Last week sometime I told you about Henry Waxman's little letter that he sent to the nation's largest insurance companies demanding to see their financial records. Well now we have come to find that this investigation into the insurance companies started a month ago ... probably around the same time the Obama administration decided it was going to change this to health insurance reform rather than healthcare reform. But that is beside the point. The reason I bring this up is because a spokeswoman for Waxman's House Energy and Commerce committee tried to defend these probes, and here's what she had to say:

" ... lawmakers need to know that private insurance money is being spent effectively as part of the effort to control costs."

There is NO obligation whatsoever for the insurance companies to cough up this material. The people of this country are making a stand ... with the insurance companies do likewise?

The Democrats are hammering home their new favorite talking point on climate change: if you are against climate change, then you want our country to fail. The latest comes from our own Henry Waxman, whom is largely responsible for the latest cap-and-tax scheme in Congress. He said, "It appears that the Republican Party leadership in the Congress has made a decision that they want to deny President Obama success-- which means, in my mind, they are rooting against the country as well." So basically, anyone who does not support Barack Obama's agenda or policies is someone who is "rooting against" America. Now I get it.

Then we get to OwlGore. His piggy bank must be running low, because he has really ramped up the push lately for global warming legislation. Yesterday he tried to compare the fight against global warming to that of WWII, Winston Churchill and the Nazis. He said, "Winston Churchill aroused this nation in heroic fashion to save civilization in World War II ... We have everything we need except political will but political will is a renewable resource ... The level of awareness and concern among populations has not crossed the threshold where political leaders feel that they must change." In other words, you the voters aren't buying into his scheme. And if you don't buy into it, then politicians will have little reason to support it. Why is that? Because we all know that politicians have one goal in mind and that is maintaining power. They are not going to put their careers and their state limos and their taxpayer funded drapery on the line for an issue that isn't going to help them get re-elected. Polls have been sliding for months now ... people aren't buying the hype. OwlGore did get one thing right though. He said that a lack of awareness among voters allowed the government to avoid making tough decisions. That's what you get when you have the government educating your voters.

Well there goes my fun ... but then again, maybe not! I was really looking forward to Congressional hearings and the whole bit. But White House spokesman Ben LaBold told FoxNews.com that Barack Obama opposes any move to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.

Well then somebody ought to inform Congress and the FCC that this is the official stance of the administration. But remember, the key nowadays is to rename things. Like "tax cuts" is the new name for "welfare." Or "economic stimulus" is an excuse for "government spending." If it is so easy to re-brand a welfare check as a "tax cut," how difficult could it be to re-brand the Fairness Doctrine? Remember that comment from a Democrat congressman earlier this week? The goal of some Dems, including Henry Waxman, is to bring back the Fairness Doctrine but not actually call it the Fairness Doctrine.

Here are two possibilities:

1. "Localization." Most of the talk shows that cause the Democrats such headaches are syndicated. Instead of the Fairness Doctrine, all the Democrat-controlled FCC has to do is announce a new policy that requires radio stations serving certain sized radio markets to make 50%, 70% or more of their prime time programming local. Syndicated radio programs like Limbaugh and Hannity aren't local. In order to save their licenses to operate these radio stations would have to get rid of one show or the other and substitute local talk show hosts who don't quite have the impact on national policy that the big dogs do. Mission accomplished.
    
2. Create a radio version of the "Community Reinvestment Act" that would require radio stations to program for their specific communities rather than the population at large. This law would permit various community groups, like ACORN, to monitor the programming of radio stations in the area and file complaints with the FCC when the programming isn't to their liking. While it is true that community groups can do that now, the new regulations would give their complaints added weight in determining license renewal.
    
3. Create local boards to oversee radio stations. Politicians, naturally, would appoint these boards which would be made up largely of community "activists." These boards would have extraordinary access to station policies and documents regarding decision-making processes. These boards would have great influence on FCC license-renewal processes and would, therefore, become de-facto program directors.

Fairness Doctrine? They don't need no Fairness Doctrine. There are plenty of ways they can shut down talk radio. Perhaps Obama does actually have an appreciation for the concept of free speech when it comes to talk radio ... but I see nothing in his history or current actions that would tell us that.

The Boortz staff has tried to track this story back to sources ... admittedly, it's pretty sketchy, so bear that in mind as you read. The poll results are real, as is the desire of many on the left to shut down talk radio. After all, if you can't beat 'em, shut 'em down. The stuff about Henry Waxman? No solid source .. but this really sounds just like good ole Henry. Anyway ...

The latest Rasmussen polls show that 38% of Americans believe the government should resurrect the Fairness Doctrine - require radio stations to offer equal amounts of liberal and conservative commentary. This is almost a ten point drop from last August when 47% of Americans said that the government should require radio to be "balanced."

And while Jamie Dupree and others believe that there is no chance of the Fairness Doctrine being reimposed .. I'm not so convinced. Heck, I HOPE that the government holds hearings and dabbles with the idea of bringing it back. The immediate result will be more listeners for talk radio. Some will go away again, many will stay. We have a good beat and we're easy to dance to.

According to this report, senior staff working for the acting FCC Commissioner met with policy and legislative advisers to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman. Why is that? Because they wanted to discuss ways that the committee can create openings for the FCC to reimpose some form of the Fairness Doctrine, without calling it the "Fairness Doctrine."

Apparently Henry Waxman is also interested in imposing some sort of "balance" on the Internet as well. Wow, even better news for me .. I'll have my radio show and this website for the government to "balance"!

