The more the Republicans cater to the extremists the sooner the GOP will go down. We all know the real agenda of the GOP and it is best expressed by Rush, Glen, Sarah Palin, New Gingrich,and Sharron Angle. The Teaparties are nothing but recycled segregationists from the 1960s. I'll bet if you aged some pictures from the bus rockers and spitters in Birmingham, you could match them with the Teaparty faces of today.

They did themselves in when they started talking about the $20 billion reparations fund for the Gulf Oil selfishness as a slush fund. The Republicans know exactly who butters their toast---BIG OIL--- and would let America's southern fishing industry and every one of the pelicans die for a few million extra from BP. They did the same thing after Katrina giving the housing money to Mississippi and their Republican governors instead of Louisiana with its Democratic female one. (They knew perfectly well that Louisiana was in no condition to write a competitive grant. Thousands of survivors were in Bush's poisoned trailers in Baton Rouge. The Internet was down as were the cell towers. You could not even get mail into New Orleans. Montgomery Alabama and Jackson Mississippi were uneffected by Katrina. Their governments were unimpaired by the storm.)

The final blow was the rejection of extension of unemployment. Thousands of Americans will now go homeless thanks to the Republicans. But Sharron Angle's solution is for well educated, formerly successful people to take what few dead end, minimum wage jobs there are, pushing the high school kids and the ghetto mamas out of McDonalds and Walmart. And then their kids' only real meal will include ketchup as a vegetable to keep from feeding them. Remember that one? Came from your boy, Ronnie.

Go on Republicans. You are headed for oblivion. You don't have the gays. You are rapidly losing the middle class blacks and never had the poor ones. You sure aren't going to get the Hispanics.(Can you imagine an America where if have brown skin you have to carry identification? A born and raised third generation American can still look like he's straight from Mexico! So can Lebanese, Italians, Greeks, and Israeli-Americans.) You are not going to get the real Christians even though the extremists would vote for a green parakeet if he chanted "prolife". The moderates will defect soon, thinking "too liberal" is better than "too conservative". (They may not go Democrat, but a Libertarian vote will not help the GOP.) Fire Michael Steele and that will convert the rest middle class blacks. Oh, and the millions of unemployed people and those with no health insurance, if they have any sense at all won't vote Republican either. Bye Yall!

Mr. Limbaugh does not represent the majority of Republicans. He speaks for a small group of extremists most Republicans disavow. For a short period of time he was the leading voice of the party because there was no other leadership in the aftermath of the 2008 electoral disaster. That disaster was largely the result of extremists like Limbaugh getting a choke hold on the party. It is time for new leaders to take control of the party and and offer more than nay-saying. We need leaders with good ideas. Mr. Limbaugh may entertain some people, but he is the antithesis of what the party needs as our voice of leadership

This is a multi-revised version of "Moderate Manifesto" last updated 05/10/09.

America has nothing to apologize for.

While Bush was in office, conservatives ran the country.
While Obama is in office, progressives will run the country.
The majority of Americans will suffer because of the conservative and progressive minorities.

Moderates need to militantly unite against the conservative and progressive.
Moderates on radio and TV should begin to spring up in cities all across the U.S.
The show's rallying cry might be: we will provide ALL sides not just the progressive or conservative side or some open-mindedness is needed.
These shows would provide all different viewpoints in a concise manner so listeners can make up their minds.

I was in high school in the early 1970's when unrest over Vietnam was rising.
The best thing that occurred during that time was a high level of personal political activism;
personal political creativity was encouraged; unfortunately, some political traditions suffered.
Independent parties became influential because the traditional parties failed to represent a majority of Americans.
Numerous groups with new ideologies arrived on the scene; each ideology was researched and approved by the group;
it was a time of enlightenment; there was less prejudice.

Today is not a time of enlightenment or personal political freedom.
It is a time of retribution for some; a time of change.
Today, personal political activism coincides with political party ideology;
personal political creativity coincides with political party ideology.

Some proclaim the country's "fairness" by being unfair; few are rewarded at the expense of many.
Closed-minded thinking is proclaimed as open-minded thinking.

