Louis R. Avallone

Category: Healthcare

  • Justice for All

    Justice for All

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    Most Americans are just plain dizzy from the “spinning” of the issues that this White House has unashamedly engaged in for almost four years now: Deficit spending is an “investment”; a tax increase is considered “revenue;” and rising gasoline prices are blamed on foreign nations, all while we restrict access and delay permitting for oil and gas exploration right here at home. Policy failures? Well, from illegal immigration to historically high deficit spending, these are blamed on “obstructionist” Republicans, even though this White House had “supermajorities” in the House and Senate for its first two years and was able to pass anything they wanted without the need for a single Republican vote. Historically high unemployment and anemic economic growth even after $1 trillion in stimulus spending? This only persists because this administration “didn’t know how bad it was” when they came into office.

    Didn’t you know also that extending unemployment benefits beyond 99 weeks is necessary because it “creates jobs” faster than practically any other program? Or that Congress needed to first pass the 2,700-page “Obamacare” bill affecting one-sixth of our nation’s economy in order to find out what was actually “in the bill” (instead of reading the bill first)? I could go on and on, but I’m pretty sure even Democrats understand the picture by now.

    So last week, when the U.S. Supreme Court justices began hearing the administration’s legal arguments defending the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, I was inspired, encouraged, reassured about our nation of laws … and a sense of order. And why not? Article 3 of our glorious U.S. Constitution was engaged, alive and well. The actions of both the president and Congress were being checked for constitutionality, exactly as Article 3 of the Constitution intended and as our founding fathers envisioned. There was Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was inquiring about fundamental matters of liberty, specifically the notion of “changing the relationship of the individual to the government” through a mandate to purchase health insurance.

    There was Chief Justice John Roberts, who inquired if Congress could mandate folks to purchase health insurance under its power to regulate interstate commerce and its call to solve national economic problems? Then could Congress also mandate folks to purchase mobile phones under that same power since having a mobile phone would improve your access to 911 emergency medical services?

    Then there was Justice Antonin Scalia who wondered aloud if Congress can force you to buy health insurance, could Congress also require individuals to buy vegetables such as broccoli? And even though nearly two-thirds of Americans recently polled could not name even one member of the U.S. Supreme Court, we witnessed last week the miracle of our U.S. Constitution in action, perhaps during the Court’s most publicized hearings in preparation for perhaps one of its most sweeping decisions since it was first organized in 1790. As the arbiter of our nation’s most challenging legal matters, it was just refreshing to hear the audio comments from one of the three branches of our government, where a majority of the members therein were informed, prepared and presented well- reasoned comments and criticisms, thus effectively fulfilling its constitutional duty to provide a check on both the executive and legislative branches.

    Dale Carnegie once said, “Neither you nor I nor Einstein nor the Supreme Court of the United States is brilliant enough to reach an intelligent decision on any problem without first getting the facts.” And the facts are plain enough to all of us reading here today: We’re possibly going to cede the health-care industry to the federal government. These are the same folks who are operating a Social Security trust fund that will go broke in 2041, a Medicare program that will be insolvent in 2020 and a bankrupt U.S. Post Office that lost $2 billion last year alone, not to mention the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And why do this? To address about 10 percent of all Americans who need financial assistance for health insurance. A recent poll indicated that 54 percent of uninsured Americans are between the ages of 18 and 34 and many of them voluntarily choose to forgo coverage. In fact, it has been estimated that nearly one-fifth of the uninsured population is able to afford insurance, while one- quarter is eligible for public coverage. Only the remaining 56 percent need financial assistance.

    Of course, this administration may likely “win” politically for their intentions to affect health care, regardless of whether the Court decides the individual mandate in Obamacare is constitutional or not. “Perception is reality,” right? Or, in the words of Emerson, “People only see what they are prepared to see.” Still, last week’s hearings were a gloriously refreshing reprieve (however short-lived), from the predictably partisan, uninformed, divisive and misleading national debate that seemingly rewards short- sightedness and sacrifices liberty for the immediate, political gratification of today … even if such means “spinning” completely out of control.

