Thank you, GOP, for voting against the Obama big government growth scheme.

I want to thank every Republican member of Congress for voting against the Obama big-government growth "stimulus" scam. You did the right thing because this bill is not the way to improve the economy. It is a special interest scheme that rewards liberal interest groups at the expense of American taxpayers. Creating a line in the sand and saying "no" to this scam is quite commendable.

Thank you, GOP.

Obama says California bureaucrats should decide what cars consumers should be permitted to buy.

There is a principle of constitutional law that states may not impose laws that burden the commerce of other states. This rule can be relaxed, however, if the federal government permits the states to impose burdens on the other states. Since the manufacturing of cars has a national market, it makes sense that, if there are to be any regulations on the industry, it ought to be a national standard as it is hard to comply with 50 different state jurisdictions. However, President Obama wants to turn this rule completely upside down, and enable California's government to impose a fuel efficiency standard on the sale of cars that exceeds the federal standard.

This would create a large number of problems for an industry that is already nearly bankrupt. Not only would the car industry have to sell cars that are specifically made for the California market, it would likely end up selling the same cars to other markets as well. As a result, California's burdensome rules will have the effect of regulating the sale of cars outside the state, which the negative commerce clause states should not occur. Thus, those of you who live in Nevada: you are likely to drive the same over-regulated clunker cars that Californians will be forced to buy, even though you don't live in California.

Further, fuel effeciency standards have killed about 2,000 Americans a year on the highways. Why? Well, smaller and lighter cars are less crashworthy, and thus, your chances of survival are lower in these cars. Further, if consumers truly wanted a car with more mileage, there are plenty of cars available to purchase. However, the government realizes that there isn't a demand for those types of cars, because they cost more, are less safe, and are less fun to drive. Thus, Obama wants to force you to drive a car that you otherwise would not drive. This is an issue of freedom, and it is slowly drifting away.

Welcome to Obama's over regulated America.

House Speaker Pelosi thinks you have too many kids.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated on a Sunday morning TV show that she believes that the American people have too many kids, which causes problems since these constituents will start asking for too many governmental services, which she is only too happy to offer them. She said that funding for contraceptives will “will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government." So she believes that people are only costs to the government? What about the greatness that people offer to others through their industrious behavior, creativity, inventions, ideas, motivation? Apparently those factors do not outweigh the costs that new children bear upon society. Who will pay for all of the social programs that Nancy Pelosi has in store for the country? Where will the next generation be after she has ensured that there won't be as many due to her super-subsidization of contraceptives and abortion? While other countries are encouraging their populations to have more kids in order for the country to survive, Nancy Pelosi wants to help usher in a society in which there are far fewer kids.

Americans do not believe "global warming" is an important issue.

We have all heard our share of stories in the media about how there is a surge in interest in stopping "global warming." Well, apparently all of those stories have been gross misrepresentations of the truth. (For those of you who voted for Obama, "misrepresentation" is a fancy way of saying it's a lie). In a poll of Americans on the 20 issues that they felt was important, global warming came last!

After hearing for a number of years how global warming is imminent and that the world will soon be at 200 F, we're facing record low temperatures. Americans have realized that this entire global warming ideology is merely a hoax fostered upon the public in an attempt to centralize power in the hands of Washington bureaucrats, who will decide how to run American industry.

Americans oppose Obama's government spending spree scheme.

Americans do not support Obama's government-growth plan, otherwise known as a "stimulus." (Stimulate what? Perhaps the government and only the government).

Obama's plan is very simple to describe: it is an attempt to increase government spending dramatically (around $1 trillion worth of spending increases), tax and borrow from the private sector in order to pay for it, all the while claiming that this is actually improving things. The stock market begs to differ: it has been stagnant ever since Obama was elected.

Americans are already not very amused by Obama's spending scheme. 59% of Americans are worried that Obama will increase government spending too much over the next two years. Americans intuitively know that the government is not responsible for our economic success. If government spending was the method to achieve prosperity, North Korea and Cuba would be the wealthiest nations in the world.

According to the poll, 64% of Americans would prefer that Obama focus on tax cuts as opposed to his spending scheme. After all, didn't President Obama run on a platform in which he would cut taxes, and that all new spending would result in cuts in other forms of spending? Is this the first Big Lie from Obama?

President Obama ponders how he can be nicer to Islamic terrorists.

