Many are quite poignant and timely. Some are quite educational and eye-opening. Most are just blatant requests for more campaign contributions. My wife and I give small amounts to the causes we support – and that includes the president’s campaign – but we’re rarely swayed by any advertisements or pleas we get by email.

On the other hand, I just got an email from the president a few minutes ago. Whether he personally wrote it or not is a non-issue. I know it’s in his words and expresses exactly how he feels. My wife and I saw him on TV earlier today using almost the same words in his announcement to the nation. This is an important and history making statement that everyone should read. His announcement today is another major step toward full civil rights in this country – and long overdue.

Remember this day.

Here’s his email:

John –

Today, I was asked a direct question and gave a direct answer:

I believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

I hope you’ll take a moment to watch the conversation, consider it, and weigh in yourself on behalf of marriage equality:

http://my.barackobama.com/Marriage

I’ve always believed that gay and lesbian Americans should be treated fairly and equally. I was reluctant to use the term marriage because of the very powerful traditions it evokes. And I thought civil union laws that conferred legal rights upon gay and lesbian couples were a solution.

But over the course of several years I’ve talked to friends and family about this. I’ve thought about members of my staff in long-term, committed, same-sex relationships who are raising kids together. Through our efforts to end the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, I’ve gotten to know some of the gay and lesbian troops who are serving our country with honor and distinction.

What I’ve come to realize is that for loving, same-sex couples, the denial of marriage equality means that, in their eyes and the eyes of their children, they are still considered less than full citizens.

Even at my own dinner table, when I look at Sasha and Malia, who have friends whose parents are same-sex couples, I know it wouldn’t dawn on them that their friends’ parents should be treated differently.

So I decided it was time to affirm my personal belief that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

I respect the beliefs of others, and the right of religious institutions to act in accordance with their own doctrines. But I believe that in the eyes of the law, all Americans should be treated equally. And where states enact same-sex marriage, no federal act should invalidate them.

If you agree, you can stand up with me here.

Thank you,

Barack

President Obama – My wife and I stand with you on this. Thank you for having the courage to come out and make your position known to the world. I know that you did it because you knew it was the right thing to do. It was the only right thing to do.

You may lose some votes in November because you’ve taken this stand. You may lose some support in Congress because you’ve finally removed all doubt about where you stand on the issue of Civil Rights. I know that you believe that Civil Rights should apply to all persons – not just blacks, Hispanics, Asians, or any other ethnic or racial class of people. Civil Rights should apply to everyone including the disabled, veterans, homosexuals, atheists, and yes – even women!

You will face a lot of opposition on this. That’s OK. You know that you’re right and they’re wrong. History will vindicate you no matter what happens in the coming election. With this one decision – this one announcement – in my book you’ve earned your place as not only one of the “great presidents of all time,” but potentially one of the “great men” in history. I doubt if the importance of what you’ve said will be fully recognized in my lifetime, but I’m sure that my grandchildren will think of you the way I think of President Kennedy, the way my parents thought of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and the way my grandparents thought of President Lincoln.

Let’s face it. All you had to do to join that pantheon of historic human beings was to simply do the right thing. You took a stand for freedom and equality so that all American citizens can actually live free. That was the promise of our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. Until now, that promise was mostly a hollow one. You’ve changed that.

Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you…

There’s nothing wrong with being rich. Most Americans dream of being rich someday. We admire the “rich and famous.” Some of us dedicate our lives to achieving great wealth. Mitt Romney makes absolutely no apologies for his net worth of hundreds of millions of dollars.

America is very tolerant of rich people. We often hold them up for special honors and awards for no other reason than that they are rich. Mitt Romney and his family fall into that category. Romney is not a war hero, a doctor, an educator, a movie star, or famous author. Yes, he was a somewhat successful governor in Massachusetts for one term and helped organize the 2002 Winter Olympics, but now he’s just a really rich fellow. That fact, and that fact only, automatically gives him some level of fame.

Romney’s immense wealth came to him partly from his late father (George Romney) and generous family inheritance. He’s earned many huge paydays from his ownership and high management position at Bain Capital.  Much of his current wealth comes from investments in the stock and bond markets.

Even though Romney’s wealth is not ill-gotten, it is causing him some problems from a political standpoint. Whenever he mentions his wealth, he often seems to be bragging about it. He acts like he has so much money that it means nothing to him. When he mentioned that he earned “only $374,000″ one year for making a few speeches and that “wasn’t very much at all,” many in the crowd recognized that type of money as a small fortune – maybe more than they and their families had made in their entire lifetimes.

