No matter what national poll you look at, the results are the same.  The majority of Americans do not want the current healthcare plan Congress is trying to shove our way.  Senators and members of Congress understand that many of them may not be reelected.  Constituents are frustrated because they feel as if their Senators and Congressman are not listening to them.  So why, oh why would you ask is the reason these politicians want this healthcare legislation passed?

     There are three items on the Democratic leader’s agenda that they feel most passionate; 1) healthcare, 2) amnesty for illegal aliens and 3) the Cap and Trade bill.  Congressional Democrats will never admit it but the most important of those three is…get ready for this…the amnesty bill.  I’m kidding right?  Nope!

     By passing the amnesty bill which would legitimize all illegal aliens, Democrats are hoping to add another 14 million to 24 million (depending on whose numbers you believe) to the current role of Democratic voters.  Think about it.  If the Democrats can convert illegals into Democratic voters, they can count on this group to help keep them in power. This is why they are willing to throw some of their Congressional members under the bus at election time next year.  

     Now here is the real reason Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and President Obama want ANY kind of healthcare legislation passed even though several concessions and cutbacks have been made to the original drafted legislation.  The cost of the healthcare legislation, as high as it has been projected, does not include the cost to add several million illegal aliens.  Does anyone have any doubt that 99% of any illegal who is granted citizenship will immediately apply for this healthcare?  And since the amnesty bill is not being debated first, they don’t have to include the extra cost these illegals will create in healthcare. 

     But once healthcare is passed, if it does pass, the Democratic leadership can turn their attention to amnesty.  The last thing Congress wants to explain to the American public is the added costs by including illegals in the current healthcare bill.  This is why members are not debating the infusion of  illegals in the healthcare plan although it was originally discussed earlier this year.  If indeed healthcare passes followed by amnesty in 2010, Congress can conclude that healthcare indeed does not cover illegals which won’t be a problem since the current illegals will become legal.  Get it?

     The Wall Street Journal reported November 27,2009 that Republican Chairman Michael Steele asked a question to fellow dinner guests in London’s Mayfair district.  To the guests he asked “what can the GOP learn from Britain’s resurgent Conservative Party?” 

     If Mr. Steele must ask this question, then he clearly hasn’t a clue.  The resurging of the Tories can be credited to their move to the political center.  One can not compare conservatism in England with the United States.  For one thing, U-S conservatism is focused on the preservation of our Constitution, something that is not an issue in Britain.

     It is possible that moving to the center may prove to be a benefit to the conservative movement in England but moving to the center in the U-S will only further distance the GOP from Americans, particularly the Tea Party movement.  If Mr. Steel contemplates such tactics here, he will find that the continuing surge of a third-party will only be more enforced.

     Following previous blogs written here, I have had responses posted and others who called or emailed with opinions either agreeing or disagreeing with me on whether we are better off forming a third political party.  Those that disagree with the concept are mainly Republicans who claim a third-party will cause power from the GOP to dwindle giving the Democrats a stronghold.  They contend that conservatives,  constitutionalists and Libertarians should work within the Republican party if they are to retake control of Congress.  And of course, I get to hear that the forming of a third-party “is impossible.”

     For those who come up with the last argument above, I ask them if they know who the first Republican president was.  Most cannot answer correctly that it was Abraham Lincoln.  Prior to his election, we had the Whigs and the Democrats.  In the mid 1800′s, many felt the Whigs were “out of touch” with mainstream America.  Hmm, sound familiar?  Only today, we have TWO political parties who are out of touch.  Many around 1850 believed another party could not be formed however the Republicans started out on a grass-roots level, won some elections, and eventually trickled up to the emergence of our first GOP president in 1861.   Our country was in turmoil with bickering between Northern states and Southern states and the talk of succession occurred until it finally happened shortly after Lincoln’s inauguration. Unfortunately many Americans today do not see turmoil in our political structure to the point where our Constitution is being challenged and threatened.  Since the Civil War and World War II, our country has not seen the threat of tyranny of this magnitude.  Unfortunately the perpetrators, many within our government, are waging war against liberty quietly and slowly so as to avoid detection by the average American.  Ah yes, I can hear many now claiming I am merely waging a conspiracy theory.