President Barack Obama has started his presidency with an obsession over the rights of the enemy -- Islamic terrorists held at the US Military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Apparently President Obama feels that the Islamic terrorists are not happy with whatever rights that they have been provided. Instead, President Obama wants to ensure that the terrorists have the same rights as Americans, which will make the country less safe as Islamic terrorists feel less threatened by intense interrogations, and will therefore provide less credible intelligence information to military and CIA officers.

Transferring the terrorist detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to America would also result in having to provide all of the same rights that criminal defendants in the US have at trial. There is a unique difference between criminals and terrorists. Criminals have a limited intent with regard to their crimes. A bank robber wants to steal money, but does not necessarily have plans to take down the entire US political and economic system. A terrorist does. Further, the evidence and procedure process in criminal court would likely result in very little admissible evidence being offered in court, which would likely result in acquittals. Then what do you do with the terrorists? Release them on US soil?

Families who lost loved ones in the September 11 terrorist attacks are outraged by President Obama's compassion for the terrorists.

Further, what is the message that the terrorists are receiving worldwide today? They feel that they are no longer dealing with an aggressive US President Bush who was determined to protect the nation using whatever methods were available to him. Instead, President Obama is far too willing to accommodate them and "world opinion" (whatever that is) in order to placate his radical left-wing fringe Internet base that believe in the wildest conspiracy theories imaginable.

President Obama, we need to continue to remain on the offensive in this war against Islamic terror. If we start showing weakness to our enemies around the world, it will invite further aggression. Further, since we know that you are a politician first and foremost, may we at least point to the fact that if the country is attacked, you will get the blame? Therefore, it would be wise to continue the policies of the Bush administration, keep Guantanamo Bay open, and to continue using harsh interrogation methods in order to ensure that these Islamic terrorists are revealing all relevant and necessary information to keep our war on the offensive instead of the defensive.

We want Obama to fail.

Just because we conservatives lost the election last November does not mean that our voices should be silent. We can continue to oppose Obama's radical left-wing socialist agenda, starting on Inauguration Day. We must not give an inch. We must say no to more bailouts, government-run health care, spending to oblivion ($1 trillion!), cap and trade global "warming" legislation, activist wacko judges, and other harmful policies. Don't let the media give you the impression that we must all unite. We must defeat the new president's agenda, and insure that he fails. We do not want him to succeed--we want him to fail. Yes--fail! If the president's success means socialism, collectivism, and altruism, count us out.

We stand for free-enterprise, free-trade, the right to pursue one's own self-interest, capitalism, a government focused on protecting these individual rights, low taxation, and a judiciary that is restrained and focused on interpreting, not making, the law. These are the values that we wish to pursue--not the Obama collectivist/altruism/socialist enterprise system.

Keep Guantanamo Bay Prison Open! Sign the petition!

Democrats are moving at a quick pace to close down the American military prison for hardened terrorists in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The American military has done an excellent job in professionally handling some of the worst humans on the face of the planet. Don't let the Democrats in Washington, D.C. shut down this necessary prison. Sign the petition to save Guantanamo Bay.

Democrats are quick to pass laws to further harm America's weak economy.

Rep. Henry Waxman, Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce, said that he is going to "quickly and decisively" pass laws that are intended to harm the economy to confront a problem that does not exist: global warming. Gee, is this really a time period in which we need laws designed to confront unusually warm weather? As I write this, there have been more consecutive days of snowfall in Chicago since 1884; Flint, Michigan has a 95-year record of cold weather; it is negative 40 degrees in Maine. The fact that we are at all worried about global "warming" -- and willing to harm our economy in order to confront this fanatical fantasy, shows that our political class is out of touch with reality.

Liberals believe in global warming on a much more fervent and fanatical level than many Christians do on many significant theological issues. Yet, who is considered a fanatic? The liberals get upset when a Christian student prays in a government-run school, yet they have no qualms about imposing their religious belief, global warming, upon the population.

Thankfully, as more time goes on, global warming laws will become quite unpopular as people are asked to make payments as repentance for their "sin" in earning a living, investing, and raising their families. Thus, perhaps the Democrats are serving to harm their own party in the long-run. Republicans will be able to point to the fact that the Democrat agenda is literally to bankrupt American industry, then bail it out when it is not capable of earning a profit (how many of those have we had lately?), with the aim of controlling as many Americans as possible. Once the government is capable of controlling a large part of American industry, it will literally control the people.