In another speech he mentioned that he is “not concerned about the very poor” because “they have a safety net.” When he made an off-the-cuff comment that his wife Ann “drives a couple of Cadillacs,” he made it sound like no big deal. “A couple of Cadillacs” are a big deal for the working poor who are trying to keep their old (and often uninsured) Volkswagens and Plymouths running for another year.

To Romney’s credit, he also stated that he also wasn’t worried about the very rich. “They are doing very well,” he revealed – a gross understatement.

Romney has created an image of himself as someone who simply doesn’t care about money because he has so much of it. He is rich enough that he’ll never have to worry about where his next meal will come from, whether he can afford a tank of gas for each of his wife’s two Cadillac cars, or if he can pay for an extended stay in the hospital. He’s created a damaging stereotype for himself as a very rich man who simply does not have a care in the world – except for his desire to become the most powerful human in the universe.

Romney’s blunders and gaffes reinforce a traditional Republican weakness – the impression that they don’t care about the poor, the sick, immigrants, or the under-educated. Romney makes it clear that above all others he supports people like himself – the “very rich” who lack for nothing except political power.

Primary voting trends seem to show that Romney’s lack of concern for working-class voters is driving them toward supporting President Obama. Throughout the primaries, Romney held a clear lead among college-educated whites while under performing among all other voter categories. On the other hand, Obama has made gains among most working-class voters, except for those who are hard-line Tea Party supporters in the south and Midwest.

Romney’s  jokes about his being currently “unemployed,” or of being worried a couple of times that he might “get a pink slip” fell flat and only damaged his standing among those really out of work. For many Americans, a pink slip means not paying the rent, buying food, or going to the doctor. Romney will always be able to buy or pay for anything he wants – even if he’s not drawing a paycheck. Romney’s patronizing empathy is offensive to everyone except those like him, the very rich.

In order to have any chance of winning the presidency, Romney will need to direct his attention to the needs of poor and middle class Americans. He’ll have to look at the overall health of the economy, not just more tax breaks for the wealthy or less regulation for huge financial firms and energy companies. Romney will have to say something about improving education, making college more affordable, and expanding the workforce. He has to make it clear that the real goal of most Americans is to have a regular job that promises some level of promotional opportunity. They don’t necessarily expect to ever be as rich as he is, but they would like to know that they can buy food, put a roof over their heads, and have medical care available when needed. They would also like to take a vacation every so often, even if it’s only the Grand Canyon or Mount Rushmore – rather than the Champs d’ Elysee.

Romney needs to clearly show his commitment to spread the wealth outside of his own group of “one percenters” by moving away from the Paul Ryan economic plan. Until he proves that he understands that the wealthiest among us, including him and his family, must share some of their wealth with the rest of Americans who need a helping hand, he will never meet his one last goal. No matter how rich he is or will be, he’ll never become the “most powerful human in the universe.”

Maybe Romney is just “too rich” to be elected president in 2012. He’s likely to be beaten by a man with only “moderate wealth.” His great wealth may just end up being spent by his heirs or given to charity. Because he can’t relate to the average American, Romney will likely end up being just another very rich old “former presidential candidate” like Barry Goldwater, John McCain, Robert Dole, Thomas Dewey, Ross Perot, Al Gore, and John Kerry.

I don’t consider myself a political expert in a professional sense, but I have been a close observer of American politics since the mid-1960s. I have my preferences for the next national election, but because I only represent one vote, my opinion will bear no significance to the final result  in the Electoral College.

At this stage of my life, I tend to disapprove of most politicians based on my own views of fact and logic. Although I have a long history of voting for Republican candidates, I’ve come to the realization that the GOP has lost all credibility and its traditional sense of fair play.

By alienating most major groups of American voters, the Republican Party has guaranteed that on November 6th, President Obama will win in a landslide.

