Sarah Palin is running for president. Make no mistake about it. Everything she says, everything she does is a clear indicator that Palin is not only the key figure in the resurgence of the conservative movement in this country, she expects to carry the torch all the way to Washington and light the flame of freedom from a tyrannical government out of control.

Palin was a hit at the Tea Party convention in Nashville. Her speech electrified everyone in attendance. She made it exceedingly clear that the Democrat agenda was 'running out of time' and that the Tea Party movement is part of a brewing "revolution" that constitutes the "future of politics."

Palin has firmly implanted herself with the Tea Partiers. She is one of them. "This is the future of our country. The tea party movement is the future of politics. America is ready for another revolution." she said.

And Palin will be the one leading that revolution.

Despite those detractors who consider her a lightweight, her message resonates with an increasingly growing group of disaffected Americans who are fed up with big government. She gets it. She understands that this very powerful grass roots movement must be led from the ground up, not the top down. She said that both political parties need to change the way they do business in Washington. And she warned that the Tea Party movement must not be defined by one leader.

But clearly, by pounding home this lesson, Palin is emerging as the front-runner to school the politicians on what the American people want. And what they want is fiscal responsibility, limited government, and a strong national security.

Palin voices the concerns that many Americans have that Barack Obama has dropped the ball in the war on terror. She questioned why Obama has reached out to hostile regimes, and apologized for America to dangerous dictators.

"What do we have to show for that?" Palin asked. "Here's what we have to show: North Korea tested nuclear weapons and long-range ballistic missiles. Israel, a friend and a critical ally, now questions strength of our support. Plans for a missile-defense system in Europe, they've been scrapped. Relations with China and Russia are no better. And relations with Japan – that key Asian ally – are in the worst shape in years."

Palin advocates for a strong national defense and an aggressive foreign policy toward our enemies. She also is very concerned, as are most Americans, about the way those who would seek to destroy our nation are being treated.

With regard to the upcoming terror trials of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and 9/11 plotters, Palin said "that's scares me, for my children, for your children. Treating this like a federal law enforcement matter places our country at grave risk because that's not how radical Islamic extremists are looking at this. They know we're at war, and to win that war, we need a commander in chief."

Palin has called for Eric Holder to resign.

In terms of fiscal restraint, Palin has made it clear that government spending is out of control.

"It's easy to understand why Americans are shaking their heads when Washington has broken trust with the people that these politicians are to be serving," Palin said. "They keep printing these dollars, and they keep making us more and more beholden to foreign countries. What they're doing in proposing these big new programs with giant price tags is they're sticking our kids with the bill. That's immoral. That's generational theft."

She may be folksy, but Sarah Palin is anything but naive when it comes to understanding the serious problems this nation is facing right now. To put at bay her critics who claim she lacks the gravitas to make a run for high political office, she now receives daily briefings on every issue both foreign and domestic. She will not allow herself to be caught off-guard by the lamestream media, who would seek to destroy her; and let not anyone fool themselves into thinking that they do not have that as their intention. The media is still in the tank for Obama and the Democrats, and any sign that a true leader is emerging from what they consider to be an astro turf rather than a grass roots movement, will be met with smears, character assassination and the politics of personal destruction.

Palin is a lot more savvy than she was during the 2008 presidential elections. She will not allow herself to be co-opted and used by any group for their own devices. Nor will she be relegated to the level of a waterboy for the Republican Party. She fully intends to control her own political destiny.

And that destiny includes running for president.

Listen to America Talks Saturdays at 10 am eastern time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks. Visit our website at www.americatalks.com.

Poor CBS. They are caught between a rock and hard place this week. And all for making two very correct programming decisions for which they may end up paying dearly.

First, executives in their Standards and Practices department accepted and ad from Focus on the Family celebrating Pam Tebow's decision in 1987 to give birth to her son Tim, despite the risk of losing her own life. She had contracted amoebic dysentery in the Philippines, while she was working as a missionary. She was treated with strong antibiotics, which doctors told her had caused fetal damage, and recommended that she abort the pregnancy. Tebow elected to go through with the pregnancy, and she ended up giving birth to a healthy boy, who has since gone on to win the Heisman Trophy.

Women's groups are up in arms over the decision to run this ad, despite the fact that they have not seen a screening of it. Pro-choice critics say that the ad threatens to "throw women under the bus."

