by Thomas Craig

The military has a saying, "Salute the rank, not the man".  The other night during the President's address to Congress, our Leadership and our Party were made to look like ignorant fools due to the disrespect shown to the President.  Congressman Wilson (R-SC) thankfully apologized after shouting out "You Lie!" during the President's address. 

We all remember the disrespect shown to President Bush.  We all believed in the prestige of the office and we thought of those who blatantly disrespected Bush as un-American.  Many in our Party feel that the GOP should simply show the same respect to Obama as the Democrats had shown to Bush.  The problem with this mentality is that people seem to forget that the pendulum always swings back.  When Republicans were in power, we felt confidant that we will hold on to that power.  Now, Democrats honestly think that they will hold on to the reins forever.  We didn't forget the actions of the minority when we were in charge and the Democrats won't forget our actions now when we take back Washington. 

Perhaps Congressman Wilson had a point.  Personally, I think he had a very valid point in his statement.  By doing what he did though, he cheapened the argument and emboldened the opposition.  We need to stop the hysterics and make our arguments loud and clear.  The time for baseless distractions are over, whether they are "Obama is a muslim", "Obama isn't a citizen", or "Obama is an alien".  They are ridiculous and they take away from our credibility. 

Healthcare needs to be reformed, plain and simple.  Instead of shouting down every idea the Democrats come up with, we should be using our voices to pitch our own ideas on reform.  This will not only be more productive but it will point out the misguided notions of Liberals who have good intentions but would bury this Nation in a mound of debt so large our grandchildren will be born with sore backs. 

Its time to cut the bs and get down to business!

by Jordan Hixon

Is that they are just words. Every human being has them and we can use them in any way, manner, shape or form. But how much credibility do the words we say have?

Enlightened by an article by Thomas Sowell called "Listening to a Liar, I have pondered the validity of our politicians words. Moreover, I ponder if we can believe anything that they say at all.

Let's take Barack Obama and the health insurance bill for instance. He has made numerous speeches about how our health care system is in crisis and that we have to act now and fast. Why would he say this though when the bill doesn't take place until 2013? Why would he make the bill take effect in 2013 after the next election has passed? It really makes no sense in the grand scheme of things and in truth, contradicts every speech that has been made.

Another example is the climate change bill. As with the health insurance bill, the bill doesn't take effect until 2013. So again, why the urgency?

The truth is that this administration has a craving for power and these bills are just political kindle to fuel the fire of control. None of these bills are made to help the people, Obama and Congress may say they will, but they in essence do not. In fact they do the opposite. Obama and those in Congress throw out false promises of less government control, but in reality they are baiting a hook for you to stick your lip through.

Now more than ever we need to analyze the words of powerful figures and dissect their words for underlying meanings. We cannot just blindly listen to those at the microphone and believe everything they say. Our freedom is at stake and our liberties have a knife to their throat. Those of you who are uninformed and brainwashed, please wake up for the sake of all of us. Listen to the words that people say and try to understand them beyond what's in plain view.

by Jeremiah Norris

The health overhaul debate has generated plenty of heat. Yet no one has offered a solution to one vital and unavoidable dimension: the future.
In 20 years the country will have many more retired people as a proportion of the population. The population will therefore suffer from far higher rates of chronic diseases such as diabetes and cancer.

If a public option will exist for health insurance, the cost of paying these bills will be an intolerable burden on the dwindling band of economically active U.S. taxpayers.

The costs of treating chronic diseases already weigh heavily on the health sector. Nearly half of Americans suffer from one or more chronic (long-lasting) diseases. These are frequently only manageable rather than curable and come with a big price tag.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, 75% of every dollar spent on health care is for treatment of patients with one or more chronic conditions, rising to 96% in public programs. These costs will increase massively the next 30 years.

The management of diabetes requires expensive monitoring and drugs for the life of the patient. One-third of children born in 2000 will develop diabetes.

Obesity is another portent of trouble ahead for U.S. medical care: 67% of Americans are officially obese — with an alarming increase in children and teenagers.

The Milken Institute predicts that by 2015, 75% of Americans will be obese, significantly contributing to the rise in chronic diseases such as heart disease, stroke, diabetes and renal failure.

According to Emory University, the doubling of obesity rates is responsible for about one-third of the rise in health care costs since the mid-1980s.

Old age inevitably means increased health care costs. According to the National Cancer Institute, the risk of being diagnosed with cancer doubles from age 50 to 60. In 1900, the average U.S. life expectancy was 47.3 years, and in 2008 it reached 78. By 2020, it is estimated at 82 years.

It is little wonder, therefore, that health spending as a proportion of GDP has risen from 1% in 1900 to 16% today.

The current debate simply does not factor in the massive increased costs of an aging population. In 2000, America had 4.6 workers per retired person. By 2040, that will plummet to just 2.6.

These few workers will be asked to underwrite existing Medicare and Medicaid commitments, plus President Obama's proposed public insurance option, on behalf of an aging and increasingly sickly society. This is just not sustainable.