Here are my reasons for expecting an easy win for Obama:

• Our economy continues to improve, depriving the Republicans of their most powerful issue. The government recently reported that economic growth we experienced in late 2011 continued into the first quarter of 2012. We can only imagine what the expansion might have been if the Republicans in Congress had not blocked most of the President’s stimulus programs.
• Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, and disgraced former House Leader Newt Gingrich have all tried to outdo each other in alienating crucial independent voters by concentrating on divisive social issues rather than offering proposals for improving the economy.
• Romney has allowed himself to be typecast as a wealthy businessman out of touch with most working-class Americans. A Pew poll asked if Romney “understands the needs of people like you.” Only 31 percent agreed; 60 percent didn’t. He continues to hurt himself with comments like “corporations are people too,” and “I like to be able to fire people.” Bragging about his wife’s two Cadillacs, and elevators for his cars, only isolates him further from the middle class and makes the Obama family seem more middle American and normal.
• Although he removed himself from the Republican presidential primaries on April 10, Rick Santorum may still try to find a spot as vice-president. He might be a fatal to Romney’s chances because he is regarded by both moderates and independents as an extreme social conservative with one real goal: imposing his strict and impractical religious beliefs and moral codes on the entire nation. He shows absolutely no respect for the president because of his unapologetic use of name-calling and unsupported accusations. Santorum’s reference to the president as a “snob”( in connection with Obama’s support of college education for all young Americans) made him look out of touch and un-presidential.
• Finally, the Republican House of Representatives will act as Obama’s “whipping boy.” The public’s low esteem for Congress (especially the House of Representatives) has fallen to the lowest levels since Truman’s administration. Over 75 percent of Americans think most members of Congress should not be re-elected. Only 10 percent think congressional Republicans have had a positive effect on the country, compared to about 30 percent for Democrats.
• Republican governors in major battleground states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Virginia have gone out of their way to approve legislation that drastically reduces or eliminates women’s reproductive and health rights. Republican legislatures have tried to restrict voting rights for both unions and regular citizens and stand in the way of marriage rights for non-conforming couples.

During the primaries, Republican presidential candidates systematically destroyed each other in the most aggressive ways. Polls should have shown a total collapse in support for the GOP by this stage of the campaign. Surprisingly, they haven’t yet, but whatever support the Republican Party had from women, minorities, and independents is evaporating at alarming rates.

If the national vote was to be held today, Obama would likely win in a landslide. The real question is whether Republicans have damaged themselves enough to erode their power in Congress.

President Obama seems to be comfortably ahead among all groups except Tea Party leaning conservatives and evangelical Christians. Because of their influence in the south and Midwest, the outcome isn’t certain. Even an overwhelming popular vote might not prevent a possible Electoral College upset. Historically, that has never happened to an incumbent president and is extremely unlikely this year.

Republicans should be less concerned about defeating President Obama and more focused on reconstructing and repairing their credibility in time for the 2014 and 2016 elections. They have a lot of work ahead of them.

"I can do it cheaper than Obama can."

Here is a link to the Obama-Biden campaign website that details some of the direct benefits to you from the Affordable Care Act.

Whenever his opponents remind him during debates that “Obamacare” was based in part on his “Romneycare,” Romney denies the facts and paints Obama’s version as “government intrusion into personal rights.”

Should Mitt Romney become our next president, what can we expect him to do with Medicare, Medicaid, and the health care improvements that have already gone into effect under the new federal law? We’ve already heard what he promises to do to women’s health care and reproductive medical rights. He seems likely to take away some of the advances rather than expanding personal rights and liberty.

What are the facts about “Romney Care”?  And what are his plans for government sponsored medical insurance plans for the next eight years should he be elected? I suggest that we let Governor Mitt Romney speak for himself:

Romney Care Vs Obamacare

The Success Of Romney Care

2011: Romney And Individual Mandate

2007: Romney's Individual Mandate

Romney Explains Himself

They’ve agreed that “life begins at conception” and would severely limit the use of contraception or therapeutic abortion. All of the GOP candidates have applauded Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell for signing a new state law that forces women to undergo unnecessary and unpleasant testing that could require their doctors to use vaginal probes. They’ve also voiced their support for other Republican state governors who are about to approve similar laws.

While repeatedly chanting “liberty” and “freedom” as being major goals of their campaigns, they freely admit support the elimination or reduction of many existing rights of women, union members, and gays and lesbians. They even propose banning certain marriages and adoptions, restricting voting rights, and denying a college education to children of immigrants and poorer citizens.

While they proclaim that “every life is precious,” Republicans are also pushing for continued military involvement in Afghanistan, a possible return to Iraq, direct engagement in Syria, and a potential future war with Iran. These are actions that will lead to both military and innocent civilian lives being lost on both sides. Apparently “sanctity of life” applies only to unborn American babies, not to soldiers and foreign populations.