Americans leaving socialist California for the remaining capitalist states.

In law school, I had a law professor in taxation who stated that taxes do not have any affect in terms of where one chooses to live. This is obviously false and inaccurate. Recently, an Associated Press story titled: "Californians look for the exit", states that 144,000 people have left in 2008. Did they leave California because the weather isn't good? No--California has some of the best weather in the entire nation. Did they leave because the women here are ugly? No--as many realize, the women in California are some of the most attractive on the planet. California has beaches, deserts, lakes, parks, and beautiful vistas; it was literally a city on a shining hill, but it has decayed remarkably in just a couple of decades.

So what is killing California? California has a lot of uncompetitive tax policies, including a high state income tax (9.3 or 10.3%), a high corporate income tax rate (8.84%), a high sales tax rate of 7.75% (in most localities in California, it is even higher). Since California has to compete with other states like Nevada that do not have a state income or state corporate tax (in fact, it is actually written into the Nevada state Constitution that such taxes are not permitted--ever!), it is not a surprise that the unemployment rate is rising in California as the most productive citizens have chosen to live in places that enable them to be richly rewarded for their productive enterprises. Further, there is no evidence that California's political culture seems amenable to the changes that are taking place. It is almost as though California is more interested in joining the European Union where it can be among other nation states that have catastrophic taxes that impede economic development. California has a state legislature that is overwhelmingly liberal, with seats held by almost two-thirds by Democrats who have no interest in promoting any policies that will result in lower unemployment here. California is in a state of decline, and no one is taking up the call to reverse it. Sad.

Going postal: Coming soon to a health care center near you.

Do you ever wonder why postal workers and postal "customers" tend to go postal in the post office? I suspect that a major reason for the reason has to do with the fact that there is no outlet upon which to vent one's perennial frustration with a system that provides icon-clad job protection for employees (who are not accountable to anyone) and customers who are not able to leave and go elsewhere. Observe this "customer" (I use the term in quotes because I wonder if one can define a customer as one who is forced to use the producer's service): here, the "customer" is frustrated with the service of the post office. He continues to say: "The customer is always right." Wrong--not when the service is from the government: then the only people who are right are the bureaucrats who cannot be fired. The system is completely indifferent to his requests, tells him to go to hell, and acts as though he is not even a person. He says, somewhat absurdly, that when the post office employee's job is up for renewal that he will "have her job." The truth is that her job is never up for renewal and she will always hold her job, regardless how bad her service is.

If we are not careful, Obama's plan to nationalize health care will result in more experiences like that of this customer, but this time in something that is far more significant--the life and death decisions that come with health care. Can you imagine going to a place, seeking health care, and being treated in this indifferent, rude fashion? Why would your health care provider care to help you when they are guaranteed payment from the government, whether the service is good or bad, whether you are happy or unhappy, and whether you would prefer to go elsewhere (you won't be able to go elsewhere because there will only be "one provider"--the government.). This is a serious video that should serve as the proof that government-run services result in madly unhappy customers.

UCLA doctor blames American values for health care problems.

I have always found it ironic how some of the most anti-American commentators reside in America. A UCLA doctor has stated that "American values" are a major reason why there are problems in our health care system. Interestingly, the doctor accurately describes what American values are: "Americans prize individual choice and resist limiting care," says Nuwer, a professor of clinical neurology at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. [emphasis added] Apparently, the good doctor believes that individual choice and opposition to rationing is something that is problematic to our health care system. It is clear that statists like this doctor believe that you should not have any choice whatsoever with regard to life and death decisions like health, and that the government ought to ration one's care, too.

Apparently the doctor did not realize that his statements were public, because he made quite a dramatic admission. ""We [in other words, the American people, as a whole] believe that if doctors can treat very ill patients aggressively and keep every moment of people in the last stages of life under medical care, then they should. We choose to hold these values. Consequently, we choose to have a more expensive system than Europe or Canada."

In other words, if the ill were just left to die instead of treated by a doctor, it would enable for far less costly expenditures. Of course, this doctor is even referring to patients who pay out of their own pocket or have their own private insurance to pay for their care while they are "very ill." Of course, under a socialist healthcare system, rationing would be made by the government, and if it applied the values of this good doctor, it probably would believe that the "very ill" are too expensive to treat. After all, "we choose" to value life by paying for health care. Don't you know it is so much cheaper to give people inferior care and just let them die if they are very ill?