We let conservatives and progressives do the political thinking for us.
We ask the radio host what we should think! We ask the public school teacher or professor what we should think!
We even ask the dopey comedian what we should think!
There is no one, including myself, who is smart enough to tell anyone what to think.

If you are a moderate, there is usually no clear cut answer for any political issue at first;
you definitely need to do some research.

Right now, there aren't enough facts to prove the existence of global warming, yet many Americans demand action to stop global warming now.
Right now, many Americans want to blame the mortgage meltdown entirely on corporate America;
they haven't comprehended the equal culpability of the courts and Congress.
We need to understand how the mortgage meltdown occurred so it doesn't happen again.

WE NEED A LOT MORE FACTS AND A LOT LESS IDEOLOGIES.

Republicans and Democrats refer to political organizations.
Conservatives and progressives refer to political ideologies.

The definitions of Republicans and Democrats have been blurred by conservatives and progressives.
Conservatives try to "sabotage" the progressive movement and "purify" the Republican Party by forcing "unpure conservatives" to leave the Republican Party.
Examples are: Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Meghan McCain (John McCain's daughter).
Conservatives tried to get John McCain removed from the Republican Party.
I'm just musing: If I were in John McCain's family, I may not like the Republican Party much right now; I probably don't like conservatives much right now.
Progressives try to "sabotage" the conservative movement and "purify" the Democratic Party by forcing "unpure progressives" to leave the Democratic Party.
Examples are: Joe Lieberman of Connecticut (and possibly Meghan McCain).

Let's define conservatives and progressives first.
Conservatives and progressives have to keep track of many more ideologies than Democrats and Republicans
because it seems they try to "micromanage" political thought.
That's probably why progressives and conservatives always try to simplify things into absolute rights and wrongs.
Their political actions happen quickly, but examinations of facts from all points of view rarely happen.
This also prohibits any discussions, any compromises, any solving of political problems if you will allow me to say.

Fiscal policy is how a government spends money. Social policy is how a government deals with social issues.
Conservative means having government do as little as possible unless it's a conservative cause.
Liberal (progressive) means having government do as much as possible unless it's a conservative cause.
Moderate is between conservative and progressive.

Conservatives are fiscally and socially (everything) conservative. Progressives are fiscally and socially (everything) liberal.
Progressives use the term progressive instead of liberal because, in politics, the term liberal is generally looked down upon.
That should change.

I would condense the conservative ideology into this: competition makes things better;
the conservative believes the government should forcefully promote competition.
The conservative also believes in a higher power which forces the competitor to compete "ethically".
Most of the U.S. government was based on competition.
The 3 branches of government were based on competition.
Our free market economy was based on competition.

That's probably why conservatives point to most of our founding fathers when they try to justify their conservative beliefs.
Unfortunately, conservatives do not spotlight famous founding fathers like Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and others because Franklin, Hamilton, and others publicly believed in cooperation as well as competition;

I would condense the progressive ideology into this: equality makes things better;
the progressive believes the government should forcefully promote equality; "fairness".
The state is the higher power; "FAIRNESS" IS BASED ON PROGRESSIVE IDEOLOGIES.
The "fairness doctrine" policies already in place in government and public schools, or the fairness doctrine proposal for broadcast media are examples
of a progressive ideology.
At first, government mandates choices, but in the end government defines what is right and wrong; government defines what makes things equal.
Government eventually stymies discussion. In fact, certain thought is punishable by government.

While at an elementary school a few years ago for a school board election, I was inundated with "Don't let anyone bully you" or "Report bullies to a teacher" signs in the halls of the school.
I thought it ironic that the school believed in an anti-bullying, forced equality, school knows what "fairness" is ideology and then bullied students by teaching them that a global warming disaster was imminent if CO2 wasn't lowered.
Other theories on climate change aren't examined because of "fairness".
I will propose one later.

When the Declaration of Independence was written, allowing each citizen to achieve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness was one of the reasons for creating the tiny U.S.
Liberty means being able to do what you want when you want.
(I've never been able to distinguish liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
If you have a clue, let me know please.) I digress.
If there were disagreements between members of the tiny U.S. and some could not find satisfaction, all they had to do was move; the wilderness was vast; they just had to fight Indians.
Today, if there is no satisfaction, there isn't the same vast wilderness in which to move.