Republican candidates express their support for expanded use of the death penalty and more limitations on appeal processes for convicted felons.  Texas, Alabama, Georgia and Ohio – all states with Republican Governors – have continued to lead the nation in the number of criminal executions – and yet all reportedly support restrictive “Right to Life” anti-abortion laws.

Even Mitt Romney, considered the most moderate of the current Republican candidates, seems to have gone over to the “dark side” of right-to-life politics. In 1994 he made his policy clear when he stated emphatically, “I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate.” But during the current campaign he’s flipped 180 degrees. “I am pro-life and believe that abortion should be limited to only instances of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.” Then he clarified why he felt his position was even more conservative than his opponents, “I support the reversal of Roe v. Wade, because it is bad law and bad medicine. Roe was a misguided ruling that was a result of a small group of activist federal judges legislating from the bench. I support the Hyde Amendment, which broadly bars the use of federal funds for abortions. And as President, I will support efforts to prohibit federal funding for any organization like Planned Parenthood, which primarily performs abortions or offers abortion-related services.”

Candidates Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, both coming from conservative Catholic backgrounds, have stated clearly that they stand in support of the “personhood amendments” popping up in several southern and mid-western states. Those amendments state that as soon as a woman’s fertilized egg  becomes a zygote, it has the same legal rights as a fully developed human being. That position effectively defines birth control and all other forms of therapeutic abortion a “criminal act” on the same level as murder and manslaughter. What freedom does this extend to women and married couples who wish to practice birth control or to end a pregnancy early?

If the Republican candidates really believe in freedom and sanctity of life, they will let everyone (including women) make their own decisions about their bodies and their families.  Catholics and other conservative Christians are still free not to use condoms, birth control pills, or have abortions. All citizens would still have the freedom to follow their religious ethics as they have before. But anyone else, including those who profess to be Catholics or conservative Christians, should also be allowed to use any (or all) medically safe family planning procedures – without the federal or state governments telling them what they may or may not to do legally.

If Republicans really believe in the “sanctity of life” they should:

• Resist supporting foreign wars that do not involve direct threats to our homeland.
• Vote to end all criminal executions and opt for life sentences without possibility of parole.
• Provide health care funding as needed for all pre-natal and post-natal care to promote healthy children and families.
• Change their positions on government provided health care services so that more people can live longer and healthier lives.
• Take strong positions against smoking and obesity – the primary causes of death at all ages.
• Move to restore gun control laws and expand restrictions for felons and mentally ill persons.

All I am asking for is some standard of consistency that a majority of Americans can support.  Republicans seem intent on forcing us all to conform to their conservative evangelical Christian beliefs. They prefer religious mythology and “faith-based” ethics to modern science, technology, and progressive societal structures. They need to wake up and try to understand that many Americans, including some who profess to be Christians, don’t actually believe in “heaven and hell” or an angry god that will punish women for taking a “morning after pill.”

It’s time for the Republican party and its presidential candidates to come out of the 19th century and join the rest of us in the second decade of the 21st. Until they do, we can all wonder why any woman of child-bearing age or their family members would vote for the GOP.

George Carlin points out inconsistencies (some obscenities)…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvF1Q3UidWM

I read the book twice in January 2012 and decided to put Fuhrman’s assertions to the test. Eight weeks later, I lost twenty-five pounds and felt great. At 68-years of age, I consider that a major accomplishment. Yes, I’m a believer, but not a “diet fanatic.” My goal was to improve my health; the weight loss was a residual benefit.

I highly recommend Eat to Live. First and foremost, readers will rid themselves of a lot of things they know about nutrition “that ain’t so.” Then they can decide what changes make sense for them personally.

Thanks to Dr. Fuhrman’s advice, I now start my day out with a bowl of mixed fruits. It could be a combination of bananas, kiwis, strawberries, blueberries, red grapes, blackberries, raspberries or blackberries, whatever I can get at the local market. I top that with a generous sprinkle of walnut baking pieces and a tablespoon of ground flaxseed. Yummy! That holds me until I split an apple with my wife in the early afternoon. Suppers include a good fresh salad and a generous portion of steamed broccoli or asparagus along with fish or chicken as the main dish.

I have also taken a liking to making meatless bean or lentil soups that serve as snacks during the day. I try to rid the crisper of vegetables and leftovers and I have learned how to add kale to my chili powder, cumin laced soups, making them thick and satisfying. I seldom eat bread or potatoes anymore, although I do eat more green vegetables, fruits, and raw leafy greens everyday than I have ever done before.