Jehmu Greene, director of the Women's Media Center, said CBS should be forced to pull the ad because Focus on the Family " is extremely intolerant and divisive and pushing an un-American agenda."

Excuse me? Un-American? Since when is the celebration of life and family un-American? What these women's groups and others on the left should admit is that life, family and faith are all very much American values which they can't stand. It eats at the very core of their being, and they must do everything in their power to trash the very foundations on which this nation was founded.

CBS made the right decision on electing to run this ad. And they also made another correct decision in rejecting another ad for the Super Bowl by a gay dating website.

Mancrunch.com had wanted to run this ad where two men are shown watching the "big game". Their hands brush as they both reach into a bowl of chips. Suddenly, the two begin making out, much to the shock of a guy sitting close by.

The ad was rejected as being inappropriate by the Network’s Broadcast Standards for Super Bowl Sunday. Executives for the dating site charge discrimination. A representative for Mancrunch.com said “we are very disappointed that in 2010 such discrimination is happening especially given the fact that Focus on the Family is allowed to promote their way of life during the Super Bowl. “We're calling on every same-sex advocacy group to petition CBS and let them know this discriminatory behavior will not be tolerated.”

CBS is damned if they do and damned if they don't. They will obviously suffer for taking the moral high road in both cases. They may even face legal action by both aggrieved parties.

But they shouldn't.

The decisions regarding these two very different commercials were business decisions. And these choices should be left to the network. And yes, even had CBS ruled the other way regarding either of these ads, that should still have been their call. No individual or group should be able to hold any business hostage over the way they choose to run their enterprise, as long as the business is operating within the law. And because CBS is not supported by taxpayers like public TV, they are accountable only to their shareholders, not advocacy groups.

Yes, CBS should be applauded for the decisions regarding both of these ads. They may pay some consequences as a result.

But the choice must still be theirs.

Listen to America Talks Saturdays at 10 am eastern time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks. Visit our website at www.americatalks.com.

On Wednesday, Barack Obama will deliver his first State of the Union speech. This speech he gives is not by any means the one he planned to deliver.

Obama had grandiose dreams of delivering a speech in which he touted the major accomplishments of his first year in office, highlighted by the pinnacle of his successes, the infamous health care reform bill. Didn't happen.

The Senate is now in a total state of disarray, with the election of Scott Brown, a Republican, to fill the seat vacated by the late Ted Kennedy. Harry Reid and company could try to force the House to pass the Senate version of the bill as is, but Nancy Pelosi made it exceedingly clear that the votes are not there to push it through.

Obama also had hoped to report that his stimulus package saved or created 3 million jobs since he assumed the Oval Office. But with unemployment still hovering at 10 percent, and with the actual number being closer to 20 percent due to those no longer seeking work not being figured in to those numbers, another big chunk of his domestic agenda continues to flounder.

Obama had planned to report that our nation was safer under his presidency from the threat of terrorism. Unfortunately, the attempted attack over the skies of Detroit on Christmas Day proved otherwise. In a new piece of audio just released purportedly by Osama bin Laden, he takes credit for that attack and promises that there are more to come. In testimony before the Senate, FBI director Robert Mueller, National Counterterrorism Center director Michael Leiter, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said none of them were consulted by the White House or the Department of Justice about the decision to process the "Underwear Bomber" in the civilian criminal justice system. Yet Napolitano said that our government knew Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was an extremist. Couple this with the plan to try the 9/11 plotters in civilian courts in New York City where they will have a soapbox on which to spew their venomous hatred of this country and what you have is a failure by this president to do the main thing he is charged with doing: Protecting this nation from enemies foreign and domestic.

Yes, Barack Obama had hoped to deliver a speech in which major things had been accomplished under his watch. None of these things has come to pass.

But Obama has done one thing for this nation for which many of us in this country are grateful, and for which many in his party are stunned.

Obama has brought conservatism back from the dead.

The upset victory by Scott Brown last Tuesday sent a clear message that most of the people in this country are at the very least "traditionalists" if not outright conservative. Even the liberal voters in the state of Massachussets felt that Obama's policies were too far to the left for them to embrace. And they didn't like the Chicago style politics of ramming things down the people's throat.

The Obama mantra of "yes we can" was answered with a resounding "no you won't!"

After the midterm elections of 2006, there were those who said conservatism had been defeated. There were those who said the tone of the country had changed and that we were headed for a political landscape similar to that of western Europe.