  • Straight Talk

    Straight Talk

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    Is it too much to ask, really? For a little honesty? I mean, do you sometimes feel that you are living in an artificial world, whether it is in politics or entertainment or morality; where you are prompted by the mainstream media to simply accept the reality of the world with which you are presented? Sometimes it’s kind of like the movie, The Truman Show, in which the main character, Truman, thinks he is an ordinary man, with an ordinary life. Have you seen that movie?

    You see, in the movie, Truman’s ordinary life is actually a concocted one; played out on a giant movie set (and viewed by all the world), where all of his friends, and those around him, are actors…only he does not know it. But Truman is genuine. There’s nothing fake about Truman, despite that the world, in which he lives, is counterfeit.

    It’s hard to avoid feeling like Truman these days, with so much misinformation or “spin” being disseminated through the mainstream media and from our nation’s leadership. Whether it was the President disingenuously suggesting that our nation’s seniors might not receive their Social Security checks unless the federal debt limit was raised by $2.2 trillion last month, or Nancy Pelosi explaining months ago that extending jobless benefits “creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name,” it can all be quite frustrating (and disappointing) to the millions of hard-working, country-first Americans.

    So when the President recently reiterated (over and over) about the malaise of the country caused, in part, by tax breaks for folks with corporate jets, I had to check out the facts.

    Here is what Obama told Americans: He said that if the debt ceiling wasn’t raised last month, then “that means there are a bunch of kids out there who do not have college scholarships. [It] might compromise the National Weather Services. It means we might not be funding critical medical research. It means food inspection might be compromised. I’ve said to Republican leaders, You go talk to your constituents and ask them, “Are you willing to compromise your kids’ safety so some corporate-jet owner can get a tax break?”

    That’s what Obama said. But here’s the truth: The “tax break” that Obama refers to, about corporate jets is inconsequential to college scholarships or medical research of our kids’ safety. The reason is that the “tax break” merely consists of shortening the time period (five years instead of seven years) over which corporations can write off the purchase of a corporate jet.

    That’s it. That’s all there is to the much maligned and whined about “tax break” for corporate jet owners; a “tax break” that supposedly is threatening to end even our nation’s food inspections (according to Obama).

    And to add insult to that dishonesty, do you know that even if you collected this corporate jet tax every year (sans the “tax break”), for the next 5,000 years, you will cover only one year of the debt that the Obama administration has run up thus far?

    So, we get rid of the corporate jet “tax break” and no more deficits now? Medicare is solved? The unemployment rate is lessened? Are you kidding me?

    For the record, despite the President’s bashing, business aviation employs 1.2 million people, and contributes $150 billion to U.S. economic output. In Kansas, for example, it accounts for $7.1 billion, or nearly one-third, to the state’s economy. In addition to business use, private jet use provides medical care, law enforcement, and disaster relief to literally thousands of small communities throughout the country where commercial airline service is absent.

    With that said, consider that, despite Obama’s apparent political necessity to now demonize the corporate jet “tax break,” it was the Democrats, through Obama’s $787 billion stimulus bill, that created this “tax break” to begin with.

    That’s right. It was Obama’s own legislation that created the very tax break that he rails against today. Essentially, Obama is condemning the Republicans (and anyone else, for that matter) for supporting his own policy here. It’s just crazy.

    So, this is exactly what we were talking about earlier. The Obama administration presents this alter-reality that somehow the Republicans value corporate jets, while Democrats value our nation’s youth; that Republican care about tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, while Democrats protect the Social Security checks of our nation’s seniors. But in reality, it’s not that way at all.

    Mr. President, just be honest with the American people and talk straight. Remember, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, “Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom.” It’s a best seller in our country. What page are you on?

  • Denial Dems Blame All Others

    Denial Dems Blame All Others

    October 6, 2010

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    Blame It On The Rain
    Milli Vanilli Only Scratched The Surface

    Perhaps not since 1989, when the number one song that year was Milli Vanilli’s “Blame it on the Rain,” has there been a more grand fraud, perpetrated upon the American people, than the incessant, obsessive, and child-like reasoning of blaming George W. Bush this election season, for everything from our economic challenges, to him being responsible for the BP oil spill in the Gulf, earlier this year.