     The bottom line is this: we have many Americans…Republicans, Democrats and Independents who are fed up with liberalism and believe in core conservative values, Sovereignty and uphold the Constitution.  However, many Democrats and Republicans are hesitant to vote for candidates in the other’s party even if that candidate held the same core values as they do.  And Independents are fed up with both parties which is why their numbers are so strong today.  By forming a third-party that embraces core conservative values, these so-called “gun-toting, bible thumping” people from all three political factions can come together to support candidates that reflect conservative values.  Ronald Reagan struggled with the concept of a third-party before running for president but decided he could make enough change within the GOP to get the job done.  Unfortunately the GOP in Congress today is made up of members from a wide spectrum on the political scale and getting the Republican leadership to return to core values could take years and many Americans are losing patience to wait that long.

     The Gallup Poll has consistently run surveys on the number of Americans who are conservative vs. liberal.  The numbers have increased throughout 2009 that show nearly 50% consider themselves conservative while 19-20% consider themselves liberal.  Over 70% of the conservative group indicate they are also Republican.  We can only assume that the remainder are either Democrat or Independent.  With numbers at or over 50%, wouldn’t it make sense for conservatives to look elsewhere other than their current party leadership?

     My blog on October 25th gave some compelling reasons why I believe now may be an ideal time for the forming of a third political party.  As each passing week goes by, that belief continues to grow.

     Allow me to first give you reasons I have heard from a few of you on why it is not a good idea. An acquaintance of mine who is a Republican feels that if we have the Grand Ole Party AND some type of  conservative party (call it whatever you will),  it will only split the votes and Democrats will win.  Some conservative Democrats feel they may refrain for voting for a GOP candidate for the mere fact the candidate is a Republican.  I can see the validity in both arguments.

     In today’s political climate, many of you who are conservatives but are either Republican, Democrat or Independent may feel a bit “disenfranchised,” a term liberals enjoy using.   If the country’s conservatives who once aligned themselves with one of the two parties could support candidates that offer core conservative values, they may be more likely to vote for that candidate if labeled under a new party platform.  For example, in my local area we have a conservative candidate who will be running against a very liberal member of Congress in the Democratic primary in 2010.  From within my local Tea Party, I have heard concerns that as Republicans,  some may have a hard time supporting him even though he embraces the core values they want in a candidate.  The main reason for their difficulty in supporting him is he still adds to the number of Democrats in the House and concerns that he could succumb to pressure by party leaders especially if Democrats retain their majority in 2010. 

     Many say it shouldn’t matter what party a candidate belongs to as long as they represent their constituent’s viewpoints.  In a perfect world, this makes sense.  But in a Congress where majority rule means everything, it gets more complicated than merely voting for the “best candidate.”  But if the birth of a third-party brings together conservatives from all three political sides, it may give a conservative candidate the ability to win where otherwise they may not.  If members of this third-party began populating Congress, they could still align themselves with the other two parties depending on legislation being discussed.  And on legislation where our conservative values come into play,  members of the GOP could always align with conservatives. 

     It would sure be simpler if the Republican Party today were like the GOP in the past in which the political spectrum was very narrow.  I don’t see the RNC and enough of our current Republican leaders in Congress falling “back in line” and embracing the conservative values we wish they had.  Until that day returns, if ever, a third-party makes sense.

     As I write this, many of my Tea Party colleagues are getting their last few minutes of a quick shut-eye before getting on busses at 2 a.m. to head to our nation’s capital.  Why? To gather on the Capital steps to show support against the passing of the Pelosi healthcare reform bill.  Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann has called on Americans to gather there at noon on Thursday and to speak to our members of Congress before they make a huge mistake namely voting and passing H.R. 3962.