Then prior to the presidential election of 2008, one caller to my radio show said that no matter who was elected, McCain or Obama, this nation was headed to the left. It was just a matter of how fast we got there. When Obama was elected, it appeared all but certain that we were being put on a fast track to socialism.

Last September I wrote that Barack Obama's election was either going to turn out to be the best thing that ever happened to our country, or the worst. Increasing evidence appeared to indicate a significant shift to the right since Obama's victory. A Gallup poll showed that people who identified themselves as conservative outnumbered liberals in every state in the Union. Witness the tea parties, the town hall meetings, and the rise in the sale of conservative books. America was finally waking up and realizing that this country elected a Marxist president who surrounded himself with the most radical group of individuals ever assembled in Washington. And this realization had sparked an anger not seen in many years.

How did it happen?

Obama preached a message of hope and change, and an electorate tired of eight years of Bush ignored many of the specifics of the changes Obama wanted to bring about. Instead, they bought the 'sizzle', not the steak. If they had done their homework then, as they have subsequently done with regards to the health care bill, they would never have voted for someone hell bent on taking this country so far to the left as to be unrecognizable from what the founders planned.

But whether due to being mesmerized by his eloquent pre-packaged speeches, or the opportunity to make history by putting the first black man in the White House, voters ignored Obama's associations with people of questionable character and his own checkered past, and thrust him into a position that he would use to radically alter the nation.

Those same voters are now suffering buyer's remorse.

The anger resulting from the health care debacle combined with the radical plans of an administration gone out of control may result in significant losses for the liberals in the midterm elections of 2010. There are those who see the distinct possibility that conservatives may re-take the House and Senate, leaving Obama and his czars crippled in their attempt to damage our nation irreparably. This could even bode well for the next presidential election in 2012.

So to that end, Obama and the Democrats have done some great things for this country and its people. They have brought us out of our malaise. They have restored our faith in traditional values.

It can now be reported that the state of conservatism is good.

Listen to America Talks Saturdays at 10 am eastern time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks. Visit our website at www.americatalks.com.

A historic special election will be taking place this Tuesday in the great state of Massachusetts. The outcome of this election could determine once and for all the fate of the Health Care Bill.

Scott Brown, a Republican state senator is facing off against Democrat Martha Coakley, for the senate seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy. Massachusetts, a highly liberal state proudly represented by Kennedy for nearly half a century, is now on the precipice of real change, possibly electing a conservative opposed to the Democrat's health reform bill and government spending. And many in this normally leftist part of the country are behind Brown in his efforts to kill this bill.

Polls currently show the race too close to call. Barack Obama is pulling out all the stops to ensure a Coakley win, making campaign appearances with her across the state this weekend. But his brief cameos may be more of a hindrance to her chances than a help. For her part, Coakley sounded less than sincere in reacting to Obama's impending arrival. "I don't think he has to come, I think he wanted to come. He was excited to come," Coakley told reporters. "Who wouldn't want the president of the United States campaigning for her in a historic race?"

With all of the angst and anger directed at the Democrats by the public regarding health reform and massive spending, Coakley might have been served better by declining the president's offer to stump on her behalf.

There is a lot at stake here.

Should Brown prevail, it would force the Senate to pass a bill that he could stop as the key vote in the filibuster process. A concern for Republicans, however, is that the Senate could hold up Brown's certification process. Rep. Barney Frank, when questioned by a reporter for the Washington Times about this, lashed out. "That is the stupidest thing I've been asked in a long time. That is insane, the suggestion could only come from a demented right wing source," he said.

Another option the Democrats are considering is something called reconciliation, a tactic that allows legislation to pass in the Senate with just 51 votes, or a simple majority. The House Ways and Means Committee structured the bill in such a way that the Senate could hide the legislation in the annual budget spending package, therefore paving the way for reconciliation. Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, told Bloomberg this week that Democrats are still considering this option.

"Even before Massachusetts and that race was on the radar screen, we prepared for the process of using reconciliation," Van Hollen said.

"Getting health care reform passed is important," he said. "Reconciliation is an option."

Another option being considered by the Democrats is to scrap the negotiations between both chambers, and persuade the House to pass the Senate version of the bill as is, nullifying the need for another Senate vote. However, this option could break the deal negotiators worked out with the union leaders who are opposed to taxing high end insurance plans.

