedom by moving off of the welfare rolls of the state to making their own living in this world. The Republican Party pushes for more crime fighting and tougher punishments on criminals, ideas that should be winning in communities that sadly have higher rates of crime. The Republican Party is the party that fights the drug culture that is so corrupting to the inner cities and minority communities. The Republican Party fought against raising the minimum wage, which studies have shown cause higher unemployment in minority groups. On issue after issue, it is Republicans who are pushing policies and ideas that would benefit minority groups, and yet the perception remains that Republicans and their ideas are wrong.

This is partly the own fault of the Republican Party, and efforts need to be made to change this perception. Akindele Unleashed discussed this in a recent column-read the full column by linking here- here are some highlights:

However, it seems like the biggest challenge is how Republicans can approach urban areas. The answer is simple. Just talk about issues that are relevant. I think I brought this up several times in our discussion. Instead of template talking points and foreign platforms I stressed the need for discussions on mental health, family building, global education, and even participating in race relation discussions. The key here is relationship building.

We know the GOP has ties with various Chamber of Commerces across the State of Michigan but are we partnering with other community based groups who have direct access to people in our community? When was the last time the GOP connected with Focus Hope? The North Oakland Republican Club volunteered to work in a soup kitchen in Pontiac not too long ago. Most GOP clubs will not even conduct meetings in urban communities. That alone shows the disconnect.

Civic education forums are needed to inform constituents on the issues as well as creating solutions. I said nothing about bashing elected officials. I said solutions. If the GOP becomes more solution-oriented we will see a positive outcome in urban communities.

Akindele hit on a couple important ideas that Republicans should be well aware of- relationship, making the effort to reach out, and focusing on solutions. Every Republican can should heed this advice- they can not afford to not to if they want to help out minority groups in our nation.

Dillon and Bishop Lead, Granholm Fails

Yesterday I heard on the radio (760 AM) Democratic House Speaker Andy Dillon and Republican Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop. As they were interviewed by Paul Smith, they talked about the budget situation in Lansing and the problems there were to getting a budget passed. Both of them implied that the problems with Michigan- the budget problems and the government problems- are caused by a lack of leadership at the top. And they are right.

Michigan's budget problems are directly attributed to Democrat Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm and her lack of leadership and communication skills.

During the interview, Dillon said that the reason why Bishop waited so long to pass a continuation budget was because Bishop felt that Granholm would accept this budget and then veto the more permanent budgets the legislature was working on. He wanted to give the Governor a finished permanent budget and have her decide on that, fearing that by passing a continuation budget it would make the process of putting together a budget more contentious and bitter. He was right.

Dillon was also asked if Granholm would veto budget bills that the House and Senate both hammered out after long exhausting hours. He said he didn't think she would, but he didn't know- that she hadn't been involved in the process and what little involvement that the Democratic leader of our state had was wishy-washy, uncommitted, and weak. And that lack of leadership had introduced uncertainty and confusion into the entire process. And he was right.

The problems in our state are responsible in part because voters of our state took a chance on an inexperienced politician with few leadership skills. This caused uncertainty, lack of direction, lack of vision, and confusion to radiate through the entire state government. The weakness at the top of our state contributed to the weakness of our state.

This lack of leadership, vision, and the ability to make touch choices and tough decisions is playing out now at the national level. We have a President who runs the nation much like Granholm ran the state of Michigan, and he will run the nation into the ground due to his lack of leadership skills. Voters need to recognize the choices that they made that took us to this point in our state, and in the future, vote for strong leaders, of either party, who are willing to make tough choices and get things done.

Bishop and Dillon both are doing well in this process and should be judged highly- Granholm is doing poorly and should be judged poorly.