    More on the specifics of all that in a moment. For now, it’s important to first understand the emotional distress that liberals are experiencing today. One of the mechanisms of denial is blaming others for our problems. So, faced with a growing majority of the electorate that is both informed on the issues and mostly diametrically opposed to the Democrat’s socialist policy initiatives, liberals are in full denial and, as a result, are blaming anyone, and anything, for their problems (other than themselves).

    You’ve heard Obama say repeatedly, “…it took nearly a decade to dig the hole that we’re in — and that it would take longer than any of us would like to climb our way out.”
 You’ve heard him blame the rising unemployment rate on Bush, saying that Bush left “an economy that was teetering on the brink of collapse.” You have also heard from Nancy Pelosi, who is likewise in denial. She’s blaming Bush for years of lax oversight from the federal government for offshore drilling, and suggesting that this contributed to the explosion and subsequent Gulf oil spill earlier in the year.

    She has also excused the nearly 10% unemployment rate, during the Obama administration, by saying that it is, at least, a “sharp turnaround from the 700,000 jobs per month lost under President Bush” (actually, this 700,000 jobs statistic was collected in November 2008, following the election of the current administration and Democrat controlled Congress). Still, nearly four million jobs were lost were lost the following year, the worst year for job losses since World War II.

    But wait, there’s more. Bush, apparently, has even been blamed for personal lapses in honesty. Rep. Maxine Waters blamed the Bush administration for her own ethics investigation, explaining that she had to use the power of her Congressional office to intervene with the Treasury Department so that federal bailout funds could be disbursed to a bank, owned in part, by her own husband (okay, and the dog ate my homework).

    Not to be outdone by the Waters’ revelation, media reports now reveal that Bush ultimately caused the break-up of the marriage between Al and Tipper Gore because of Bush’s winning of the Presidential election in 2000. As reported by CBS news, “Gore winning the popular vote for president but losing the electoral vote may have done the marriage irreparable harm.”

    The blaming of Bush, over and over again, for so many of their own shortcomings, reveals that liberals are simply behaving as an alcoholic, before deciding to get help. Like the alcoholic, before treatment, liberals are avoiding taking responsibility for their own actions, and pointing the finger at Bush (or at anyone or anything else). This helps them feel better about themselves. For the alcoholic, for example, blaming enables them to deny that their relationship with alcohol is the real cause of their problems. For example, if my job were not so stressful, I wouldn’t drink so much.

    The same is true for liberals. By blaming Bush, this helps them feel better about the unemployment rate that peaked around 10 percent in late 2009 and is now around 9.6 percent. It helps them feel better that one in every 381 U.S. housing units received a foreclosure filing last month, while home seizure rates reached a record level, for the third time in five months. And by blaming, they avoid honest communication and accountability for their own actions.

    So, it’s not real complicated, really. Pelosi told us herself what is going on. She explained that Democrats would only stop blaming Bush for the nation’s economic troubles “when the problems go away.” She gets credit for her honesty here, at least.

    However, if we’re still being honest, consider this: Since she became Speaker in 2007, the Congress passed a $700 billion financial bailout of the banks, over $1 trillion in economic stimulus, a $1.5 trillion health care expansion, a $447 billion omnibus spending bill, and a $15 billion Medicaid bailout. Discretionary spending has risen 25%. Despite this all, the unemployment rate continues to hover near 10%, nearly 1.1 million Americans have given up looking for work and our federal debt that is expected to rise to $20 trillion, by the end of this decade.

    It seems, however, that Americans are in the midst of conducting their own intervention, for the sake of liberals, and the future of our country. These Americans, regardless of party affiliation, are taking a stand that evading personal accountability, or avoiding honest communication, or otherwise blaming others, for one’s own irresponsible actions, will not be tolerated. As evidence, a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that a growing number of likely voters are not going along with this administration’s “blame Bush” ruse.

    Milli Vanilli advised us to blame it on the rain. Liberals suggest blaming it on Bush. But I’m with the 19th century novelist Tolstoy, who once remarked, “Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.” That makes sense. Enough is enough. This election season, how about a little more introspection first?