The Democrats appear confident that Coakley will prevail on Tuesday. Or at least they are putting on a brave face. Nonetheless, Tuesday's election is a referendum on the major component of Obama's domestic agenda. His entire presidency rides on health care reform. Should the building blocks collapse, Obama is finished.

He could become a lame duck president in his first term. Let's hope this is the case.

Listen to America Talks Saturdays at 10 am eastern time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks. Visit our website at www.americatalks.com.

As we enter a new year and a new decade, let us make some predictions as to what we can expect in 2010.

Under the Obama administration, unemployment will remain high, despite the so-called jobs bill that the Senate will take up in January or February. The official figures will show a rate of 10 percent, but hidden from public consumption will be those who have given up looking for work, or those whose unemployment benefits have run out. The government will put us billions of dollars into debt with this 'son-of-the-stimulus' plan, with little or no tangible results.

The House will balk at the Senate Health Care Bill, but eventually a compromise will be reached, and President Obama will sign it into law. Despite all the claims that the public option is dead, it will be buried somewhere in this bill, inching us ever so closer to what Europe and Canada are currently dealing with. Everyone will suffer, especially the elderly. The health care profession will also suffer, with doctors electing to stop practicing medicine, and potential candidates deciding to pursue other career paths.

Look for further attempted terrorist attacks on our country, with perhaps at least one succeeding. Obama has dropped the ball on protecting this country, and has done so willfully. Yes, we may see heads roll in the wake of the incident in Detroit. Janet Napolitano may be sent packing for her comments that the system worked. But charging the most recent terror suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab criminally instead of treating him as an enemy combatant, trying the 9-11 plotters in civilian courts on U.S. soil, and his dogged determination to shutter Gitmo has proven that Obama has not taken his sworn oath to preserve, protect and defend this country from enemies both foreign and domestic seriously.

As these events continue to unfold, the anger the American people felt in 2009 will continue to be expressed at further town hall meetings and tea parties. The liberals in Washington have awakened a sleeping giant that for a long time has been a lazy, apathetic electorate. The heartland of America already has been shaken from its malaise, but moderates and even some who lean to the left will realize that they are suffering from buyer's remorse when it comes to Obama. They will come to the conclusion that the hope and change this president promised is much more than they bargained for.

The American people's anger will be reflected at the polls come November, with a housecleaning the nature of which this nation has never witnessed. This bloodletting will render Obama a lame duck in the middle of his first and only term. A strong conservative presidential candidate will emerge, and truly resonate with the traditionalists.

By the end of 2010, we will have begun to take our country back.

Listen to America Talks Saturdays at 10 am eastern time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks. Visit our website at www.americatalks.com.

It certainly did not take a long time for one of the world's greatest athletes to fall from grace. Just a few weeks ago, the only news Tiger Woods made was on the golf course.

Then suddenly, everything changed. In one incredible, tragic moment, Woods became persona non grata. How did this fall from grace occur? Why did this shining star in the world of professional sports virtually destroy his career and marriage in one fell swoop?

Because he could.

Propped up by celebrity, ego massagers and roadies, Woods could get anything and everything he wanted in an easily accessible manner.

And apparently what he wanted, was women. Many, many women. Some of whom he may have paid for. In so doing, he destroyed his marriage and tarnished his reputation as this squeaky clean, all American guy who just loved the game of golf.

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Whether it be in politics, business, entertainment or sports. When one reaches a certain stage where God-given talents become an enabler of undesirable behavior, temptation is irresistible. And it doesn't help that those that Woods surrounded himself with probably didn't try to stop his self-destruction.

The fallout from this is that his wife Elin will probably divorce him, and take him to the cleaners in the process. She has reportedly already spoken to a divorce attorney, while at the same time purchasing a home on an island in Sweden only accessible by boat.

Big sponsors such as Gillette and AT&T are deserting Woods and rightly so. They cannot be associated with a philanderer, perhaps even a sex addict. It will be interesting to see how his behavior will affect his career, such as it now stands.

It is theoretically possible for Tiger Woods to rebuild himself. Other high profile individuals have recovered from scandals involving sex, drugs and alcohol. But the degree to which Woods sank, especially with the number of women who have come forward to say they were involved with him, including some with whom he reportedly engaged in sex acts in exchange for money, means he has a tough road to hoe.

And this may require him to disappear for a long, long time.