For readers looking for helpful healthy recipes, Dr. Fuhrman does not disappoint. He definitely knows how to make the nutritious fruits, vegetables, nuts and beans that he recommends eating just as tasty as the foods that I once thought I could not live without.

Dr. Fuhrman explains why his food recommendations work…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kTKzjBfPkM

His advice might apply more to the Republican Party in some ways more than it ever did to me. The most prominent members of the GOP still seem to want to promote the eight years of the Bush Administration as taking the country in the “right direction” while it actually lead us over the steep falls of war, economic failure, and a near destruction of our Constitutional rights.

I would like to think that all is not lost for the Republican Party and that last November’s [2008] disastrous election will not really mark the end of their influence. This country needs all the checks and balances available to it, especially in Congress, but unless the GOP changes course it is likely to find itself irrelevant for years to come.

For Republicans changing course will require a complete autopsy on their election losses and in some cases giving up long held positions that have been both divisive and destructive to the progress of the country. In some cases this will mean moving away from the direction that they have taken in the past and becoming a more centered party – even taking positions that they would have considered “left leaning” or “socialist” in the past.

At the moment, this change of philosophy and direction doesn’t look like something the Republicans still in power are willing to do. They not only choose to ignore the clear voice of the electorate, they also want to ignore the failings of their party leaders and the criminal acts of so many of their members.

Republican pundits and supporters seem to feel it is OK to punish a woman and her doctor for performing an abortion, but see nothing wrong with their own members of Congress who have been charged or convicted of criminal acts while in office – running for reelection (Ted Stevens, Randy Cunningham, Larry Craig).

Republican politicians and pundits are still promoting their position that the United States is actually a “center-right” nation that distrusts so-called “progressive” policies.

The real problem, according to them, is that President Bush and his administration abandoned the GOP’s philosophy of “limited government” and began to act like “big spending, pork barrelling Democrats.”

Let’s face it: If America was truly “center-right” in its preferred politics, then the candidacy of “center-right” Senator John McCain should have been more competitive – and possibly even successful.

Center-right: that’s what John McCain is, or has claimed to be. In his attempt to win the Republican presidential nomination, he was forced to swerve toward and embrace the Right that he disliked and that disliked him. As soon as he began to accept the support and created an uneasy alliance with the southern evangelical far-right – and especially after selecting Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential running mate – there was no way McCain could wrap the wide cloak of the “center” around his candidacy.

Many Republican conservatives feel their future superstars will be Sarah Palin and Jeb Bush. Unless Palin matures and gives up her mid-western vaudeville act and evangelical dogma, she will never be taken seriously as a leader by either the general public or Republican power-brokers. Former Florida Governor Jeb could eventually become the GOP party leader because of his great skills and experience – but he will forever be haunted and held back because of his being perceived as “another Bush.”

At the moment our electorate seems to be following its 200-year historical pattern of leaning between center-right and center-left. Since 2004 it has been clearly moving more to the left in response to Bush’s policy failures and Republican intransigence on some issues.

If President Obama and the Democratic controlled Congress is active and even somewhat successful in stimulating the economy by rebuilding our infrastructure, returning responsible regulation to Wall Street, ending the Iraq war, restoring Constitutional rights, and increasing our national energy resources using “green technologies,” the electorate will continue to abandon the Republican Party and continue to identify with progressive Democrats and centrist Independents.

My fear is the Bush era spendthrift and pork-barrel loving Republicans in Congress will suddenly remember that they are supposed to be supporting spending cuts and smaller government – throwing up their opposition to budgets and massive spending programs that will be needed to prevent our current recession from turning into another historic depression.

If they do – and the odds are high that they will try to stop Obama and Democrats at almost any cost – they are likely to find themselves out of a job or a part of a shrinking minority with little or no representation outside of southern intra-state politics. The Grand Old Party of Lincoln will continue to become disreputable and irrelevant unless and until it finds a new voice and new leaders with fresh ideas and a changed outlook.

The Republican party leadership seems to support a platform is so far out of touch with the rest of country on many of the major issues. Their stand on three issues, aside from the economy and the war in Iraq, seem to put them at odds with a vast majority of Americans: abortion rights, stem-cell research, and universal medical care.

The GOP has a few rising African-American office holders, but very few. Local Republican party organizations take pains to avoid supporting black or Hispanic candidates, so very few ever make it to the national stage. Those in the party that do have some skill and enjoy a small level of success are treated as “tokens” by the national leadership. By their own actions, Republicans have virtually written off two of the fastest growing voter populations for the foreseeable future.