Today, conservatives who have disowned the federal government, for example, call for state's rights;
they currently choose this method of demonstration against the federal government because many base conservative ideologies have recently been represented in federal government;
progressives who have disowned the federal government, for example, have sanctuary cities and the courts;
they currently choose this more active method of demonstration against the federal government because few base progressive ideologies have recently been represented in federal government;
when Obama's progressive administration takes effect, progressives will have less active demonstrations against the federal government;
conservatives will have more active demonstrations against the federal government.
Until recently, the radical progressive and conservative always seemed more inclined to disobey laws because few of their wishes became reality.

When one U.S. citizen has a personal desire for the government to force competition on everyone and another U.S. citizen has a personal desire for the government to force equality on everyone,
how can both U.S. citizens achieve satisfaction at the same time?
It is impossible.
To which wilderness will the citizen who doesn't receive satisfaction flee?
This is the impasse that exists between the conservative-dominated Republican Party and the progressive-dominated Democratic Party.

Progressives and conservatives believe Congressmen and Congresswomen should do what is "morally right" and not necessarily represent the wishes of the American people;
progressives and conservatives desire this transcendence of politics.

Progressive and conservative ideologies are not pertinent to the moderate.
A moderate realizes the Republican (conservative) and Democratic (progressive) bases are currently radical.
A moderate realizes the Republican and Democratic bases are currently minorities.
A moderate is usually not permanently fiscally liberal.
A moderate is usually not permanently socially liberal.
A moderate is usually not permanently fiscally conservative.
A moderate is usually not permanently socially conservative.
Moderates do NOT have ideologies that deal strictly with spending policies or social issues like
conservatives or progressives, so they cannot be categorized with fiscal or social labels.
It would be like trying to determine the make and model of a snowflake.
PERTINENT AND CURRENT LABELS SHOULD BE PROVIDED TO CORRECTLY CATEGORIZE MODERATES BECAUSE MANY MORE VOTERS DESCRIBE THEMSELVES AS MODERATE.
What should those labels be?

To the progressive or conservative "purist", the moderate may SEEM to combine traits of the conservative and progressive;
the "purist" could consider it "heresy"; some call it "wishy-washyness".
Progressives or conservatives misunderstand the moderate because the goals of the moderate are different.
Moderates wish to maintain the union and personal freedoms;
conservatives wish to maintain personal freedoms;
progressives wish to maintain the union.
Moderates disagree with the federal government just as frequently and vigorously.
I write a manifesto to explain my fairly mainstream-held moderate Republican beliefs when some say we don't exist.
I campaigned for John McCain because he represents more of my ideologies.

Devising a satisfactory platform(s) for the many types of moderates could be arduous and time consuming.
Let me give you my moderate example:
I HAVE ONE SPECIAL INTEREST AND ONE IDEOLOGY.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IS THE SPECIAL INTEREST. DOING WHAT IS BEST FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IS THE IDEOLOGY.
I identify more with traditional beliefs in the Republican Party.
Most of the time, I am fiscally conservative and socially moderate. I am a moderate Republican.
I voted for McCain but didn't care for Palin.

I believe in gay rights. I believe the less big government intrudes the better.
Neither belief supersedes the other. I agree with the decision to allow gays to legally join using a civil union.
I disagree with the progressive Supreme Court of Iowa that recently legalized gay marriage.
Here are some analogies: can I sue if I can't use the women's public restroom because I'm a man?
Can I sue if I'm not athletic enough to play on the school's sports team?
Can I sue if my boss doesn't give me a raise or promotion?
Can I sue if I can't win an Oscar because I'm not an actor?
Which civil right is being violated when gays don't have the access to marriage?