Listen to America Talks Saturdays at 10 am eastern time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks. Visit our website at www.americatalks.com.

I've made my list and checked it twice. As we approach Christmas 2009, here are some of the things this conservative proudly hopes for in the new year.

I wish that the war on one of the most sacred and revered holidays would cease. I'm referring to Christmas. The secularists who have inserted something into the Constitution which does not exist, namely a separation of church and state, are trying to destroy something which the vast majority of Americans celebrate: the birth of Jesus Christ. Idiots like Erik Brown, principal of Walsh Elementary School in Waterbury, Connecticut, who has banned Christmas and replaced it with the celebration of winter, should be run out of town on a rail. It's time for parents to take a stand by either confronting school officials and demanding that they stop this crap, or pull their kids out of the public education system and put them in private schools or home school them.

I wish that the health care bill will die a horrible death. It is a trillion dollar debacle that will force private insurers out of business, run good people out of the medical profession, and socialize this country. You want to save health care? Allow insurance companies to sell across state lines.

I wish that the hackers who exposed the fraud of global warming be given a ticker tape parade on Wall Street. I wish that Barbara Boxer, who has called for a criminal investigation of those who brought the truth to light, gets a lump of coal in her stocking, and a liberal dose of "shut up".
Al Gore should crawl back under his rock and stay there, after giving back his Nobel prize and his Oscar.

I wish that our troops will be given everything they need to finish the mission in Afghanistan. Barack Obama, by his dithering, has endangered the lives of the fine men and women serving in our military. He should be ashamed of hanging them out to dry and using them as photo ops.

I wish that Obama's birth certificate surfaces and proves that he is not a natural born citizen. This guy is a usurper to the Oval Office.

I wish that somehow, some way, we find Osama bin Laden and kill him.

I wish that the decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the four other plotters of the 9/11 terror attacks is reversed. The United States should not be put on trial, and these guys should not be allowed to spew their venom against this nation.

I wish that the anger that spawned the tea parties and the town hall meetings will continue unabated through the midterm election cycle and result in a bloodletting at the polls come next November.

I wish that Barack Obama will be a lame duck, one term president who disappears and is never, ever heard from again.

Listen to America Talks Saturdays at 10 am eastern time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks. Visit our website at www.americatalks.com.

The ditherer-in-chief will finally announce to our military and the rest of the world his decision regarding General McChrystal's request for additional troops in Afghanistan this Tuesday.

After months of keeping the fine men and women serving our country twisting in the wind, Barack Obama has at last made up his mind. It is estimated that he will elect to give McChrystal roughly 30,000 to 35,000 of the 40,000 troops McChrystal requested. The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan had warned in an urgent, confidential assessment of the war that he needed more forces within the next year and had bluntly stated that without them, the eight-year conflict would likely result in failure.

During the presidential campaign of 2008, Obama repeatedly stated that the real war, the one the United States military should be engaged in, was the war in Afghanistan. He was hell bent on pulling our troops out of Iraq. He based most of bid for the White House on ending our presence there until the surge worked and took the wind out of his sails.

So what took him so long to make up his mind on McChrystal's request?

Two things are in play here.

First, Obama's base is opposed to any surge in Afghanistan. Democrats are in revolt because a.) they believe the real threat from Al-Qaeda exists in Pakistan and b.) Obama has yet to convince his own supporters that the United States has an exit strategy and will not become bogged down, as it did in Vietnam.

Secondly, Obama has never shown much support for the war on terror. He has eliminated the word 'terror' from the lexicon and replaced it with 'overseas contingency operation'. Terrorist attacks are now referred to as 'man-made disasters'. The fact that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four of his minions are being brought to New York to face charges in a civilian court, where they will be allowed to spew their venom and rail against the United States as opposed to a military tribunal, is a clear indication that Obama has gone soft on terror at best, and is in bed with radical Islam at worst.

Witness also the three Navy SEALS who are facing criminal charges stemming from the capture of one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq. The three, all members of the Navy's elite commando unit, have refused non-judicial punishment — called a captain's mast — and have requested a trial by court-martial in the capture of Ahmed Hashim Abed. He claims that he was punched by his captors — and had his lip bloodied. Now, instead of being lauded for the capture of this high-value target, the three SEAL commandos, all enlisted, face assault charges and have retained attorneys.

If Obama were truly a supporter of our military and their mission, he would have answered McChrystal's request much sooner. And he would immediately put a halt to the prosecution of these three SEALS.