I’ve voted for Republicans for most of my life, including George Bush in 2000. But Bush and the current crop of GOP party leaders and supporters have ruined it for me. I doubt, with the few years I have left, that they will ever get another vote from me – or a lot of other Americans.

I voted for you in November, 2008. I don’t apologize for being a big fan of your style, intelligence, and your dedication to being a good President. A lot of people, including some in my own family, think I’ve lost my mind or gone over to the “Dark Side” because I support you most of the time.

You have a particular talent as a public speaker. I won’t offer any advice to you on how you might improve your delivery, pronunciation, enunciation, or other presentational skills. I personally think that you are the best public speaker to live in the White House since President Ronald Reagan. Reagan had some professional training as an actor and TV host. I think your skill comes from the heart.

Let’s face the facts. If you had managed your presidential campaign like you have the Office of the President, you’d still be a junior Senator from Illinois. Hillary Clinton would probably be president this term – or, heaven forbid, John McCain. We’d all have remembered you only as “that good-looking young African-American fellow from Chicago that ran for President, but lost the primaries to John Edwards.”

Where is the fire in your belly? What happened to your insistence on sticking to the facts? Why won’t you immediately counter-punch whenever someone goes on Fox News and tells a bald-faced lie? When Representative Stupak comes out and says that the new Senate version of the healthcare bill “allows federal money to pay for abortions” – make him prove it.

Don’t just make a sissified statement like, “I’m sure that the Congressman is sincere in his beliefs, but we don’t want to hold up healthcare for the majority of Americans.” Make Stupak quote the chapter and verse in the Senate bill that supports his statement. Don’t avoid the issue to keep from hurting his feelings, attack the falsehood! Make him prove the facts of his statements!

It’s already been proven numerous times by several TV, radio, and newspaper commentators, House Leader Nancy Pelosi, and other prominent House and Senate leaders that the new bill specifically does not include any allowance for payments for abortions using federal money. However, a fair majority of American voters DO BELIEVE what Stupak is asserting. Why? It’s because you’ve avoided calling him out on the issue. You’ve lost the battle before it started because you refuse to shoot back or defuse the bomb that Stupak has dropped on healthcare reform.

All this does is to make voters like me, who have continued to support you all this time, wonder if your hands are also in the pockets of the big insurance cartel. If not, why won’t you speak up – loud and clear?

Instead of appealing for the support of the vast majority of people who voted for you and supported your plans to reform government, provide universal healthcare, and bring the war in Iraq to a close — you’ve been in Washington negotiating with special interest groups and wasting your time trying to appease the Republicans in Congress. They have made no secret that they despise you and have vowed to oppose you at every turn. Your choosing to ignore them has put the brakes on all the momentum you had when you were elected our President. By trying to be “Mr. Nice Guy” you’re barely treading water at this stage of your first term.

Well-funded opponents of health reform continue to gain ground by convincing the American middle-class that your plan is a false choice: Keep the healthcare plans they have now, or gamble on “Obama’s government takeover of healthcare with his socialist ideals and lose everything.”

You’re losing the battle because you’re still wasting your time trying to appeal to members of the Republican Party who hate you. Quit trying to be friends with the enemy. The truth is that they will not play your game and they don’t play fair. They don’t give a damn about America’s middle or low-income classes, only the insurance companies and their lobbyists who are financing their next election. You must take control and directly confront their cynicism and deceptions. Don’t be afraid to call them out on their lies and ties to the insurance industry, Mr. President.

If roles were reversed and the Republicans were still in power, do you think they would be playing nice with a minority of Democrats? Well? Did they play nice during the Bush Administration? How many bills did they pass using “Reconciliation” in the Senate?

Mr. President – you must explain clearly and forthrightly that a financially secure future for middle-class families, and for the entire nation, depends on reforming the entire health care industry and finding ways to control its runaway costs before it bankrupts the country and each and every individual.

It’s ironic that middle-class families have the most to lose if healthcare reform fails to pass. The problem is that most of them have yet to realize that fact. You’ve got to impress upon them what personal and financial pain they have to look forward to if you fail in your quest for universal, low-cost healthcare.

Without reform, it has been estimated that in ten years premiums for the average family’s health insurance coverage will cost nearly $25,000 per annum, and that’s based on current low inflationary rates. According to the nonpartisan Commonwealth Fund, rates could reach as high as $30,000, pricing all but the wealthiest families completely out of the health insurance market. With costs that high, most medium and small businesses will be unable to afford to contribute anything toward subsidized health insurance plans for their employees.