  • Biden’s Big Deal

    Biden’s Big Deal

    April 7, 2010

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    BIDEN’S BIG DEAL
    Expletive Was More Polite Than The Alternatives

    Theodore Roosevelt had the “Square Deal,” a phrase that came to represent his administration’s ideas for the conservation of natural resources, increasing competitiveness in the marketplace, and improving consumer protection. FDR had the “New Deal,” which introduced banking reform laws and the seemingly permanent and persistent expansion of government, through work relief programs, union protection, and the Social Security Act. Then, Harry Truman had the “Fair Deal,” which was his administration’s policy initiatives, rooted in the notion that the federal government should guarantee economic opportunity and social stability.

    And now, apparently, Barrack Obama has the “Big Effing Deal,” the healthcare reform law that is estimated to reduce the number of uninsured U.S. residents, from current levels, by 32 million people, after the law’s provisions have all taken effect in 2019.

    That’s right. In case you didn’t know already, it was right after Obama signed this self-styled, historic, and largest peacetime expansion of the federal government ever, that Vice-President Biden leaned into Obama at the bill’s signing ceremony and proclaimed that this was all a “big [eff]ing deal” (expletive omitted). Those were Jefferson’s exact words after watching Washington sign the Constitution, I think.

    But in all fairness, and deference to Biden, there are some who say that Biden’s remark, into a live microphone, may not have been entirely clear, or intelligible. So, with all due respect, and in an effort to innocently explain to my seven year old daughter the missing letters (“****ING”) in the headlines reporting on Biden’s celebration of the “Big [Eff]ing Deal”, here are some other, similar sounding words that Biden may have said to Obama (in case Sasha and Malia Obama are around):
    F***TICAL: Biden may have said that this was “a big fanatical deal.” Fanatical is defined as surpassing what is normal or accepted in enthusiasm regarding a matter, or otherwise excessively or unusually dedicated or devoted. “Fanatical” is plausible, when describing the Democrats’ obsession with a single payer system, or universal healthcare coverage, even though this would result in the elimination of the private insurers altogether (eventually). “Fanatical” is right on point. After all, just last week Cuban dictator Fidel Castro had praised the passage of healthcare reform in the U.S. and admiringly characterizes Obama as “a fanatical believer in the imperialist capitalist system.” You have to be fanatical about governing this way when, according to a Rasmussen report last week, 54% of the nation’s likely voters still favor repealing this new healthcare reform law.

    F***ING: Biden may have also meant to say this was “a big fibbing deal.” After all, fibbing is defined as being deliberately unclear. And there is some fibbing going on here, for sure, according to the Congressional Budget Office (“CBO”). After ten years of implementation, the cost of Obamacare will reach $2.5 trillion, at least, not $1 trillion as advertised by the White House.

    Another example of fibbing is that, for the first 10 years of revenue, from the taxes and fees required by this new law, there is only enough funding for six years of spending. And with Social Security paying out $29 billion more than it takes in this year, the CBO predicts that the federal deficit will actually grow by $562 billion, not shrink.

    F***KISH: Well, maybe Biden said that this was “a big freakish deal.” The dictionary defines “freakish” as markedly strange or abnormal. Come to think of it, this is the first time Democrats have controlled both Congress and the Presidency since Jimmy Carter, in the late 1970s (and we all know how well that turned out).

    F***NG: Finally, he could have said this was “a big filing deal.” The new healthcare reform law is over 2,000 pages. To keep up with enforcing the mandates, throughout this seemingly complex entitlement program, the federal government is hiring 18,000 more IRS agents and creating an estimated 111 more bureaucracies, largely to keep up with all of the paper. So, there will be lots of paper filing, Mr. Vice-President.

    Now, Biden is not the first politician to publicly use an “effing” expletive while in office. Most notably, in 2004, Dick Cheney used it in a verbal exchange, on the Senate floor, with Senator Pat Leahy. It was inappropriate then, as it still is now. Media reporting, back then, was fairly critical of Cheney for departing from proper decorum on the Senate floor. When Joe Biden uses an “effing” expletive, however, the media seemingly slaps him on the back and offers to get him another beer (even though Biden doesn’t drink).