But this president is allowing the fine men and women of the United States military to be thrown under the bus.

What a disgrace to our nation.

Listen to America Talks Saturdays at 10 am eastern time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks. Visit our website at www.americatalks.com.

The decision by President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other masterminds of the 911 attacks on this country to New York City to face a civilian trial is an insult to every citizen of the United States.

Mohammed and his minions should be facing a military tribunal for the worst attack on our soil. What they did was not a crime; it was an act of terror and an act of war. The plan to try them here has infuriated New Yorkers, still reeling from the horror of that day, and the loss of almost 3000 of their fellow countrymen.

This decision was wrong on many fronts and may come back haunt the Obama administration.

First, by trying them in New York City, Obama and Holder are playing directly into the hands of Mohammed, who wants nothing more than to use this trial as a bully pulpit to spew Islamic venom against the United States. What better venue to launch verbal attacks against the 'Great Satan' than the city where Islam 'taught us a lesson'?

Second, our national security is placed at high risk. The threat of another attack occurring during the course of these trials is very high, and will put the city of New York on high alert, sapping the resources of the New York police to protect the citizenry.

Third, bestowing upon these enemy combatants the same rights afforded to U. S. citizens is not only disrespectful of the American people, it also puts the prosecution at risk. If a court decides that any confession or evidence obtained through techniques that it deems illegal is inadmissible due to a violation of the combatants' rights, these guys could actually walk.

Imagine that. The worst attack against our nation ever, and these terrorists get off.

Why would Barack Obama and this administration take such a risk?

Quite simply because in the eyes of this president the war on terror no longer exists. The term has disappeared from the lexicon. It has been replaced with 'overseas contingency operation'. And as far as what happened on that fateful day in September 2001, it was a 'man-made disaster'.

Barack Obama is doing everything in his power to diminish the respect of the United States in the eyes of the world. He continues to make apologies for our country and what it stands for. He bows down before leaders of other nations, such as the King of Saudi Arabia and the Emperor of Japan. By doing this, he makes us look weak.

Barack Obama wants to appease the Islamic world by giving them and admiration they do not deserve. After all, he has said he is one of them. But Islam does not value such a stance of sub ordinance. They take advantage of it.

And they will take advantage of these civilian trials to the detriment of our nation.

How can Obama live with himself knowing what he is doing by making this decision to try these terrorists in this fashion?

Well, come to think of it, probably quite easily.

Listen to America Talks Saturdays at 10 am eastern time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks. Visit our website at www.americatalks.com.

Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats have taken over health care.

Despite the tea parties, the town halls, the rallies and the protests, the House of Representatives passed the health care bill 220-215. The bill now heads to the Senate. The legislation on which Barack Obama has hinged his presidency is close to coming to fruition.

Unless we act.

Republicans, almost to a man, fought the good fight in attempting to stop this massive $2 trillion monstrosity from seeing the light of day. Rep. Candice Miller, R-Mich. said, "We are going to have a complete government takeover of our health care system faster than you can say, `this is making me sick.'" But in the end, the liberals rammed it through along party lines as they had planned to do all along. This is the arrogance of the left. A jubilant Pelosi even had the audacity to compare the legislation to the passage of Social Security in 1935 and Medicare 30 years later.

So are we doomed to Obamacare? Is this the end of the battle to prevent socialized medicine from taking over our health care system? Will we be like Europe or Canada, where people wait endlessly for life saving treatments? Will death panels determine ho lives and who dies?

That depends on the degree to which we allow apathy to take over.

It is so easy to become complacent and to decide that what the Democrats have done was inevitable. But this is no time for apathy.

Now is the time for us as Americans to rise up. The question is, do we have the backbone to do it? And if we do, is there a blueprint for getting it done?

The answer is unequivocally yes. And there are two excellent resources for stopping the oncoming juggernaut of massive government expansion.

The first is a new book by Don Crist. What Can I do? After The Tea Party offers outstanding ideas on how to take American angst toward bloated government to the next level. Crist provides a blueprint for organizing relatives, friends and neighbors in a cohesive effort to stop those in Washington who wish to take away our liberties and erode our form of government to the point where what the Founding Fathers intended becomes unrecognizable.

