Princess Nancy is going to unveil her healthcare bill today. I'm absolutely giddy with excitement. Just what we need ... another competing blue-print for a government takeover of healthcare and 18% of our economy. It also represents a huge shift in government entitlements ... a shift that will be impossible to reverse. Once you get the people hooked on government, there is no way to end it. This may the strongest and most addicition we have in this country .. and unfortunately it's legal. In fact, addiction to government could very well be the most dangerous addiction America has to deal with. Give me a good old fashioned coke addict any time. What's more, this is an addiction that is openly promoted by many politicians ... politicians who generally, an with inexplicable pride, call themselves Democrats.

The Aging Hollow-eyed Hippy from Haight-Ashbury says her government takeover of health care will cost over $1 trillion over the next ten years. That's a lie. She knows it's a lie. Our government has never introduced an entitlement program that didn't cost at least twice as much as the politicians who forced it on us said it would cost. And just how will this monstrosity be paid for? Taxes, that's how. Taxes levied by the looters on the producers to buy votes from the moochers. That's the recipe for government growth. Pelosi also plans to cut payments to Medicare providers. Medicare providers are, in case you haven't figured this out, are doctors. Under Nancy's plan more and more doctors will certainly decide to opt out of treating Medicare patients. Then the government will come along to tell them they can't. Then the doctors will tell the government to go pound sand and will simply retire. This will mean a shortage of doctors that will come at the exact same time demand for services will increase. This will mean waiting lines. This will mean rationing. And all of this will come along because the Democrats steadfastly and absolutely refuse to consider any private sector options in their health care reform plan. Why not private sector options? Simple ....

... because this has everything to do with controlling you and nothing to do with improving your health care.

So what exactly is she proposing to do with your tax dollars?

Employers would be required to offer health insurance to workers
Employers will pay fines for not offering health insurance
Americans will be fined for not purchasing insurance coverage (no word yet on enforcement)
Subsidies will be provided to poor people who can't afford health insurance
Insurance companies will not be able to discriminate against older people or pre-existing conditions
A government option will be available to "compete" with the private sector

(Can any of you figure out just where these actions are authorized in our Constitution? Oh, wait. I'm sorry. Our Constitution doesn't count anymore. K bye!)

Now these are all of the things that Nancy and the Democrats want us to know right now about Nancy's bill. But like any piece of legislation, there are hidden gems that are impossible to decipher without two lawyers, a psychic and the 3rd floor ward of your local mental institution to help make sense of it all.

There is a column from the UK declaring that despite his rock star election, Barack Obama has failed to defeat conservatism in America. That's not just based on his opinion, it is based on Gallup poll trends since 2004. Like these for instance:

• Perceptions that there is too much government regulation of business and industry jumped from 38% in September 2008 to 45% in September 2009.

• The percentage of Americans saying they would like to see labor unions have less influence in the country rose from 32% in August 2008 to a record-high 42% in August 2009.

• Public support for keeping the laws governing the sale of firearms the same or making them less strict rose from 49% in October 2008 to 55% in October 2009, also a record high. (The percentage saying the laws should become more strict -- the traditionally liberal position -- fell from 49% to 44%.)

• The percentage of Americans favoring a decrease in immigration rose from 39% in June/July 2008 to 50% in July 2009.

• The propensity to want the government to "promote traditional values" -- as opposed to "not favor any particular set of values" -- rose from 48% in 2008 to 53% in 2009. Current support for promoting traditional values is the highest seen in five years.

• The percentage of Americans who consider themselves "pro-life" on abortion rose from 44% in May 2008 to 51% in May 2009, and remained at a slightly elevated 47% in July 2009.

• Americans' belief that the global warming problem is "exaggerated" in the news rose from 35% in March 2008 to 41% in March 2009.

Now remember that being a Conservative and being a Republican are very different. And they will continue to diverge so long as the Republican Party hangs on to this obsession with women's reproductive parts. But 2010 will be the test to see if conservatism translates into votes for Republicans ... or where else will they turn?

Are you among those who are uncomfortable with both the Republicans and the Democrats? Don't feel pregnant. Just how do you think I was finally driven to become a lifetime member of The Libertarian Party? I default to freedom and individual responsibility pretty much across the board.

In the previous item I made reference to the Gallup Polls. Where here's some more for you. For about 12 years or so Gallup has been using two questions to categorize those who respond to their polls on the basis of ideology. Here are the two questions ... how would you respond to them?

Some people think the government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses. Others think that government should do more to solve our country's problems. Which comes closer to your own view?

Some people think the government should promote traditional values in our society. Others think the government should not favor any particular set of values. Which comes closer to your own view?

OK. Where do you stand? If you listen to me for more than seven minutes you'll know that I believe that our country is trying to do too many things that should be left up to free individuals and private businesses and that I'll establish my own set of values, thank you very much, without government's help. If you responded to these questions the same way, then Gallup will classify you as a libertarian. In 2000 Gallup found that about 18 percent of respondents were Libertarians .. today that number is up to 23 percent. No worries --- I don't mind being in the minority if it's a minority that believes in individual responsibility and liberty.

Another point ... if you tell people that "libertarian" means "fiscally conservative and socially liberal," the number jumps up to 44 percent.

From this story:

An 11-year-old Des Moines girl was at home on suspension Tuesday for bringing a handful of empty shotgun shells to school last week.



Jazmine Martin, a sixth-grader at Brody Middle School, picked up the shells as souvenirs during a family trip to a ranch in South Dakota, where the rounds were fired as part of a show. They were blanks.

Remember ... Zero Tolerance policies are brought to you by government officials who want to escape the hard work of logical thought. Behind every zero tolerance policy you will find a collection of bureaucrats celebrating the fact that they won't actually have to use any common sense to noodle out a problem when the need arises. Zero tolerance policies are the essence of bureaucratic thought, and hence government.

Hey, Halloween is this weekend, right? Here's a hot chick to zombie time lapse transformation.

One of the first things you learn in Economics 101 is that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Well when it comes to healthcare, Barack Obama is offering free breakfast, lunch, dinner and dessert.

Our pay czar says that he doesn't want broader powers over the rest of the financial sector.

Speaking of pay czars, just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the President, could arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50 percent or 90 percent?

Could Washington's plans to rein in executive salaries eventually result in even higher executive pay?

From Victor Davis Hanson ... All Falling Down . . .

When it comes to banking, size isn't the only thing that matters.

The White House is catching a lot of flak for giving perks to its top donors.

How's that stimulus spending working out for ya? Philadelphia was awarded $157 million in federal funds. It has only spent $1 million so far and only saved 52 jobs.

Obama signed his first defense authorization bill, only after complaining that there was too much pork spending in the bill.

Guess who is back at the government trough ... GMAC!

The Senate has agreed to extend the first-time homebuyer tax credit.

Ethics offices in Washington are at odds with each other, so they call in Nancy Pelosi to intervene.

This one ought to get the turbos charged ... scientists have been able to grow artificial sperm and eggs.

Your House of Representatives is taking the time to call hearings to discuss the long-term effects of head injuries in football.

Costco says that it is now going to start accepting food stamps.

Ladies, how do you feel about Ian Robinson's column about right-wing women?