Iowans care about civil rights violations.
In my opinion, the Iowa Supreme Court is sympathetic to the gay cause and wants to give gays access to marriage because gays and gay advocates want marriage.
In my opinion, this helps to show the Iowa Supreme Court is progressive.
For once, I'd like an open-minded discussion on gay marriage;
you'd have to excuse conservatives and progressives because, in my opinion, BOTH GROUPS violate the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Big government changing the definition of marriage is an unnecessary intrusion.
I believe gay marriage is the Supreme Court of Iowa's way of saying big government is the only legitimate setter of standards.
Iowa's gay marriage decision is a violation of the First Amendment; it is a violation of the "separation of ideology and state".

Progressive ideologies cause some Americans to view the insolvency of GM as an example of the failure, solely, of corporate leadership.
In actuality, the insolvency of GM is an example of the failure of corporate leadership, government leadership, and to a lesser extent the automotive labor unions.

IS THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION COMMITTED TO SAVING GM?
So far, the Obama administration has leaned on GM's corporate leadership and the leadership of GM's lenders.
Will the Obama administration lean on the government's leadership and, for example, demand the government dissolve CAFE standards
and/or lean on the auto unions' leadership?
The latter two are major special interests of the Obama administration.

America simply can't afford the MASSIVE global warming expenses already incurred by the government unless a global warming disaster is imminent.
GM can't afford the CAFE standards Congress has placed on the company because of global warming concerns. GM can't
produce their most popular selling vehicles, trucks, because of CAFE standards.

THERE IS NO PROOF THAT CO2 SATURATION IN THE ATMOSPHERE WILL WARM THE EARTH CAUSING MASSIVE FLOODS.
That should be said every day. Believers in CO2's culpability in global warming say that daily; they say the debate is closed because of the "facts".
Believers in global warming use conjecture and the ideology of environmentalists.
THE IDEOLOGY OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS IS: ENVIRONMENTALISTS ARE AGAINST ANY CHANGE IN THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.
Here's more: CO2 is about 5 percent of all greenhouse gases (382 Parts Per Million in the atmosphere in 2006).
Methane's concentration in the atmosphere (another greenhouse gas) was about 1,788 Parts Per Billion in 2008 and has increased by 151% since 1750.
A methane molecule is twenty-three times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than a CO2 molecule.

If we truly want to reduce greenhouse gases, we need to lower water evaporation about 95 percent of all greenhouse gases.

NATURE PRODUCES ABOUT 95 PERCENT OF ALL GREENHOUSE GASES.

By far, the largest amount of greenhouse gases escape into the atmosphere on a cloudy day.
Over 30 years ago, when Creedence Clearwater Revival sang the song
"Who'll Stop the Rain?", were they actually singing about global warming?
Should we be able to deduct the cost of a dehumidifier, a "global warming preventer", on our federal taxes?
A sure way to slow water evaporation would be to "fill in" bodies of water.

WE MUST HARNESS NATURE TO SLOW DOWN THE BUILD UP OF GREENHOUSE GASES.

If environmentalists are concerned with lowering greenhouse gases, why have they chosen to target CO2, about 5 percent of all greenhouse gases?
For a higher probability in lowering greenhouse gases, I suggest we stop the experiments
which lower CO2 emissions now. - Before the earth turns into a charcoal briquette.
We should begin experiments to lower water vapor. - If global warming is imminent;
if we believe a build up of greenhouse gases causes global warming; if global warming exists.
(OK, when you recognize rhetoric, please realize I can't help it sometimes and excuse me).

Logically thinking, ideologues concerned with the lowering of greenhouse gases to stop global warming will eventually demand most greenhouse gases be lowered;
those greenhouse gases could include: CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, and water vapor.
MASSIVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING TO STOP GLOBAL WARMING WILL BE PERPETUAL.
We exhale CO2 into the atmosphere; we will be wearing "gas masks" to trap the escaping CO2.
It is just as difficult to remove CO2 from the atmosphere as it is methane; neither is easy.

The one and ONLY fact environmentalists who believe in global warming caused by the buildup of the greenhouse gas CO2 have is:
levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have dramatically increased (280 PPM in the late 1700's to 382 PPM in 2006).