The second resource for putting the brakes on government control of our lives is a relatively new organization called Pinecone Conservatives(www.pineconeconservatives.org). This group has as its mission statement "motivating all voters that share our desire for a return to fiscal responsibility and conservative thoughts to our local, state and national communities". When joining their forum, you receive a free practical guide to conservative community organizing. This guide offers insightful ideas on how to coordinate efforts to stop government from completely taking over our lives.

These two excellent resources provide a method for taking the anger that many conservatives feel toward what the Obama administration has done and designing a proactive plan to stop it utilizing the greatest asset available: people.

We do have a choice. We can be apathetic. Or we can take our nation back.

Listen to America Talks Saturday at 10 am eastern time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks. Visit our website at www.americatalks.com.

Three stories in the news this week pointed out the lunacy of what has become known as "zero tolerance".

In the first case, a 6-year-old boy was suspended and threatened with reform school because he brought a camping utensil to school. Zachary Christie, a first-grader at Downes Elementary School in Newark, Del., was so proud of the spoon-fork-knife combination gift that he wanted to show it off and use it to eat his lunch. He was by all accounts a good student, who sometimes wore suits to school because he took his education seriously. He was also a Cub Scout.

The school clearly overreacted. At best the school officials should have taken the "weapon" away from the boy and promised to return it to him at the end of the day. They should have explained that bringing such a tool to school is not allowed. And they should have left it at that. Instead, they chose to make an example of this fine young man. It was only after the story went national, and a huge uproar ensued, that the officials relented.

In the second case of zero tolerance gone wild, a 17-year-old Eagle Scout was suspended because he had a knife in a survival kit locked in his car. It was a gift from his grandfather, a police chief in a nearby town. He did not bring the knife into the school. Initially Matthew Whalen was suspended for five days. But the superintendent of the Troy, N.Y. school district tacked on an additional 15 days after a hearing. The superintendent, George J. Goodwin, 55, said in a written statement that his district "has an established policy of zero tolerance with respect to the possession of weapons of any kind on school property or in school buildings." He refuses to budge on the suspension, despite the young man's excellent academic and behavioral record. The suspension could affect Whalen's record at West Point, as the military academy considers his moral and ethical fiber. Goodwin should lose his job over this dumb decision.

The third case of zero tolerance revolves around radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh and his thwarted attempt at purchasing the St. Louis Rams.

False allegations of racism on the part of Limbaugh prompted by unsubstantiated quotes attributed to him and milked by race baiters Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton derailed his bid to become a minority stakeholder in the Rams. His potential business partners panicked, and the liberal NFL itself, clearly not wanting any problems from the players union, caved.

Zero tolerance for conservative thought on the part of football.

Limbaugh should take legal action, as he was the victim of character assassination. All involved in this fiasco need to pay dearly for this abomination.

And these idiots Jackson and Sharpton should be put in their place once and for all. Jackson is not only a race baiter, he is a racist who referred to Jews as "Hymies" and to New York City as "Hymietown" in January 1984 during a conversation with Washington Post reporter Milton Coleman. Sharpton, who has made a living out of shooting his mouth off, was brought to task by Limbaugh in an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal in which Limbaugh pointed out that Sharpton was responsible for the 1991 Crown Heights riot ... and 1995 Freddie's Fashion Mart riot."
What Sharpton and Jackson need is a liberal dose of "shut up" and a lawsuit resulting in punitive damages would go a long way to achieve that.

There should be zero tolerance for zero tolerance.

Listen to America Talks Saturdays at 10 am eastern time at www.americatalks.com.

In recent weeks, a serious threat has emerged to the liberties of every American with regard to free speech in this country.

This threat has come in many forms and from many fronts.

Cass Sunstein, Barack Obama's newly confirmed regulatory czar, believes that the government should be able to force broadcasters to air "diversity" ads, which would be a backdoor attempt at reconstituting the Fairness Doctrine.

In his 1993 book "The Partial Constitution", Sunstein wrote "If it were necessary to bring about diversity and attention to public matters, a private right of access to the media might even be constitutionally compelled. The notion that access will be a product of the marketplace might well be constitutionally troublesome."

Sunstein would like to see the creation of a "First Amendment New Deal", or a new "Fairness Doctrine" that would include the establishment of a panel of "nonpartisan experts" to ensure "diversity of view" on the airwaves.

