For something to be a right, it must be free and cost nothing to have.  For example, the right to free speech costs nothing to exercise.  Well, actually, there are form you fill out and probably a permit fee but the actual cost is very minimal and usually covers administrative costs.  The right to face your accuser does not cost you, the state, or even the accuser anything except time.

I could go on and on but these two examples will suffice.

To say that healthcare is a right is like saying having a TV is a right.  The government doesn’t buy everyone a TV simply because they have the right to a free press.  Healthcare not only costs money but requires people with specific skills.  These skills are learned over several years.  That education is not free.

The best and brightest doctors go to the most prestigious hospitals because they are willing to pay a premium for their knowledge.  Most of these hospitals will take lower-income patients on a case-by-case basis, usually factoring patient income along with total cost of care.

The list goes on and on.  The problem with healthcare as a right is who pays for it.  If we assume that healthcare is paid by taxes, what happens when taxes run out?  All the sudden, something that is a right can no longer be provided.

Right of the press, the right to free speech, the right to not have your property searched…these don’t cost anything.  These are rights that are held because they do not require finite resources.  However, healthcare not only costs money, but costs supplies.

Don’t get me wrong: everyone should have access to healthcare, regardless of who you are, your wealth, your race, or creed.  Access to healthcare should be a right!  Healthcare by itself cannot be a right simply because it is a finite resource.  This is the same reason why having gas in your car is not a right.

Reform needs to happen.  Do insurance companies profit unfairly? Probably.  Do hospitals overcharge? Possibly.  But creating a government healthcare system simply will not change this.  Look at medicare. It’s consistently over-budget, corruption beyond what is reported, and abused beyond measure.

If the government can’t handle the 15% of the population that’s under medicare, how do they expect to cover 100%?

Violence has it’s time and place.  We as a people should only use violence as an absolute last resort.  I completely disagree with the notion that violence is only for “barbaric people” who can’t use words to express their ideas.  Sometimes violence, war, and blood are the only tools left to a society.  They feel so oppressed that their voice is never heard.  These people get labeled as “extremist” by those who oppress them so others can oppress them even more.  Thomas Jefferson once said that the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Obama’s favorite president Abraham Lincoln said:

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.

Congressmen all over the country are getting the full brunt of the anger that is brewing in the hearts of America.  And many of these people (myself included) feel completely left out of the conversation.  With Obama calling on his followers to report people who disagree with him to Pelosi calling protesters un-American, you can see why people are getting even more angry.

In an effort to help out my fellow conservatives, I’d like to offer some thoughts and questions you should ask your Congressmen.  Let’s leave the chanting and the angry mob outside the town hall.  If you have the chance to ask your congressmen questions, use the opportunity to ask them the hard questions, questions no one wants to ask.  Questions that the media should be asking but are too scared or too lazy to ask themselves.

Congressmen ultimately answer to you.  Here are some hard questions to ask:

1. When GM and Chrysler were begging for a bailout, Congress reamed them for flying in on corporate private jets.  However, the House recently approved $550 million to upgrade their own personal jets.  Why should the American people approve these private jets for congressmen but not for taxpayer-owned GM?  Furthermore, what will you do to correct this?
2. Obama has consistently said that the health care bill will improve health care.  If this is the case, why has no congressmen agreed to go on the public option?  Will you mandate, and not ask, all congressmen who vote for the bill to use the public option?  Why or why not?
3. Obama has consistently promised that public option health care will give people a choice, and not force people to choose the public option.  However, page 16 (section 102) clearly states otherwise.  Who should we believe? The bill or the President?  If the bill, why haven’t you accused the President of lying to the public and when will you draw up impeachment proceedings like congress did for President Bush?
4. Obama fired Gerald Walpin, a special independent prosecutor, who found fraudulent activity between Obama and a supporter.  Why hasn’t Obama been charged with hindering prosecution, which is a federal felony?
5. Obama has consistently broken many of his campaign promises and looks like he will have to raise taxes on the 95% of the people he said he would protect.  What will you do to prevent this from happening?  Additionally, why hasn’t any democratic congressmen charged Obama with this very fact?  He said “lobbyist will not have a job in this administration” and no less then 24 hours later a lobbyist has a job in his administration.  Why are congressmen, especially democratic congressmen afraid to confront this president when they were not afraid to with the last president?

There have been many reports of congressmen filling the audience with unions who support Obama.  And many of these reports show that these union thugs have become violent toward conservative protesters.  Due to this fact, I am recommending any protester who has a gun to go armed.  You should be prepared to protect yourself.  Since the White House has even encouraged violence, I expect these thugs to be even more violent in the weeks to come.  Remember the rule of self-defense: Do not shoot unless they threaten you.  Virginians: Our state is not a retreat state.  You may stand your ground if you are being threatened.  Do not be afraid of these thugs but at the same time do not be afraid to defend your self.

Please respect all laws in your state when carrying a weapon.

The White House wants people to report “disinformation” to flag@whitehouse.com.  Barack Obama has even said he doesn’t want people who disagree with him to “do a whole lot of talking“.