It seems logical that water vapor, about 95 percent of all greenhouse gases, must be quickly and sufficiently lowered to prevent the imminent "global warming disaster".
Environmentalists are against any change in the natural environment; that is undeniable.
The lowering of water vapor would be a change in the natural environment.

Burning fossil fuels send CO2 into the atmosphere and CO2 concentrations have greatly increased.
It seems more likely that ENVIRONMENTALISTS ARE ACTUALLY AGAINST THE USE OF FOSSIL FUELS, an ideology apart from global warming.
In my opinion, their ideology describes a mandatory environmental "clean-up" operation to remove the excess man-made CO2 "pollution".

Emphasizing a build up of and need to remove excess CO2 is acceptable.
Describing a world destruction - global warming scenario to frighten people into cleaning up the excess CO2 is lawlessness!
The cost is lawlessness! The oppressiveness of global warming laws is lawlessness!

The issue is, should the government spend MASSIVE amounts of money to lower CO2 levels in the atmosphere
to an arbitrary standard like, for example, the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere in 1980?
This could satisfy environmentalists because the LEVEL OF CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE WOULD BE RETURNED TO A MORE PRISTINE STATE...
Environmentalism has already been mentioned as one of the powerful special interests of the Obama administration...

Combating global warming by lowering the greenhouse gas, CO2, is one of the biggest scams in the history of the world.
Global warming caused by man is one of the biggest scams in the history of the world; up there with the earth being flat
or the center of the universe, or prohibiting baseball players from lifting weights because it reduced flexibility.
Combating global warming by lowering greenhouse gases is a theory; global warming is a theory.

The one special interest and ideology politicians should have is: the people of the U.S., and what is best for them.
As John McCain's campaign slogan said: Country First (not ideology first).
More and more politicians have become confused. They say they are for the American people, yet they allow "anti-American people" ideologies to form some of their policies.
Closing Gitmo (providing speedier trials is "pro-American"), global warming policies, and Keynesian deficit spending economic stimulus philosophies are examples from the Obama administration.
McCain strayed from his Country First ideology and used an "anti-American people" ideology when he refused to educate voters on
Obama's extremely liberal record and influences.

With conservatives and progressives, it is their ideologies that are too important to fail.
A progressive thinks everyone should own a home; that is good for the country.
A conservative thinks a soaring stock market, albeit unregulated, is good for the country.
Actually, the progressive's everyone-has-a-right-to-own-a-home ideology focuses on the government redistributing wealth for the sake of fairness.
Actually, the conservative's high-flying-stock market ideology focuses on stimulating small businesses, which creates new jobs,
which raises the stock market for the sake of fairness.

From at least 2004 on, these two ideologies fed off each other.

The everyone-has-a-right-to-own-a-home ideology sent the stock market to new heights.
This ideology also radically altered a major self-regulation of the free market: supply equals demand.
By federal law, and with an interest in the everyone-has-a-right-to-own-a-home ideology, both supply and demand for home mortgages were dramatically increased.

Mortgage investors were forced to accept mortgage paper for its face value.
BECAUSE THE HOUSE WAS NOT WORTH THE MORTGAGE, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac failed to ensure the face value of the mortgage even though great amounts of debt were added to do so.
Worthless, defaulted mortgages became more numerous.
The mortgage investor's balance sheet became uncertain.

By federal law instituted in 1993, because of a court ruling that it was discrimination to refuse a mortgage based on the inability to pay or because of low down payment,
the federal government (by at least 2004) began to take homes away from mortgage investors and gave them to personal home owners.

Currently, the federal government pays personal home mortgages in arrears to make the "house gift" permanent.
THIS PAYMENT OF PERSONAL HOME MORTGAGES IN ARREARS WILL BE PERPETUAL.
It will become permanent entitlement spending; more federal spending we just can't afford.

Conversely, the high-flying-stock market ideology sent the everyone-has-a-right-to-own-a-home ideology to new heights.
Bonuses and commissions were earned for the number of mortgages written.

The economy was booming (any administration would have loved that) because many jobs were created, because homes were being built for people who didn't have much invested in them.
There was an overall false feeling of a robust economy and an overall false assessment of rising values in personal homes.