    In the words of Abraham Lincoln, “Don’t interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.” This is especially important now, considering the current fanaticism that governs against the will of the people, a growing federal government that is distrusted by the electorate, absolute power corrupting absolutely through a growing central government, and the dilution of American independence from the unconscionable and perpetually increasing national debt.

    But a mere expletive is the least of our nation’ concerns. It is least injurious to the preservation of our Constitution, and the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Even though his “effing” expletive during the bill signing ceremony may not have been intelligible to all, Biden could have easily been heard to say “fanatical” or “fibbing” or “freakish,” or “filing,” in place of his “effing” expletive. They all would have been an appropriate fit. Ironically, though, Biden’s “effing” expletive may simply have been the most polite choice at the time.

  • Healthcare

    Healthcare

    August 12, 2009

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    It was Shakespeare, in 1611, that may have been the first to write about how politics can make strange bedfellows. Well, pull back the covers and get tucked in, because if you happen to oppose the Obama healthcare initiative and are also pro-life, you may soon find yourself in bed with abortion rights proponents. In fact, you should both may even be sleeping on the same side of the bed. How? I’ll explain.

    During the 1960s, the U.S. Supreme Court created the right to privacy, through a series of cases. This right to privacy, between a woman and her doctor, was pivotal in the Roe. v. Wade decision in 1973, which of course, legalized abortion. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the right to privacy is guaranteed by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

    With that principle established and laid down in Roe, every American is afforded the constitutional protection to make their own healthcare decisions, with the consultation of their doctor, of course. Constitutionally, then, according to the precedent of Roe, your medical decisions must be made, by you, free of judicial, legislative, or political, influence, pressure, or other encumbrance.

    Now stay with me. The fundamental, underlying premise of Obama’s healthcare initiative turns this principle upside down. In other words, now the federal government WILL manage the decision-making process of what kind of medical care is provided to you, and every patient, for that matter. Ultimately, the medical care you receive will be based more on the decision of a bureaucrat, than a collaboration between you and your doctor – weakening the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship – if this healthcare plan becomes law.

    If allowing a bureaucrat to make your healthcare decisions, or limit the healthcare that your children or parents may require, is problematic for you, then here is where you and abortion rights proponents should be on the same page, championing the virtues of preserving the doctor-patient relationship. You see, in 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court explained, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in referring to the significance of the doctor-patient relationship, that “these matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and the mystery of human life.”

    What could be more central to “personal dignity and autonomy” than a patient’s choice to preserve or extend life itself? If the 14th Amendment protects the right to privacy, with regards to access to abortion, how can the 14th Amendment selectively be ignored to then allow the federal government to grant, deny, or otherwise burden our access to other medical procedures, regardless of our age, the likelihood of success, or the costliness of the procedure?

    But the government will certainly try. Obama said so himself. He explained that sometimes the government may decide, for you and your doctor, that some treatments, may not be effective and that “(m)aybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.” That maybe true, but how is this government decision, to keep grandma from getting the kidney transplant she needs, for example, any different than the government denying any woman access to abortion, which the 14th amendment would not allow to begin with? It isn’t.

    Wouldn’t this mean that a lawsuit could be filed against the federal government every time the government declines, or otherwise delays access to, a medical procedure for any of us? Would this not be the same violation of the constitutional protections offered by the 14th Amendment for abortions?

    In court case after court case, the 14th Amendment has been the pro-choice crowd’s battle cry. When a New York law threatened to limit access to contraceptives, Planned Parenthood of New York spoke out, saying such laws “are dangerous to women’s health because they interfere with the doctor-patient relationship and ignore a woman’s medical needs and decisions.” And when a Florida law was proposed to require doctors to perform ultrasounds prior to any abortion, Planned Parenthood of Florida objected, saying that it violates the “doctor-patient relationship”.

    But still these abortions rights proponents are hypocritically silent on the Obama healthcare initiative. The 14th Amendment argument is their “bread and butter”. It is what they rely upon, through the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship, to ensure that a woman’s right to choose an abortion is a decision made between her and her doctor, without the government in the middle. That’s why it seems hypocritical for these proponents to stand idly by, even as Obama-care would allow the government to interfere in EVERY healthcare decision between every woman (as well as every man and child) and their doctor.