This is nothing short of a desperate “President” trying to scare his critics into backing down.  But, hey, if he wants to get a whole bunch of e-mails, that’s his business.  I think We the People should report our neighbors for spreading disinformation.  And I say we start with the Obama supporters.

No doubt that this community activist has enlisted a large army of kool-aid drinkers into doing his bidding.  To level the playing field, we should do the same.  In the next week, I’ll be debuting a website where fellow conservatives can report Obama supporters.  Upload pictures of their bumper stickers (including license plates).  Use the Freedom of Information Act in your state to obtain their address, phone number, and any other identifying information.  That information will be publicly displayed for people to see.

Unlike the White House, this list will not be illegal since the information is publicly available.  What people decide to do with the information is not up for the state to decide.

Once I have the website up and running, I’ll make another announcement on this site and on Twitter.

Sadly, this is no longer the case.  Politicians stay in power because they have too much power.  Much like King George to say the least.  Even impeachment is impossible due to partisanship.  Consider the Clinton impeachment.  Passed the Republican-controlled house.  Died in the democrat-controlled senate.

Many of the Obama-bots want a more liberal government, who provides health care for all, yet doesn’t want to pay for it.  Yet many of these robots don’t realize is that the money comes from those snooty rich republicans they all hate.  So here’s my idea: Let’s leave.

That’s right.  I’m calling on a full-fledged sucession from the United States.

And no, I’m not kidding.

Think about it…it’s a win-win for both sides.  The liberals get all the free health care they want.  I don’t know how it’s going to be funded.  Frankly, I could careless.  They can have abortions, teach sex ed in school while failing to teach history.  The conservatives will have low taxes, small government, no abortions…you get the picture.

I’ll tell you right now why politicans won’t support this: it puts power back to the people.  It takes away their cushy jobs.  And the federal government would lose a whole lot of money.  Because when push comes to shove, most people are very conservative with their money.  Most people will vote with their dollars even if they contradict it with their votes.

I would like to see the United States split into two.  I don’t think we need a civil war.  Quite frankly, I don’t think the liberals would have a standing chance since conservatives have more guns and ammo.  And many more of them are stocking up.

But until this happens, we’ll have to try to make due with what we have.  Take a look at my last article: My 3-2-1 Plan

Now that I have been added to the Top Conservative On Twitter, I want to be a bit more pro-active about the topics that come up. Earlier this week, @TeamRonMiller posted the article linked above. I wanted to post my thoughts on it. I’ve always seen abortion as a double-edge sword. If the “pro-choice” camp wants to label that life begins at birth, at what point, then, is birth considered? Is it after it exists the vaginal canal? Or perhaps after it’s first breath? What about the umbilical cord? Is it okay to abort a fetus as long as the umbilical cord isn’t cut?

Let’s say it’s the latter, since the “pro-choice” camp says that the fetus is a parasite since it gains sustenance from its host. How should sustenance be defined? Couldn’t you say that children under the age of 18 require sustenance from their hosts? In fact, if the host does not provide for food and shelter, the host can be arrested for fetus — I mean child — endangerment. Why don’t we give these hosts the choice to terminate their parasites post-birth? After all, don’t we want people to have the right to choose?

Okay, so the umbilical cord is too far. How about the first breath? Most states say that life begins when oxygen is present in the lungs. But why the lungs? What about the blood? Aren’t we saying that oxygen is an important aspect of life and therefore is needed to define it? What about people who are paralised and require a breathing machine? Should their lives be allowed to be terminated because they cannot breath on their own?

I believe the only logical way to avoid these arguments is to say that life must begin at conception. Failure to do so only cheapens the lives of others. But the problem ultimately comes from social engineering.

In order to sway the public, pro-abortion was changed to “pro-choice”. After all, who would want to deny people the right to choose something? The fact is that there are already laws on the books that take choice away from people. For example, people cannot choose to end someone’s life. You cannot choose to drive drunk. You cannot choose you cheat on your exams. You would face punishment if you chose to do any of those things.

The truth is that verbal engineering is always easier than political engineering. It’s easier to sway the public with nice words (Ahhem — Obama) than it is to actually bring change (Ahhem — Obama).

I wish I could find the quote. Some one earlier this month said that as soon as people realize that pregnancy is the logical conclusion of sex, Planned Parenthood would be out of business.

So true.

If you happen to know the source of the quote, please leave a comment below.

The irony of this is that people from the “pro-choice” camp are saying that it prevents people from getting abortions.  What’s even more ironic is that these “pro-choice” people want to take choice away from health providers to force them to perform a procedure they think is unsafe or that they disagree with.

Why should it matter why?  Doctors refuse treatments all the time when they don’t believe it is safe for the patient.

I cannot support HR7310 (sponsored by Rep. Diana DeGette [D, CO-1] and Rep. Louise Slaughter [D, NY-28]) or S20.  These democrats, who are pro-choice, want to take choice away from doctors and instead give it in politicians.  Call your senators and congressmen and tell them to vote these bills down!

• Changes in marriage laws doesn’t make current marriages any different
• Changes made by government do not effect the private lives of citizens
• Straight people’s marriages are no better thank gay marriages
• The person stating this question assumes that they completely understand why those “rednecks and Christian fundamentalists” are living in the past and don’t care about the rights of others