In all of the discussion we’ve had so far about the Obama healthcare plan, I have yet to see anyone voice the number one problem with it, which is that it’s wrong. 

It’s wrong to confiscate the earnings of one group of Americans who somehow have managed to find the means to secure health insurance for themselves and their families and force them to pay for those who have not. It doesn’t solve the underlying problem, namely that healthcare costs are rising faster than incomes. Instead, all the plan does is immorally shift the burden from one group to another. To start off right, we should all resolve that any plan to ‘reform’ healthcare begin with the central premise that all able-bodied Americans should be responsible for paying for their own way.

The next step is to understand what the root problems of the healthcare ‘crisis’ really are. Ironically, democrats have been completely uninterested in diagnosing these underlying causes, preferring instead to only treat the symptoms with thousands of thoughtlessly placed band-aids. They seem to not understand that the symptoms will only get worse, and new ones will emerge, if we do not take a good, hard look at what is really creating the ‘crisis.’ 

The inability to afford health insurance or healthcare is a combination of two factors: rising medical costs and insufficient income. Let’s look at rising costs first. As a former bank analyst, I can tell you that any analyst worth his salt should be able to study the healthcare system for the past 50 years and tell us exactly what has lead to the steep rise in costs. Is it a shortage of healthcare professionals? Is it lawsuit abuse resulting in expensive and unnecessary procedures? Is it a lack of choice in health insurance plans? All of these can be addressed in an effort to lower costs.

Presumably some of the rise in healthcare expenses is due to improved technology that has the potential not only to improve the quality of our lives, but has greatly extended it on average. So step three is to impress upon people that while paying for healthcare is not as sexy as driving an expensive new car, it is something that should be highly valued and worth sacrificing for, if necessary. If, like the grasshopper who danced all summer while the ants toiled away, people choose to foolishly spend their money on other luxuries, then they must still be made to pay their own medical fees when the need ultimately arises. Even if it means garnishing wages or confiscating assets, holding people accountable for their bad decisions is the only way to make the system work. This goes back to our central premise: it’s wrong to make one citizen pay for another. Letting people use the emergency room for routine care and leave without paying the bill amounts to just that.

Next we look at income. When I hear that people can’t afford healthcare, I always wonder: “Why not?” Since the disabled and truly indigent are covered under Medicaid and the elderly under Medicare, that shouldn’t leave too many people who can’t provide their own coverage. Young adults who are just starting out in their careers and don’t yet have spouses with whom they can pool their income could be offered inexpensive policies. As far as the others go, by not forcing other people to foot the bill for their healthcare we force them – naturally – to work smarter or harder in order to provide it for themselves. This is better for everyone and, most importantly, it’s the right thing to do.

Of course, all of this assumes that the real goal of liberal democrats is to make sure everyone can get care when they need it and not to make a huge power grab. That’s a debate for another day…

Having just listened to the first part of a radio interview between Sean Hannity and Andrew Young regarding his experience as campaign assistant to John Edwards, it is hard to say whether Edwards, Young or Hannity is the more disgusting person.

In the short piece of interview I listened to I learned that Young knew all along what a phony Edwards was, not just as a husband but as person. Young witnessed Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, using their children, including their deceased son, as campaign props. Young not only knew of the affair Edwards had with Rielle Hunter (or whatever her name is), but he helped Edwards carry on the affair and, as we all know now, he even agreed to pretend to be the child’s father so that the scandal would not interfere with Edward’s quest for the presidency.

For anyone to help a boss or a friend in this manner is despicable enough and exposes a lack of any real character on Young’s part, but the fact that he did all this in an effort to help Edwards - whom he knew to be a fraud – become president, well that reveals corruption of the worst kind. Young, knowing full well what kind of person Edwards was, was willing to place the rest of us at his mercy. As for Hannity, he was willing to help Young profit from the fraud by letting him peddle his book on Hannity’s show. So much for being a “great American.”

Please, do not buy this man’s book. As for me, I’ll be removing ‘Hannity’ from my DVR taping schedule.

What bothers me most about the same-sex marriage ‘debate’ is the bullying means by which gay ‘rights’ activists are attempting to usurp the term “marriage” in order to redefine it to suit their own particular interests. This tactic of unilaterally redefining common terms to subvert the constitutional process is a common practice of the Left, and it should not be allowed to happen regardless of where you stand on same-sex marriage.

Just imagine if, for instance, white supremacist groups demanded that we redefine the word ‘people’ to mean only those of pure white ancestry. Or how about if Hispanic groups demanded that the term ‘American citizen’ should now mean anyone who has lived in the U.S. for more than a year? The dangers in this should be evident to everyone, yet many still don’t see it.

If gay rights groups want to legally change the term ‘marriage’ to include same-sex couples, then there is a process for that. The fact is they want to avoid that process because they understand that they can’t win that way. This may be unfortunate for them, depending upon how you see it, but it does not justify their attempt to go around the constitution. Whether they like it or not, the constitution belongs to all of us. 