     I have read several pages of the Pelosi bill (probably more than Pelosi herself read) and if most Americans whether liberal or conservative understood what is written in this bill, it would scare the hell out of you.  To give you details here would take up more space than is allowed and you wouldn’t want to spend that much time reading it from me.  The best thing to do is read it for yourself.  I’ll even make it easy for you.  For starts, here is a link to a story from the Wall Street Journal from Nov. 1.  WSJ knows this bill is a big mistake and you will too. SB10001424052748703399204574505423751140690.html

 And if you are really a glutton for punishment, here is a link to the complete 1,990 page document itself.

     Mrs. Pelosi will feel emboldened by the endorsement today from AARP who like 99% of Congress did not read the entire bill before passing judgement.  As someone who is old enough to be a member of AARP, it is time for me to cancel my subscription.  OK it may only be a few dollars annually but if many seniors, who by the way, will feel the biggest sting from a government-controlled healthcare program, also cancelled their membership then AARP will realize what a mistake they made by endorsing a large pile of excrement entitled H.R. 3962.

     I can only hope my Tea Party colleagues will gather in Washington by the hundreds of thousands to voice their opposition to the bill.  All media outlets are aware of the event taking place but don’t be surprised if you do not see it on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS or NBC.  The entire population of the country could show up tomorrow and the main stream media will try to ignore it.  Watch Fox or read various bloggers who will likely include photos during the day to prove the crowd will be large.  For those of us who can not get out of work (that is those of us who still have a job), we are going to our local Congressman’s office at noon to show the staff (since most members of Congress will be in D.C.) that we oppose the bill in its current form.  If my Congresswoman, Rep. Betty Sutton-D gets a report that constituents were knocking on her door in Akron OH beside the ones trying to visit her in Washington, it will be difficult for her not to take notice.  But then many in Congress such as Ms. Sutton may follow Pelosi’s lead and ignore the ones who voted her in office in the first place.

     Please take some time to read the bill and then call or write to your own member of Congress to give them your viewpoint.  This bill will create the largest hi-jack of our freedom and liberties than any other piece of legislation in the history of our great country.  Yes, our healthcare system needs fixing but this bill including the Senate version will not fix the real problems.  They will only create new ones.  Until we introduce tort reform and spend the money to teach Americans to change their destructive life style choices which cause them to be unhealthy, we will never have true healthcare reform.

     Now that we have had a few days to dissect Dede Scozzafava’s withdrawal from the Congressional run-off in New York’s 23rd district, interesting questions come to mind.  Considering the district has not voted a Democrat in that Congressional district since 1871, Democrats have to be desperate to put one of their own in that seat.  

     So questions one can ask include a), was the GOP committee that chose Scozzafava fooled by her sheep’s clothing as she masqueraded as a Republican when she was even more liberal than her Democrat opponent?  Or b) is the committee now being infiltrated with liberals and they chose Dede hoping her election would give President Obama another ally even while pretending to be a Republican? 

     I hope voters in New York’s 23rd figures this out and replaces these so-called representatives of the local GOP, because if either question is true, that is not good for conservative/GOP voters in the district if the committee is called upon to make future choices.  Either the committee attempted to “pull one over” the voters in the 23rd district or the committee members are incompetent and neither scenario is acceptable.

Today, Dede Scozzafava did the right thing and stepped down from running for Congress.  With Doug Hoffman and Scozzafava on the ballot, Democrat Bill Owens had a 50/50 shot of winning Tuesday’s election for the 23rd district in New York.  Dede’s decision can only help Hoffman by picking up a bigger portion of Conservatives and Republicans.

My only message to Hoffman at this point is, stay with the Conservative Party!  Isn’t it amazing that GOP leaders such as House Minority Leader John Boehner, Minority Whip Eric Cantor, Congressional Committee Chairman Pete Sessions and even NRC Chairman Michael Steele are now embracing Hoffman’s candidacy (notice I didn’t say endorse). It might be tempting to switch back to the GOP but I believe Hoffman is creating a wave that makes us conservatives grin and the GOP grimace.