Proponents of an overhaul argue that it will lead to new techniques for preventing illness and saving costs, such as computerized medical records. These claims just don't add up. Almost all savings from prevention are achieved by age 5, when childhood immunizations end. Chronic illnesses, developed later in life, are managed rather than prevented by early intervention.

A 2008 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that "although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not."

Many analysts have emphasized what is wrong and what is worsening in our medical system.

In fact, the rise of chronic diseases is a result of innovative drugs, improving health care and rising prosperity, giving more and more people unprecedented longevity.

The final decisions on a medical overhaul rest atop Capitol Hill. One-sixth of the nation's economy will be decided without reference to the massive changes in disease and population that are set to render America a very difference place from today.

By increasing government's role in health care, the proposed public option will make the health system less flexible and innovative — the opposite of what is needed to adapt to these unstoppable demographic and epidemiological changes.

It won't be today's voters who will pay for this error. It will be their children and grandchildren.

by Harrison Price

Lefties say Conservatives are making it sound like Nazi indoctrination and Righties are saying it is like Nazi indoctrination.  In case you haven’t heard, Obama is going to talk to K-6th graders.  Neither side is completely right or completely wrong but what this little speech does show is that the belief in the omnipotent “talking head” era has passed.

It used to be you read your morning (or afternoon) newspaper, read Life Magazine once a week, and watched a network news program.  If you were very interested you could watch a program on PBS like Crossfire to maybe get some more knowledge or, if you were a true “rebel” you read a free newspaper.  And that was how people learned how to think about topics.  The wise editor someplace would choose what you would learn.  And so it was for many, many years.

After the 60s we all learned about “deconstructionism” whereby nothing really had a set meaning.  Thus the Mona Lisa was not universally a great work and somebody who splashed some paint on the canvas could be mentioned in the same breath as a great, well known painter.  People came up with all sorts of “new meanings” for poetry and prose, and up became down and in became out and college students everywhere were able to cram as much BS into their papers as they could.

The talking head era was drawing to a close.  Its death knell happened when people could go onto a website and see a 50 year, well known writer’s work displayed next to somebody you’d never heard of.  Both, because they appeared next to one another, seemed to have equal authority.  It took the individual reader to determine if what was being presented to them was valid or not.

It is ironic, in this post-1984 1984 world (written in 1948 but ahead of its time) that Liberals, who often put down Conservatives for trying to enforce “universal” values (also called “family values”) would be shocked that the image of a U.S. President on a television monitor telling young children what he thinks is important in life would be objectionable.  After all, when the President of the United States says something, even if it sounds odd, he or she does speak with the authority of the office and most kids in that age group still believe in Santa Claus.

Democrats never believed George W. Bush when he talked about his core beliefs yet they think it is odd many Americans don’t want Barack Obama speaking about what he thinks are important in life.  The ironies are numerous.

Obama may have had good intentions (his “community organizer” history is coming out) but it just looks so nefarious to many who are part of a society that rejects the talking head.

Even if Obama plays it “safe” and says things like it’s good to help your neighbors, you should look both ways before crossing the street, and when you grow up pay your taxes, people will still be upset.

Had places been reversed and George W. Bush was the man on the television in schools across the nation, we’d be hearing the same things from Democrats that we hear now from Republicans.

France’s Charles de Gaulle once said:

“How can anyone govern a nation that has two hundred and forty-six different kinds of cheese?”

And so it has become in America, minus the cheese.

by Dacia Nichol

This discussion is partially one left to the ponderings of the Romney 2012 crowd, but it can also be relevant to the Republican crowd in general with the added Clinton element. With Obama’s election victory and all the hoopla surrounding it, the only ones who seemed particularly concerned over his lack of well…anything besides a short but definite radical left voting record…was the opposition. Of course they’re supposed to be concerned with basically anything he does – being the opposition, he could have had a clean nose, but his overall political philosophy would have been the main point of objection. Therefore, any points – no matter how well justified – were swept under the rug along with most anything GOP leadership had to say at the time. We got a tad more of an earful once Ms. Palin hit the town.

And what has happened since? We told you so. Everything we screamed and warned about is essentially manifesting – his disdain for the country shown in his apologetic attitude during foreign visits, his leftist sympathies with his speaking out on behalf of leaders who disrespect their people and their constitution while remaining silent when a true uprising is swelling in one of the terrorist hot spots in the world, his racial philosophies and immature decision making when jumping to conclusions about an arrest involving a black man and a white police officer while admittedly not knowing the facts of the case, his socialist economic beliefs in using government ownership whenever possible for problem solving, spending the country towards bankruptcy, and shoving social medicine on voters despite their vigorous opposition to it, and perhaps the biggest shame in all of his shortcomings is his lack of experience. It’s proving to be the most damaging of all for both sides, and for the country. For the Democrats, he just can’t get anything done. For the Republicans, the blame game is being used to try and cover up the current majority impotence and resources are having to be spent to counter it. For the country…it’s just embarrassing. After all, what does it take to run the most powerful country in the world? Who will take our interests seriously when our own president neither seems to understand them nor lack the political capital to push for any of those that he does grasp as necessary. What’s still holding up alright? The policies carried over from the Bush Administration. Not for long of course.