Do Harry Reid’s recently disclosed comments about Barack Obama expose him as a racist? The answer is ‘No,’ but to debate that question is to miss what is truly important about this whole snafu.

Reid said, basically, that Obama’s light skin and nonnegro dialect helped to make him more electable. Who in their right mind would argue that this statement isn’t true? If anything you could argue that he implied that other people are racist; but if the statement is true, shouldn’t he be allowed to say it without fear of reprisal? Of course he should, which underscores the real reason behind republicans’ outrage.

For decades now republicans have been forced to play the Left’s game whereby anything negative they say about any minority is immediately denounced as “racist” by democrats, regardless of the facts. The Left’s cohorts in the media then play along to insure that the label of racism is never challenged, and the evil ploy is used to gain political advantage. 

Republicans, to their shame, have all too often played along with the game, calling for the offender’s resignation as a way to move on or worse, as a way of appearing to be equally indignant over the ‘racist’ remarks and to show how tough they are willing to be on their own kind. This behavior, which amounts to pleading guilty, only plays right into the Left’s hands and reinforces the propaganda they cultivate which says that republicans – and only republicans – are inherently racist. Check.

Republicans seem to think that by playing along they can eventually beat the democrats at their own game by holding them to the same standard, but – silly republicans - this is not how the game is played. In the first place, democrats have no scruples and will cheat by redefining ‘racism’ to mean something else when it applies to them. Secondly, their lack of scruples means that they see nothing wrong with circling the wagons around their own offenders while demanding that republican throw their own to the wolves. And of course the media are their willing accomplices by virtue of their non-coverage of racism on the Left. Checkmate.

The moral of the story for republicans is this: never play games with cheaters who have no scruples. Stop calling for the resignation of Harry Reid and better yet, defend his right to speak the truth, even when some find it offensive. Re-write the rules of the game.

Many years ago when my father decided to run for tax assessor of our small town I was shocked when he told me that he would be running as a democrat. My father had always been a staunch conservative with a passionate interest in politics. Anyone who knew him for more than five minutes understood that he was a conservative. When I asked why on earth he would run as a democrat he explained that he would not be able to win the primary against the incumbent republican, a life-long resident, but thought he could win the democrat slot. Sure enough he went on to win the democratic primary and then beat the republican incumbent with the support of democrats and just enough republican crossovers. Did I mention that he’s also a very pragmatic man?

The point of that story is to show that people can label themselves however they like, but it is their actions and their viewpoints that define who they really are. That is why it is ludicrous when people point to Colin Powell as a ‘republican’ supporter of Barack Obama, or as a ‘republican’ who rails against Rush Limbaugh or defends the biased judicial decisions of Sonia Sotomayor. Gee, can I just start calling myself the Queen of Texas?

What troubles me most is the belief by Powell and the press that they can sell this notion of Powell as just a disaffected ‘republican’ to the rest of us. Have we really become such a nation of non-thinkers that we would believe a supporter of the far-left Barack Obama is truly a republican? 

Like everything else these days, it makes no sense at all. 

For me the most maddening thing about the Obama Administration, aside from the fact that they’re ruining the country, is their assumption that we’re all idiots. Case in point: their attempt to excuse Sonia Sotomayor's bigoted statement about white males as just a, “poor choice of words.”  Please tell me, Robert Gibbs, what would be a better way to say that being a Latino woman makes you a better judge than a white male? 

Ordinarily when someone uses a poor choice of words this indicates that they stand by the meaning of what they said, they just wish they had said it differently.   In Sotomayor’s case, for example, a poor choice of words might have been, “…a Latino woman… would reach a better conclusion than some honky.”  

The Obama Administration, by purposely misdiagnosing the problem with what Sotomayor said, is hoping we’ll forget about her racist remarks. Since Obama voters aren’t known for their intellect, and since many of them see nothing wrong with bigotry when it’s aimed at white males, the “poor choice of words” ruse will probably work on them. But conservatives should do everything in their power to make it clear that Obama and his cohorts can’t fool all of us.

If you want try to gain some insight into the thought processes of the Left, the first thing you should do is go to your local middle schools and high schools and observe the behavior you see there. Young people, especially teens and pre-teens are highly motivated by how they appear to others, and this is the same for the Left. Ideally, as people mature they become less concerned with show and more concerned with substance. In the case of far left liberals, however, this maturing process never occurs, and the ‘green’ fad is perfect proof of this.

As a woman who loves decorating magazines I have long been disgusted by the ‘green’ movement, not because I don’t care about the environment but because of the ridiculous farce that it is. Here’s a typical article: Hollywood couple buys an older home in a canyon near L.A. and embarks on a ‘green’ renovation. They tear down most of the 4,000 square foot existing home in order to increase its size to a more ‘livable’ 8,000 square feet. They take two years to redo every surface in the home with the help of a multitude of workmen using loads of energy; they buy all new furniture and appliances and incorporate a 40,000 gallon heated pool. Then they pat themselves on the back because they used countertops made from recycled diamonds and solar heat for the pool (when it’s warm enough to do so). It’s a joke. They are treated as heroes in these magazines, setting the example for the rest of us slobs. In the meantime average Americans use far less energy in their homes and don’t throw away usable items every few years to redecorate, but they receive no recognition at all.