Hoffman can thank many including efforts of Tea Partiers who recruited him in the first place.  If they can push Hoffman across the finish line next Tuesday, they will be energized to do the same for others.  If Hoffman were to declare himself a member of the GOP, which Republican leaders will ask him to do, there is always the possibility their influence may taint his core conservative beliefs.  If someday, the GOP returns to its core values, there may not be a need for a third-party.  But until the GOP learns its lesson from the Tea Party movement, there should be a continuance of towards the new Conservative Party movement.  With the latest poll showing more Americans calling themselves “Conservative” over being Republican, the conservative movement is clearly in the driver seat.

For the past three years, I have listened to conservative talk show hosts, both on radio and TV who seem to agree that it is not in our best interest to form a third party.  I have come to the conclusion that they are wrong.

In a perfect conservative world, Republicans in the House and Senate would embrace the values we conservatives have alway held in our hearts such as smaller government, upholding the Constitution, less government intrusion, belief in Judeo-Christian values, individual freedom, people over government, and lower taxes.  Unfortunately over the past 10 years, the Republican Party has developed a political spectrum that stretches from here to Timbuktu.

On October 22, Rasmussen Reports completed a survey that read “73% of GOP Voters Say Congressional Republicans Have Lost Touch With Their Base.”  Yet when polls ask how many consider themselves liberal or conservative, the conservatives win hands down percentage-wise.  If the Republican Party does not take notice, then perhaps the liberal pundits are correct…the GOP may be headed for extinction. 

If Doug Hoffman wins the New York 23rd district race for Congress in November over his Republican and Democratic opponent, then it might be time for the majority of  conservatives in the U-S to form a new party. Hoffman is running under the label “Conservative Party” and perhaps that would be as good of a name as any for us to embrace. When anyone asks me about my political stance, I tell them these three and in this order;  1) American, 2) Conservative, and finally 3) Republican.  Any good conservative should never hold the party label over the first two.  But I am becoming so compelled to throw out the third on that list and stick with the first two only.

Political strength starts with grass roots efforts.  Various local groups I belong to echo the same sentiment as the Rasmussen Report mentioned here.  And these conversatives are expressing the same sentiment…”we’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore.” Perhaps the grass roots efforts in New York’s 23rd race will set the tone for a new beginning. So my message to the the GOP in Washington is be careful!  You just may alienate enough conservatives that will influence us to abandon the “grand ole party’ in favor of the new Conservative Party.

     In my last blog from Jan. 19th on healthcare, I wrote that some of the decisions President Obama made prior to inauguration showed signs of being a Centrist but that soon vanished  after the decision to close Club Gitmo, reversal of Bush policies dealing with Iran, detaining/prosecuting terror suspects and practically demanding auto makers to build more green cars without any regard to what the marketplace demands.

   And now that three of his choices of top cabinet posts were found to have tax issues, it looks like our healthcare system may not change as fast as Obama would have wanted it.  Tom Daschle promised some radical, swift changes in healthcare and with his departure, perhaps the next candidate won’t be as likely to make the changes Daschle promised.  Mind you, our health care system needs change but a radical one without debate in full view of the American public is not the answer.

   Unfortunately, the Right Wing salute I spoke of in my last blog has quickly become a Bronx cheer.  I truly believe changes in our healthcare system are long overdue but I am not in favor of  a “backdoor” approach in the so-called stimulus bill.  Any changes in healthcare need to be done with open debate.  So much for Obama’s promises of transparency. 

   Among other things, the stimulus bill will create a healthcare czar who will oversee your health needs and will determine if the treatment you are getting is correct and whether that treatment should even continue.  Except for some elite liberals, the rest of us want to make those choices for ourselves along with our physician.  But provisions in the stimulus bill will slowly bring on socialized medicine whether you like it or not and without any debate in Congress.   If we allow the government to make those decisions, situations will occur where the healthcare czar can determine it is more appropriate for you to die rather than use current healthcare resources to keep you alive even if you and your doctor think your current treatment is working.

   Here is an example: let’s say you are a 75-year old male in fairly decent health but blockage in your arteries require a triple-bypass.  The government can determine that because of your age, the surgery is too expensive and that it would be more appropriate to give you pain medication to comfort you until you simply die.  You think I’m kidding?  Just wait and see.  And if this social medicine trend continues as President Obama wants, these decisions will no longer be decided by you, the patient.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.