AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Racism can be a form of discrimination but discrimination is not a synonym for racism nor 'reverse-discrimination' and synonmy for 'reverse-racism' as Wikipedia attempted to make it.

Whatever it's called, racism is racism. Direct or reverse, it's the same thing. All races discriminate; some more than others.

Individualism is discrimination based on liberty.

Health Insurers Fear Probe By House Dems Is Reprisal for Opposing Part of Obama's Plan

Reps. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Bart Stupak, D-Mich., sent a letter warning health insurers that the House Energy and Commerce Committee is "examining executive compensation and other business practices of the health industry."
Wednesday, August 19, 2009

In a move some fear is a reprisal for opposing President Obama's health care plan, Democrats sent 52 letters to health insurers requesting financial records for a House committee's investigation.

Reps. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Bart Stupak, D-Mich., sent a letter warning health insurers that the House Energy and Commerce Committee is "examining executive compensation and other business practices of the health industry."

Waxman, chairman of the committee, and Stupak, chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee did not inform their Republican counterparts of their plans.

Health insurers have until Sept. 4 to provide Congress a detailed list of every employee who made over a $1 million dollars a year between 2003 and 2008. Democrats also want documents about conferences and any events held off company property as well as the types of transportation, lodging, food, entertainment and even gifts exchanged.

Raising the intimidation stakes: the Waxman letter offers insurers no explanation of what is being investigated or why.

Industry insiders fear the beginning of reprisals for anyone daring to dissent from the Obama agenda. One said it feels like a reprisal audit by the IRS.

With raucous health care town halls unfolding nationwide during the August congressional recess and polls showing increased opposition to a government-run insurance program or "public option," neither Waxman nor Stupak nor their staffs would comment on this story. But it's no secret that Democrats blame anti-reform ads on the private health insurance industry and its supporters.

Private health insurers warn that a public option could put them at a competitive disadvantage and even out of business, but they insist they support health care reform in general.

A spokesman for Stupak told The Associated Press Tuesday night that 52 letters had been sent to health insurers with $2 billion or more in annual premiums. He said letters were not dispatched to other industry groups, some of which have been airing television advertising in support of Obama's call for legislation.

But Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for the American Health Insurance Plans, said Democrats on the panel hoped to "silence the health insurance industry and distract attention away from the fact that the American people are rejecting a government-run plan" as part of Obama's planned overhaul.

Zirkelbach said it would be up to individual companies to decide whether to turn the records over.

Spokesmen for three large insurance companies, Aetna, UnitedHealth Group Inc. and WellPoint Inc., confirmed the firms had received the letters but declined comment.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/19/health-insurers-fear-probe-house-dems-reprisal-opposing-obamas-plan/

Foxfyre, we are in substantial agreement. I wonder which would be less dificult:
(1) developing a conservative party to our mutual satisfaction; or,
(2) developing the Republican party to our mutual satisfaction.

Neither seems practical to me. I think that based on Obama's unstopped political dance (and I did not mean stance), I think it would be a whole lot easier--but still very difficult--to convince Republican 2010 candidates to run on a platform of impeaching Obama.

Make no mistake, a revolution is required to restore America, but it's a revolution that can be fought with the weapons of democracy. This is not a call to arms or violence--it is a call to once again tether ourselves to our core principles and values. Treachery and treason abound from those who profess allegiance to America. Truth, the "first casualty of war," is in short supply--make it your polestar.

I think Glen Beck agrees with you!

Glen Beck in his book, Common Sense, page 90, wrote:

Make no mistake, a revolution is required to restore America, but it's a revolution that can be fought with the weapons of democracy. This is not a call to arms or violence--it is a call to once again tether ourselves to our core principles and values. Treachery and treason abound from those who profess allegiance to America. Truth, the "first casualty of war," is in short supply--make it your polestar.

I think Glen Beck agrees with you!

Glen Beck in his book, Common Sense, page 90, wrote:

Make no mistake, a revolution is required to restore America, but it's a revolution that can be fought with the weapons of democracy. This is not a call to arms or violence--it is a call to once again tether ourselves to our core principles and values. Treachery and treason abound from those who profess allegiance to America. Truth, the "first casualty of war," is in short supply--make it your polestar.

However, I have a question:
How shall we best restore our government to Constitutional principles without first removing the leader of the opponents of those principles?

I don't think so since I don't know a single person, other than you, who thinks that is the way to proceed or who would not be offended by those who attempted such. I myself would be offended by such an attempt. I think any such attempt would trigger a fight that would split the conservative base with the lion's share going to those who do not want impeachment, even as a theory. The base can ill afford to lose those who would vote for impeachment though.

Bottom line, there are many of us who thought the GOP hurt itself impeaching President Clinton for an offense that did not rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors and that did not meet criteria sufficient for conviction. And President Clinton's offenses were documented crimes not sanctioned by Congress--crimes that would hold up in the courts. So far President Obama has committed no documented crimes not sanctioned by Congress or that would be upheld in the courts.

I want my party to be a) the majority and b) the party of integrity, responsibility,competence, inclusiveness, and reasonableness.

But I am open to be persuaded by anybody who can give me a convincing argument.