All that being said, since the opposition has been so good at predicting what the future will bring providing a set of circumstances, how will this play out in 2010 and 2012? Most are on board with the expectation that Democrats will lose their majority in Congress. The optimism is for John Boehner to be the next Speaker of the House, and the Senate? Well, we can assume Mitch McConnell would take the place as leader, but one can only wish that the GOP could foster a better conservative for the job.

Now, the Romney crowd found the Carter-Reagan analogy with Barry’s new election. "Hey, it took a Carter to get a Reagan." Indeed, circumstances seem to fit – a charismatic guy swoops in after a fallout in the GOP, promising the world, and turns out to be totally incompetent. Best of intentions, but just couldn’t get anything done. Economy gets worse, bringing in the next party with their hero-in-chief who had lost the primary in the previous election. Romney’s resemblance to Reagan in his rhetoric and policies set the stage for a perfect analogy and expectation.

On the other hand, yes Obama has played up to the Carter expectations, but he’s now borrowed a move that throws the discussion in another direction: 1994. His push for Obamacare looks a whole lot like the Clinton push for HillaryCare – some of the Clinton mistakes have been corrected, but alas the resolve of the American people to fight for what they see as a threat to their liberty has been greatly underestimated. History shows that this could still be a good thing for the GOP. Newt Gingrich came in with his "Contract with America" and managed to balance the budget and pass welfare reform. But…who got the credit for any Republican successes in Congress? You betcha – the man at the top. His reelection sealed the deal. Will the same thing happen here?

A couple of thoughts. First, if we want to go by history, it’s not quite as straight cut as it was seen to be at the onset. After all, Reagan lost more than once. Further, Jimmy Carter made the mistake of blaming Americans for their problems – that’s more than apologizing outside the country for our past. That’s finger pointing, and the people that have built and contributed to their nation do not want to hear their leader saying, "shame on you!" Of course, Romney did lose in his senate race against Ted Kennedy in the 90s (R.I.P. Ted), so perhaps he’s met the "third charm" qualification. Obama might have also made the mistake of being so disconnected from the people he supposed to be leading, that he doesn’t need a "shame on you" speech. His lies and control of the press might be enough to make voters distrust his goodwill to bring in the Carter effect. Plus, the majorities that Republicans could even possibly gain in congress with even the most favorable results, may not be enough to get as much done as Gingrich & Crew did. The American public may just very well see enough of the damage that Democrats are truly causing and toss the rest of them out along with their president come 2012.

We shall see.

by Thomas Craig

As the Creator of AmericanTusk.com, I'm sure you can guess that I am passionate, not so much about political parties, but America itself.  As of late, I have been questioning my patriotism.  I have been questioning it because my goal was to help America by first reforming the Republican Party, and then by helping the Party regain control of the government.  The problem is (and perhaps I am wrong) that even if the Party regains control, America is too far gone to be saved.  Here is the real kicker though, I DON'T BLAME THE DEMOCRATS.  Radical Liberalism is merely the result and consequence of a populace too ignorant, too weak, and too silent.  We like to think that there is some sort of revolution brewing because a few mid-western conservatives shout out at townhall meetings.  It means nothing.  Congress is full of wannabe dictators and power-hungry imbeciles.  These are people who don't posess any greater intelligence than you or I but they happened to have the time and fundraising capabilities to make it to an elected office where they have no intention of "representing" the fools who elected them.  Once upon a time, America was full of radicals who had the crazy notion that a Country can be run by the people and for the people.  That dream is dead.  It no longer exists and if you believe it does, you either aren't paying attention or don't understand what you are seeing.  This post was originally going to be about President Obama's "speech" to our Nation's youth next week.  I was going to point out how eerily similar it seems to be like Hitler reaching out to the youth of Germany.  Hitler understood that if you can influence the children, you can control an entire generation.  Obama understands this as well and it is one more reason to believe that dark times lie ahead for our Nation.  We are over-taxed, over-burdened, and under-represented.  While I will continue to advocate for the return of true Republican ideals, I have no doubt at this moment that when the GOP takes power again, they will squander it and abuse it like they did during the Bush years.  America became complacent over the years and we are now witnessing something worse than the fall of an empire, but the death of a dream.  Instead of learning from our mistakes, we have repeated and strengthened them.  I have no doubt that a long time ago, many Romans felt that the light of Rome would never fade, regardless of the problems they were experiencing.  We have been standing guard and watching for the wolves, not realizing that the wolves are already in and all that is left are the remains of something once great.  I hope I am wrong but I have yet to see anything that gives me optimism.  What do you think?