Progressives and conservatives loved it; they both got fat;
unfortunately for Americans, progressives and conservatives forgot to watch out for their one legitimate special interest; Americans.

THE COURTS AND CONGRESS RADICALLY WEAKENED THE MAJOR SELF-REGULATION OF THE FREE MARKET MORTGAGE INDUSTRY AND EARNERS OF MONEY IN THE MORTGAGE INDUSTRY HAVE ALWAYS NEEDED REGULATION.
THE RESULT WAS THE MORTGAGE MELTDOWN; one of the biggest scams in American history.

Next time, before instituting a law that undermines capitalism (as if capitalism doesn't do a good job "undermining" itself sometimes),
we should ask economists how the law would affect the economy before it becomes law.
If the law would adversely affect the economy, the American people, we should think hard before making it law.

Our economy is not invincible. An important thing to learn from the mortgage meltdown is that our economy can be brought down even if the Fed is involved;
even if massive stimulus packages are spent.
Laws will always be needed to stop predatory practices in capitalism.
Laws will always be needed to stop predatory practices in socialism.

LAWS STATING THAT MORTGAGES SHOULD BE WRITTEN REGARDLESS OF THE ABILITY TO PAY OR AMOUNT INVESTED SHOULD BE THROWN OUT.. NOW.
FOR THE GOOD OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. This is not ideology. This is fact; proven since 2008.

Those who participated in a TEA party on April 15 because they believe their taxes shouldn't be raised:
Where will the government get the money to pay its gigantic debts?
Devaluation of money caused by excess printing of money won't allow the government to print money forever.
The government will continue to borrow against other programs like Social Security, or the bridges and roads fund (if you live in Minnesota).
The government will continue to borrow from other countries.
The government will continue to try to ensure its debt against itself (FDIC, Fannie, Freddie).
The government will continue to kick the "debt payment can" down the road to future generations.
All levels of government will try to raise taxes.
A big question for all Americans: are you willing to accept higher taxes to enjoy today's government benefits,
or will you accept less government benefits in the future so your taxes will stay the same? I don't foresee taxes dropping any time soon.
Maybe like in Des Moines, someone can get creative and, for example, propose another casino that would be taxed by the government.

Those who participated in a TEA party on April 15 because they believe the government shouldn't
spend to get our economy moving: OK, I briefly struggled with that; I quickly realized that rapidly rising unemployment isn't good for the American people;
I also realized a short burst of stimulus with the desire to pay back the stimulus debt was better for future America;
also, chances for election decrease if the candidate or party appears to be apathetic.

Here is that dilemma I struggled with:
do I agree on stimulus packages that could benefit current America with a stimulated economy even though they would penalize future America with great debt?;
do I CHOOSE NOT TO AGREE on stimulus packages that penalize future America with great debt even though they could benefit current America with a stimulated economy?
There is a possibility that a prolonged and destabilized economy could destabilize current or future America;
Future America could lose autonomy if we accumulate great amounts of debt and could never pay it back;
The responsibility of paying future America's unpaid debts would go to a more fiscally sound organization; some traditional liberties would go as well
(Chrysler, GM, and some banks are examples. California is a potential example).

To maintain current America and provide for the existence of future America, we should attempt to stimulate the economy with as little "debt damage" as possible.
Spend as little as needed to stimulate the economy as fast as possible. Shut off the stimulus spending as soon as possible.
This will preserve the independence of current and future America.

Should we aspire to the same level of production in the economy as the Bush administration's "economy on steroids"?
Would we be setting ourselves up for another economic "crash" if we do?; would there be too much unemployment if we don't?

For the good of the American people, the state of our economy demands I temporarily allow the government to be fiscally liberal in some areas.
I agreed with the Bush administration's 700 billion dollar stimulus package.
I disagree with the Obama administration's nebulous and expensive (in the trillions) stimulus package which sets government up to be involved in big business
for many years to come. Is there a consensus to make the ideological "change", the MASSIVELY increased level of government intervention in the economy permanent?
Who voted for that change?
Don't politicians care about future America? They certainly have placed a lot of debt on future America.
I could agree with an alternative stimulus that did not control big business as much, spent less money, spent it quicker, did not involve as many pet political projects, and stimulated the economy.