Obviously, this would result in time constraints to the private broadcasting companies, which would be forced to give up valuable revenue-generating advertising slots to air these diversity ads. This could also result in programming changes on conservative stations, which might be forced to drop certain hosts or programs to prevent having to equalize all points of view.

At the same time, there is a new bill being drafted behind closed doors in the Senate, S.773 (excerpt) which would give the White House the authority to seize control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency. In effect, the Internet would be shut down at a moment's notice due to some perceived (or conceived) threat. After all, wasn't it Rahm Emanuel who said "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

If the threat to broadcasters and the Internet aren't bad enough, Obama is now thinking about bailing out the failing newspapers in this country. There are several bills in congress that would boost the newspaper sector, including a senate bill that would allow newspaper companies to reformulate themselves as nonprofits with a variety of tax breaks. These newspapers would then be print versions of PBS and NPR, which would, in effect make them mouthpieces for the government. The White House could control the advertising and all editorial content appearing in these papers.

Obama already has the mainstream media in his back pocket. All of the major networks and most of the print media are in the tank for this guy. But it still sticks in his craw that there are those outlets that offer opposition to his policies. Several attempts have been made to demonize those who share disparate views. Charges of racism have been leveled against those who oppose health care, cap and trade, the stimulus and our increasing budget deficit.

The charges of racism won't be enough, however, to keep Obama's critics quiet. So other steps must be taken to stave off the growing cacophony of voices that stand to hold this regime's forces at bay. Pushing for another Fairness Doctrine for broadcasters, taking control of the print media through a financial bailout of the newspapers, and the authority to shut down the Internet at a moment's notice, might just give our government a way to silence all of Obama's opposition.

Scary thought.

Listen to America Talks Monday through Friday at 6 pm eastern time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks. Visit our website at www.americatalks.com.

Barack Obama sold himself during the presidential campaign of 2008 as a uniter. He was going to bridge the racial divide in the United States, healing wounds of the past and putting this country on the road to a point where skin color and ethnicity would no longer be an issue polarizing its citizens.

Didn't happen.

Despite his smooth talk and his appealing personality, it soon became apparent that the people with whom Obama surrounded himself were anything but racial healers. Reverend Jeremiah Wright surfaced first with his rants about the evils of the white race, with ludicrous charges of AIDS being a creation of those wishing to exterminate the black race. Obama claimed to high heaven that he never sat in that church in Chicago where Wright preached his message of hate, yet he was a member of that congregation over 20 years, was married there and had his children baptized there.

There were some who questioned whether the influence of such as pastor would leave an indelible mark on Obama, one that would later raise the ugly specter that any criticism of this future president might lead to accusations of racism.

This has now come to pass.

Many times since this president has taken office, those who have questioned Obama's policies have been met with charges that any disapproval is racially motivated. Janeane Garafolo, in an appearance at the 9:30 Club in Washington, D.C. on Aug. 21, ripped into tea party protesters, or what some of of the left have deemed “tea baggers” calling them “functionally retarded adults” and “racists.”

“Do you remember tea baggers?” Garofalo said. “It was just so much easier when we could just call them racists. I just don’t know why we can’t call them racists, or functionally retarded adults.”

The flap over Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst at Obama's address to the joint session of Congress took an unexpected turn when several prominent people, from HBO's Bill Maher, to former president Jimmy Carter blamed racism as his motivation. Many Democrat politicians, including Hank Johnson of Georgia, chimed in and echoed these sentiments, leading to Wilson's rebuke on the floor of the House of Representatives.

There has been a deafening silence from the White House with regard to these charges of racism.

Barack Obama has had several opportunities to address these charges and lay the issue to rest. To his credit, he did tell CNN that he believed criticism of his health care agenda was not motivated by race. But because he took so long to come out and say something, his words rang hollow. He could have given a speech to the nation, admonishing those who would throw up the race card every time he is criticized to "knock it off", as these charges are idiotic, and do nothing to advance the debate on health care and other issues.

He did not. And by not being forceful on this issue, Obama is, in effect, giving a wink and a nod to those who use race baiting as a method to stave off challenges to his agenda.

This will only serve to further divide the nation. And it might work to the detriment of the African-American community with regard to political aspirations. If a black president cannot be criticized on policy without race being thrown out as the motivation behind it, one has to wonder if the nation is really ready for a black president.

It is a shame that this question needs to be asked.

Listen to America Talks Monday through Friday at 6 pm eastern time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks. Visit our website at www.americatalks.com.