The very rich can afford the best available health care with or without private or public insurance. Unfortunately, the American middle class, even those who are comfortable with their present insurance coverage, could soon find themselves under-insured or unable to get any affordable insurance coverage.

Your Republican and Fox News opponents are buying hundreds of daily sound bites accusing your program of being “socialized medicine” and allowing a “government takeover” of the “best healthcare system in the world!” They accuse you of wanting to set up “death panels” and using government bureaucrats to deny quality healthcare to the elderly and the sickest among us. They present this as a future probability under your plan, while at this very moment insurance companies are doing this every day in every state to every class of patient. Insurance companies are already making decisions about patients’ health care with only one objective: increasing insurance company profits.

I hate to admit it, but the Republican Party and Fox News’ decision to promote lies and half-truths are working – and continue to destroy your standing with American voters in all parts of the country. Why? Because so far you’ve refused to take a stand for truth and justice for middle-class and average working families. So far you have done far too little to effectively counter those charges. I sometimes wonder if you really care. Is your heart really in the fight?

Mr. President – now is the time to speak out forcefully against the liars and propagandists in and out of the political arena. Make it clear that simply because they wrap an American flag around their shoulders and carry a King James Bible in their hands, that does not make everything your opponents say “The Truth.” They have to realize that it’s not just for the maintenance of your political reputation that you should come out and force the truth to be told. After all, healthcare reform is for the benefit of those very same Bible-thumping, flag-waving, tea-bagging Republicans – and for the rest of us who depend on affordable access to doctors, clinics, and hospitals when the need arises.

If your healthcare reform programs fail, it will be the middle-class and low-income families, the very people who tend to believe most of the Republican Party’s lies, who will ultimately pay the highest price for the least amount of healthcare.

Help them. Help us all. Fight for us, Mr. President!

Both political parties share responsibility for the flapdoodle, with the roots of the problem appearing well before the bill passed. Among them were the lack of objective debate; ambiguous wording of the voluminous 1,017-page bill; wide disagreement between Democrats on how to implement universal health care; Washington making side deals to purchase passage of the law; and the President’s inability to frame objectives for reform in easy-to-understand language.

To add insult to injury, we are bombarded with misinformation about the Law. If Mark Twain were alive today, he might have diagnosed our problem as: “What gets most Americans into trouble in this health care debate is not that they know so little, but that they know so many things that ain’t so.”

Giving credibility to borrowing Twain’s assertion are polls showing an alarmingly disproportionate number of Americans believe these things that ain’t so, including fabrications such as the new health care law covers illegal immigrants; Americans have no choice in the health benefits they receive; death panels will decide who lives; the government will set doctors’ wages; and no chemo treatment for older Medicare patients.

Per PolitiFact, the number one that ain’t so for 2010, because virtually every Republican leader told it repeatedly to the American public, was: the health care reform law is a “government takeover of health care.”

The facts show that the 2010 Health Care Reform Law does not allow the government to operate the health care system. Unlike Canada, England and numerous European countries, public-sector or private-sector insurance companies are responsible for operations. The truth is: the current health care reform law provides (95%) universal coverage through regulated private markets.

So what do we do? Accept the Law as currently written? Tweak it to improve it? Repeal it? And if so, what do we replace it with? If the “individual mandate,” requiring everyone to have health insurance by 2014, is deemed unconstitutional, is it possible to have universal coverage? And who pays for the medical costs of the uninsured? What happens to the one in seven Americans who did not have or could not afford health insurance before the 2010 Law? Is it still possible to have universal health care by dramatically lowering the age of Medicare?

Whatever answers we eventually embrace as a country, it’s important for well-informed citizens to honestly debate health care reform. But, before axing the Law—if that’s our country’s choice—or trying to answer the aforementioned questions, we need to objectively identify its pros and cons. Branding or demonizing it as “Obamacare” or “the work of liberals” does not make for constructive dialogue.

If a person wants unbiased information, several organizations not beholden to a political party or private interest group can provide help. A few of them are The Kaiser Family Foundation, Families USA, AARP, and Docs for America.