For the good of the American people, and as soon as possible, big business must take over much more of the spending.
Government should slow down spending when big business is back on its feet and unemployment subsides.
It will be time to balance the budget once the government's spending spree caused by the CURRENT ECONOMIC CRISIS ENDS.
The government should try to pay down some of the principal of its debt.
This decision to slow down federal spending will probably be forced on the Obama administration.
A question to ask Obama's administration: under which conditions, and how soon, do you foresee a slow down of federal spending?

Private individuals and big business must be more philanthropic.
Big business must create more jobs NOW.
ONE OF THE BIGGEST MISTAKES BIG BUSINESS MADE WAS LETTING HEALTH CARE COVERAGE FOR THEIR EMPLOYEES LAPSE.
BUSINESSES MUST PAY FOR HEALTH CARE COVERAGE FOR ALL EMPLOYEES WHO WORK FOR THEM or suffer through a government-run health care program.
Under controlled circumstances, the government, with some help from big business when they pay unemployment insurance, can handle health care coverage for the percent of the population that is unemployed.
Currently, the federal government cannot handle health care coverage for the percent of the population that is without health care coverage.
Of course, we must always try to find ways of lowering health care costs.

The biggest secret held by government-run health care enthusiasts is: the dramatic increase in those uninsured for health care is caused mainly by those who are not citizens of the U.S.,
(employers eliminating health care coverage for some employees who work for them second) and the willingness, the cost, of government paying for all their health care.
I am for the U.S. having restrictions on U.S. citizenship because of health care costs to all Americans.
The U.S. must be able to control the costs by controlling the flow.

Because of the tremendous health care costs already incurred by some benevolent states and all U.S. citizens, the U.S. must rethink its willingness to pay for all the health care for those who are not U.S. citizens;
I don't think the federal government can handle ANOTHER.... MASSIVE.... spending program that would be government-run health care.

Pro government-run health care politicians: You want to ask the U.S., you want to ask ME to take on the responsibility of California's MASSIVE health care debt?
In my opinion, government-run health care is urgently needed because of California's imminent payment responsibilities.
California will be bankrupt by February, 2010.
Standards and Poor's is downgrading the rating of California's bonds.

Much more data on government-run health care is needed; other countries have huge debts from their government-run health care.
The U.S. doesn't need to be pressured.

Would a government-run health care system do a better job than California's politicians of controlling California's MASSIVE
health care costs?
Possibly, but that would excuse California's benevolent health care spending, and the benevolence could continue.

Right now, the U.S. doesn't need a government-run health care system.
Big business must take more responsibility, big government must be more fiscally conservative, unemployment must be lower, and health care savings must be found.
IF ANY OF THE FOUR THINGS I JUST MENTIONED ARE NOT ACCOMPLISHED, POLITICS 101 ALLOWS ME TO SAY WITH CERTAINTY THAT WE WILL HAVE GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE.
(Have I mentioned anything about my inclination for rhetoric at times)?

Right now, California needs a bailout and a much more conservative fiscal policy.
Sacramento politicians are not in control of the state's debt;
GOPs in Sacramento refuse to go along with tax increase proposals for "needed" programs; dems in Sacramento refuse to cut "frivolous" spending.
Maybe California can build another casino and tax it.

How many California politicians does it take to screw in a light bulb?
Answer - Two. One to hold the bulb and one to spin the ladder around.
SOME OF THE IMMINENT DIFFICULTIES FACING CALIFORNIA ARE CAUSED BY UNCOMPROMISING STRUGGLES BETWEEN PROGRESSIVES AND CONSERVATIVES;
it's a microcosm of the country.

I've intentionally stirred things up to show how difficult it will be to unite moderates.
Let's begin, now, to use conciliation, cooperation, and compromise, all those terms that progressives
and conservatives disdain, to unite moderates and save (California) - America before it's too late.
Please, somebody respond. We don't need any more radical and destructive minority rule.

Mark Fruehling
Des Moines, Iowa USA
05/23/09