That, in a nut shell, is the way of the Left. Welcome back to high school.

A favorite question in political interviews these days is, “Do you hope Obama succeeds?” Rush Limbaugh has been blasted by the left-wing media for answering truthfully that he hopes Obama fails, a claim that he reiterated and expanded upon on his radio show today. His comments will certainly re-ignite the indignation of his left-wing foes and even some on the right who have taken to sing-songing that they hope Obama succeeds so that they can appear to be above petty politics.

My own contention is this: it’s a dumb question. The reason it’s dumb is because the answer depends upon how you define “success.” Whether or not something is a success should be determined based upon what the original intent was, right? For example, if you’re a magician trying to pull a rabbit out of your hat but instead you pull out a chicken, the trick was a failure from the magician’s point of view even if some people still thought it was a good trick. 

When we evaluate our desire for Obama to succeed, first we have to look at his intent. What is Obama trying to do? Well, it should be abundantly clear to everyone by now that he is trying to move this country in a leftward, more socialistic direction. The “stimulus” bill alone shows where Obama’s true priorities lie. Taking advantage of the panic mentality brought on by our financial crisis he’s hurried to pass a bill that contains tons of spending for pet democrat projects and government expansion but that has very little in the way of stimulating tax cuts.  Furthermore, his co-opting of the census shows, not surprisingly, that he plans to govern in the same way he rose to power:  through slick political maneuvering. Brace yourselves for more such maneuvering as he addresses the issues of illegal aliens and congressional representation for the District of Columbia, just to start with.

So if you’re asked, “Do you hope Obama succeeds?” don’t confuse Obama’s definition of success with your own. Like Limbaugh, I define success for the U.S. to be the preservation of the principles and systems that have made this country the great nation that it is: Individual liberty, adherence to our brilliant constitution, strong national defense, fairness in our justice system, and respect for the rules of democracy. As Obama strives to “change” all that, no – I do not wish him to succeed.

Why do people like Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Gary Condit and others bother to hide their extra-marital affairs? Answer: because they know that the public – republicans and democrats alike - will disapprove of their behavior.  In fact they know that such revelations could seriously impact their chances for being or staying elected. Thus, when I hear the increasingly invoked, “It’s a personal issue” strategy, it’s pretty clear to me that the majority of Americans disagree.

Anyone who is in a position to influence public policy is fair game to be questioned about their own marital fidelity. It is our right, as the public, to ask this question in order to have a clear understanding of how these public servants regard the sanctity of marriage as well as to gain some valuable insight into their character and judgment. After all politicians can say whatever they want, and indeed some will say anything in order to get elected; but actions speak louder (and truer) than words. Once the question has been asked they can always refuse to answer. This is their right. Voters can then make up their own minds as to whether they will elect someone who has a problem with answering that question. That is their right.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager is now complaining that Edwards’ lie about his affair early in the primaries resulted in votes that he might otherwise not have had, and surely he is right.  Edwards’ own efforts to conceal the affair were paramount to acknowledging that he knew it would hurt him with voters.  He painted a false picture of the kind of person he really was just as if he had, for instance, claimed to be pro-choice when he was really pro-life. That, my friends, is fraud.

Say whatever you want about the Left, they know how to play the political game. In the battle of politics they are the sneaky guerilla fighters whose only rule is that there are no rules. They’ll do whatever they need to in order to win, and if that means fighting dirty then so be it.

Back in 2000 we had the spectacle of Al Gore challenging the results of his lost bid for the presidency and trying to win by selectively recounting ballots only in democrat-majority precincts. When that tactic failed democrats made unsubstantiated claims of voter intimidation and malfunctioning voter equipment. With all the integrity of the classic sore loser, Gore and company have been claiming ever since that George Bush is an illegitimate president.

This country paid a huge price for Gore’s hissy fit. We’ve spent billions to replace voting machines that weren’t broken, bitterness in the black community was artificially inflamed by erroneous claims of disenfranchisement, our unity as Americans was damaged with false claims of Bush’s illegitimacy, and every election is now circumspect whether there is good reason or not. In the eyes of a liberal democrat though, no price is too much for the rest of us to pay if it might buy them the power they seek.

Now, with the John Edward’s scandal unfolding, we can clearly see the price that Bill Clinton exacted from us when he tried to escape the public’s rightful condemnation by proclaiming that his extra-marital dalliances were a ‘personal’ issue. “It’s a personal issue,” has now become the first defense of democrat politicians and the battle cry of their defenders. The end game is to make personal character an irrelevant issue in politics – at least for democrats - and to try and portray the rest of us as petty busybodies for caring about it.  Alas, in the Lefts’ quest to win at any cost they have led their followers to believe that moral behavior is more than we have a right to expect from those who would lead this nation. 

In a time when voters are free to choose a president because they like his toothy smile or hip sunglasses, it is truly audacious to tell us that the issue of marital fidelity is out of bounds.