While I would like to see an amenable resolution to the health care issue, my motivation for writing this article incubated during the 2010 elections in southern Arizona. One candidate trying to unseat Gabrielle Giffords besieged the Tucson landscape with billboards reading, “Giffords forced Obamacare on You!” Many voters accepted this that ain’t so with little or no knowledge of the health care law and, they weren’t embarrassed by the lack of civil, constructive debate. After the assassination attempt on Gifford’ life, I vowed to do what I could to convince people that we need to have rules for civil debate if our democracy is going to work.

Postscript: As I prepared this article for a press release, I was pleased to see Bill Frist, a medical doctor and former Senate Majority Leader (R-Tenn.), telling his constituents that instead of mounting an effort to repeal the Health Reform Law, Republicans should use it as a “platform” for improvements. He further stated that the law has elements that Republicans should be able to get behind, particularly its “federalism” approach to providing health care. “(The Law) has many strong elements, and those elements, whatever happens, need to be preserved, need to be cuddled, need to be snuggled, need to be promoted and need to be implemented.”

After I saw the entire documentary, “The Big Buy: How Tom DeLay Stole Congress,” I was left wondering if our government is really “of the people, by the people, and for the people” – or if practically all levels of government, both state and federal, are controlled by corporations and big money contributors. After watching this documentary, I think I know the answer.

Our elected representatives may say they place their votes for “the good of their districts” or “for the country as a whole.” In reality most of them decide how to vote for the benefit of corporate interests who are willing to pay for their campaigns and entertainment. Tom DeLay is a near perfect example of this principle.

Tom DeLay was forced out of office because he did the “Texas Two-step” with the law. In Texas, as in many other states, corporate political contributions can not legally be accepted for local or state political campaigns. DeLay found ways to not only get around the law, but also chose to simply ignore it. His successful use of corporate money resulted in his ability to become the most powerful politician in Texas. Eventually, his lobbying led to an off-year redistricting of congressional districts in Texas that changed the balance of power in the Texas state legislature – and ultimately the United States House of Representatives.

Now Tom DeLay is a disgraced “former member” of the U.S. House of Representatives, where he served from 1984 until 2006. He was Republican Party House Majority Leader from 2003–2005, when his legal problems forced him to step down.

In 2005, a Texas court charged DeLay with criminal violations of state campaign finance laws and money laundering. DeLay pled not guilty, claiming political motivation for the charges. The prosecutor has yet to bring the case before a jury. Two of DeLay’s aides were convicted in the Jack Abramoff scandal. Although closely associated with Abramoff, Delay was not legally implicated in that scandal.

He began his career as a politician in 1978 when he ran for Texas House of Representatives. Once referred to as “Hot Tub Tom” because of his drinking and partying ways, he claimed to have become a born-again Christian in the mid-1980s. He now calls himself a “Pentecostal Christian.” As House Majority Whip, he helped Newt Gingrich lead the so-called “Republican Revolution,” pushing the Contract for America, which led to Democrats losing their majorities in Congress for the first time in forty years.

Delay helped start the “K Street Project,” a maneuver to pressure Washington lobbying firms to hire only Republicans in top positions, and then reward loyal GOP lobbyists with direct access to influential officials.

Elected House Majority Leader after the 2002 midterm elections, he enforced party discipline and direct retribution against any GOP members of Congress who did not support the agenda of President George W. Bush.

Known as a staunch conservative during his years in Congress, he earned high marks from conservative interest groups. Even though he has been under indictment for almost four years, DeLay is still considered a hero by the conservative movement and even by most Republicans. There is a general consensus by the Republican faithful that if he hasn’t been convicted of anything yet, then the charges are political in nature – in spite of the fact that many of his associates were also charged and several actually convicted.

I looked to see if the documentary was available at another time or on another channel, but finally found it on Netflix.com. I used my privileges as a subscriber to watch the entire movie online. I found it to be very informative, not only about DeLay and his scandals,  but also the recent workings of the Republican Party.

Tom DeLay managed to change the balance of political power in Texas for years to come – and also that of the national Republican Party. Almost all the issues with the GOP that finally drove me away from the party several years ago can be traced directly to DeLay and Newt Gingrich – and now to their successors, John Boehner and Eric Cantor.

Trailer for “The Big Buy: How Tom DeLay Stole Congress”. . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEeigH-IwkM

I strongly suggest that you rent this DVD or watch it online no matter what your political persuasion might be. If you are a progressive or independent, you will probably be disgusted with what you learn. If you are a conservative or moderate Republican, you may discover how the current Republican Party lost its way, as well as the origins of the modern conservative party that is now trying to take over the GOP.