A Democrat committee member (who remains nameless) says that the stimulus package may have opened a door for regulation of the Internet. He says, "The FCC and state and local governments also have oversight over the Internet lines and the cable and telecom companies that operate them. We want to get alternative views on radio and TV, but we also want to makes sure those alternative views are read, heard and seen online, which is becoming increasingly video and audio driven. Thanks to the stimulus package, we've established that broadband networks -- the Internet -- are critical, national infrastructure. We think that gives us an opening to look at what runs over that critical infrastructure."

Didn't I mention that politicians just love to control things? I think I may have said that somewhere before.

One step at a time, in the days leading up to an Obama presidency .. we are getting closer and closer to government healthcare in this country. The latest step is the House passage of the Children's Health Insurance Plan bill (SCHIP). Now it's off to the Senate for approval. Then it is off to Obama's desk for him to sign once he is sworn in.

Don't forget that this is the bill Henry Waxman says, "This bill is a down payment, a down payment on health care for all Americans." Healthcare for all Americans is just another way of saying "healthcare that is run by the government."

Forty Republicans in the House said yes to the bill, despite some of the following criticisms ..

First of all, Republicans had little to no input into the bill. There's something they are going to have to get used to. Republicans claim that the bill would allow states to enroll families with incomes upwards of $80,000. Another reason they opposed the bill was because of "a provision in the measure that would lift a ban on providing the benefit to legal immigrants who have resided in the United States for less than five years." And finally, they were upset with a provision that would prohibit doctors from referring patients to hospitals that they (the doctors) have an ownership interest in. So we are talking about physician-owned hospitals. The private sector shall have a limited role in health care - how dare these providers of medical care actually own a facility for providing medical care? This makes about as much sense as forbidding a mechanic from owning the garage where he works.

As Waxman says, this bill is a down payment. This gets the foot in the door. And it is all happening without many Americans even batting an eye or picking up a phone to call their Senators.

The Democrats are getting straight to work on passing their agendas for Obama to approve once sworn in. And as soon as next week, the Congress will be debating a children's healthcare bill. Otherwise known as SCHIP. You'll remember that SCHIP passed the Congress twice in 2007 and it was vetoed twice. Now, we are playing a different ball game.

Next Tuesday or Wednesday, expect a vote for the program, which is described by democrat lawmakers as "providing health insurance for children in families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford coverage." Why can't they just call it what it is, folks? It's welfare. And many of these people who cannot afford coverage .. how many of you want to bet that they have big flat-screen televisions, cell phones and a brand new car with huge payments ... plus other assorted luxury items. Remember that our definition of "poverty" in this country is becoming synonymous with the size of your flat screen TV, not your ability to obtain food and shelter.

I've said this before and I will say it again, this SCHIP nonsense is just a Trojan Horse .. what these politicians are really after is establishing universal healthcare in this country. And this isn't just me being all "glass half empty." This is straight from the mouth of Henry Waxman. He says that passing the SCHIP bill next week is a "down payment on national health insurance."

Did you get that? This is just the beginning. I hope you are ready to get back into the thick of things. These politicians have a goal .. and that goal is to make you dependent on the government for health care. Once they have control of your health care, they have control of you.

I've been telling you for months about a 2001 letter written by Congressional Democrats to the Mexican government. In this letter, about 11 Democrat politicians urged the Mexican government to use a secret ballot in all union elections. Now let's fast-forward to 2008. Barack Obama has been elected. The Democrats are in control of Congress. And the unions want to be rewarded for their efforts. What they want is for Congress to pass the card check bill. This bill would be crippling for American businesses because it would do-away with secret ballot union elections. The unions expect this bill to be passed within Obama's first 100 days in office. And the Democrats seem willing to comply. After all, they pandered to the union vote to get elected ... now they have to do whatever it takes to stay in power. Even if that means changing your tune on an issue like secret ballot elections.

Let's not here that when the House Energy and Commerce Committee voted to replace John Dingell with California's anti-business icon Henry Waxman in the Chairman's seat .. the vote was by secret ballot.

The Wall Street Journal has now caught wind of this letter from the Democrats back in 2001. Good read. If they had been reading the Nuze they would have known about this a month ago.

Now we have a nice nasty little internal Democrat tinkling contest in the Congress. Rep. John Dingell of Michigan is currently the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. But that may no longer be the case. The Democrats want a more aggressive global warming agenda. They want to save the planet ... and John Dingell may put up too much of a fight. When I say "fight" I mean that he won't necessarily be Barack Obama's grocery bagger when it comes to global warming policy.

So who do the Democrats want as their guy? Henry Waxman of Beverley Hills. He's generally an anti-business kinda guy. He's the head of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform; Waxman is the guy in change of government investigations on everything from oil company profits to steroid use in baseball.

Where the battle gets interesting is the fact that Dingell is from Michigan and has made it difficult for the government to impose stricter fuel standards on automakers. Meanwhile, Waxman is a fan of tough environmental regulations and an overhaul of the auto industry. Does this auto-union bailout have anything to do with this vote?

Either way, a committee secret ballot of 25-22 recommended that Waxman be the new chair of the energy committee. The entire House still has to vote on whether or not they want to accept that recommendation ... but I think the message is clear. Barack Obama has made promises on key issues: healthcare reform and climate change. We'll get to healthcare in a minute, but having Waxman as the chair of this committee would be one less minor bump to deal with ... it would be a sign from Congress that they are eager to work with Obama in passing climate change legislation.