    I suppose the pro-choice crowd is willing to sacrifice their own principles, even much of the constitutional protection afforded their cause, in order to please Obama. It looks like the rest of the country may not be so concerned, however. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, taken late last month, indicated that 42% of Americans now call the healthcare initiative “a bad idea”. This rushed and ill-conceived healthcare initiative is obviously suffering from declining health itself.

    The Constitutional protection of the doctor-patient relationship can legally defeat this disastrous and dangerous healthcare initiative, which appears to be neither about health nor care. But now you see why those abortion rights proponents could be in bed together with those that oppose Obama-care. Surprisingly, though, the abortion rights proponents aren’t. So far, they’ve just chosen to sleep out on the sofa instead. I’d like to say that this is just as well for the rest of us…but this issue is more than about one’s politics or religion…it’s a matter of life or death, if anyone in Congress would bother to read the bill.

     

  • Be Vigilant

    Be Vigilant

    July 8, 2009

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    When is saying “no,” really “yes”? Let me explain. If you are like me, you probably find yourself saying “no” more often these days than usual. “No” to continued deficit spending by the federal government, “no” to government-run health care, “no” to higher and higher taxes, “no” to the redistribution of wealth by the government…the list seemingly goes on and on.

    But we are positive-thinking people, you may say. For us, the glass may always be half-full. Every day may not be good, but there’s something good in every day. Every cloud has a silver lining. Our attitude determines our altitude. We turn lemons into lemonade, and when one door closes, another one opens. If we can dream it, by golly, we can do it. A positive anything is better than negative nothing.

    So you understand, then, how weary it is for us, you and me, as well as millions of our fellow Americans to wake-up each day, and make a difference, in the direction our country is traveling, in a world that seemingly is spinning in the opposite direction. There’s just too many opportunities, these days, for common-sense thinking folks, where saying “no” seems the only rational response to the constant barrage of policy initiatives from this administration, even from millions of Americans who ordinarily believe the sun will come out tomorrow. What we are really saying is that we are “for” a better way…a better day.

    The chorus of “no” to the policy initiatives from this administration has become so routine that Democrat talking points now repeatedly characterize the Republican Party as the “Party of No.” But that’s just not true. Is the absence of debate, or opposing viewpoint, now the standard by which we measure our love of country or the wisdom of our ideas? How can this be? After all, in the words of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter.”

    And that’s the truth. Consider parenting, for example. We tell our children, as our parents told us, the wisdom of what they should not do. That they should not stay up until midnight on a school night. They should not eat a candy bar before dinner, or talk with their mouth full. That if they cannot say anything nice about someone, then they should not say anything at all. That they should not put all their eggs in one basket. Sure, it may not have made as much sense to us as children, but for most of us, it made much better sense to us all grown up. Mark Twain said it best: “When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished at how much he had learned in seven years.”

    For those whose ideology is different than the current administration’s tendencies of socialism, the road ahead is a long one and you may already have grown tired of saying “no.” But as a child, what if your parents had given up on saying “no” to you? What if they had given into silence about the things that matter? Grown weary of the debates and disciplining that shaped who you are today? Frankly, as a child, being told “no” taught us responsibility, honesty, and manners. It taught us that we have choices in life and that there was a difference between what we may have wanted…and what we may have needed.

    You see, the way I figure it, saying “no” is about defending our country against the policy initiatives, from the left side of the aisle to the other side of the globe, that seek to destroy our American free market system, dismantle private health insurance, redistribute wealth, increase taxes, reward irresponsibility, and redefine the American dream.

    If Republicans are relegated as belonging to the party of “no,” then count me in. Historically, honest discourse and opposition, by Republicans, to ill-conceived or unattractive Democratic policies resounds with voters. It led to Republican landslides in 1938, 1946, 1966, 1980, and 1994.

    When you grow weary of saying “no,” or uncomfortable expressing your opinion on this matter or that, from the barber shop to the coffee shop, remember the words of James Madison when he said, “I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” When the road seems long and your eyes have grown tired, remember the words of Thomas Jefferson when said, “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” Be vigilant. Stay informed. Your country needs you now…perhaps more than it ever did.