After watching Silvio Berlusconi get a taste of his own medicine I began to think about how this one act could be used for good in the United States. Until now the federal government has consistently violated the Constitution with impunity. U.S. citizens that love freedom and are looking for answers as to how we can get the government's attention and make them fear us may have just been given a clue.

Here is the idea. In the Berlusconi case a man threw a statue, rather appropriate for Italy in my opinion, but here in the United States it would seem a bit odd. When our country wasn't happy about the tax on tea they took to throwing the tea off the ships, so we also should keep things in context. Today, we have bills that are over a thousand pages so it seems appropriate to replace the statue with tightly bundled copies of the bills that we oppose.

The affect is that the federal government has a much better chance of feeling the pain of their actions. It seems fully appropriate that when they hurt us, the U.S. citizens, that we hurt them in the only way we can. We tried writing letter, emails, calling, visiting, and protesting. What did that get anyone? A double down on the speed to communism. Note: this is communism because it is very much against our will. This is not socialism. It seems that the only way to get the attention of our government, now that they are becoming more like Europe, is to reach out and touch one of them.

After that, the question become what should we do if they ignore all reasonable attempts to get their attention.

I started this blog because my anger toward the government, starting under the Bush regime, increased to a point where I wanted to try to make a difference. I had hoped that a revolution could be avoided if the citizens of the United States would stand up and let their voice be heard. While it is true that some citizens did just that, I believe that the total comes to less than one percent of the population of the United States. Obviously, our government is not going to take anyone seriously when the total comes to less than one percent. Even the republicans only take it seriously enough to use it as a wave to ride back into power. Let's be clear. The government won't take the people seriously when the people won't get serious about their country.

The time to rise up has come and gone. Make no mistake. Obama said he would fundamentally change the United States, and he is. In any revolution there is a period of time when the good people have the opportunity to stand up and resist the tyrannical government. Germany had this chance, but they chose Hitler instead. The United States has had many chances to vote in statesmen instead of politicians, but they chose self serving pandering politicians. We see how they have brought us to the verge of bankruptcy and are showing no sign of stopping. We see how they have steadily handed over sovereignty to world powers. We see how congress, more concerned with getting elected, has abdicated its responsibility to manage a financially sound monetary system in favor of turning it over to a global corporation, the "federal reserve." What shall we say now that we have consented to these fundamentally destructive actions? Even if fifty percent of the U.S. citizens stood up and said enough, would it matter? Or would the government simply turn our military against us just as it did to its own veterans after world war one? I believe the latter; what have they to lose?

Some will undoubtedly say that we have 2010 and 2012. Who would we vote in? Only a small percentage of elected officials are up for re-election. Those that are running offer only two choices. Socialist government that redistributes wealth from the rich to the poor, democrats, or those that seek to redistribute wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich, the republicans. U.S. citizens have made it clear that neither party is qualified to run a war. Republicans want it to continue empire building, while the democrats want to drag their feet until the citizens demand our troops be withdrawn. Should we continue to choose the lesser of two evils as we have done for the last one hundred years? What other choice do we have? We had an opportunity to have Ron Paul lead us back to our founding fathers wishes, but the majority of people chose to be lead by the media. How can justice win when people are ignorant of its existence? I don't see 2010 or 2012 making any real difference in moving our country back in the right direction. Perhaps, it will be a new direction, but that doesn't mean it will be the right direction. Chances are more likely it will be the wrong direction.

So we come down to the question, "Is there any hope?" Not unless people are willing to put their lives on the line. Let's be real. The left has already said they have no problem using "the persuasion of power." They have said that they mostly agree with Mao that political change only comes out of the barrel of a gun. They have advised their minions to "punch back." Is it not clear that this is no longer an ideological war, but has been fundamentally transformed into a fight for life? Even if we were to trust the police to protect us, haven't we seen that the judges have no intention of punishing those carrying out the will of the progressives?

If there is hope, then it resides in ourselves. We are our only chance to free ourselves. Yet, it won't come by conducting business as usual. It won't come by staying out of the fray. It won't come by letting others take care of the problems. It will only come when every one of the three hundred million plus members of this great country leave our place of work, leave our home, and leave our comfort zone to demonstrate the raw physical power of the citizens of this country, as we did during the revolution, the civil war, WWI, and WWII, and again return the fear of God and the fear of the U.S. citizens back into the stone hearts of the government. But that isn't enough. Only when have we have restored that fear will we be powerful enough to get freedom loving statesmen back into our government, and remove the corrupt politicians. People that won't empire build, won't fundamentally change our country, but will respect the law of our land that is the Constitution. The very document that separated us from the rest of the world; and made us better than the rest of the world. The very document that made freedom for slaves possible. The very document that seeks to declare that every human has inalienable rights given to us by the Almighty. Our only hope is for each of us to again take our position as citizen rulers of our own domain and our country.

Now you see why I think our country is lost. There simply isn't enough time for the process to take place necessary for these actions to occur. Perhaps, if the citizens got serious enough to accelerate the process our country might have a chance, but last time I checked too many citizens were fighting over who would get the last mouse for Christmas.

I was sitting at my computer mulling over whether I should tweet something. I was concerned that if I posted the tweet I could lose all of my followers. Now, I don't have a lot of followers, and I am not a conceited person, but I want my thoughts and feelings to be heard because I think what I have to say is good for my country and good for every individual in this country that loves freedom and liberty. Then, it occurred to me. Did Thomas Paine wonder if people would like him if he wrote Common Sense? Did our founding fathers wonder if people would like them if they declared independence from Britain? Let's go back further. What about Martin Luther and the Catholic church? Or more recently, what about Winston Church Hill and Hitler? Abraham Lincoln and the south?

History is full of examples of people saying dangerous things at dangerous times. Is history full of crazy people, too? Absolutely! One thing that seems to be lost today is the ability to tell the crazy people from the others. Here is how I think we can tell the difference. The crazy people aren't talking about freedom and liberty for every individual. They want one group of people or another to pay while their group of people run the show. So let's test that theory. Hitler wanted Germany to control the world, and to kill people that he didn't like. That sounds crazy. Abraham Lincoln wanted freedom and liberty for every individual regardless of color. That sounds fair. Oh, here is something to try. Obama wants minorities to have free money, free health care, and any other benefit he can get, but he doesn't want rich people to have any freedom. Hmm, that does sound crazy. Well, I am sure I am just Obama bashing, so lets try George W. Bush. OK, he wanted to give rich people the tax money from hard working people to reward them for the lousy job they did in their banks. No, I don't think I am Obama bashing because that sounds crazy, too. Teddy Roosevelt wanted the rich to subsidize the poor by force of law. That's crazy. A dangerous saying by itself is not a bad thing, if it is dangerous to those that are against freedom and liberty.

Well, I heard Comrade Pelosi saying that it was fair to put people in jail if they weren't willing to get on board with government health care control. To me, that sounded crazy. So this is what I was going to post.

I might lose my followers 4 this, but if HC passes I am not waiting for them to come arrest me. I'll pull a GWB. Freedom is better than PC.

I believe that people will read that who have become so conditioned by society to believe that all violence is bad. Yet, I am one of those annoying people that always ask why. Why is the sky blue? Why can't we walk on water? Why is the Fed so secretive? Why is our government turning so quickly to tyranny? I am that guy. So I asked myself, "Why do we think that all violence is bad?" Wasn't WWII violent? Wasn't the revolutionary war violent? Wasn't the civil war violent? If all violence is bad, then why are we fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan? Isn't that violent?

Well, after those questions I could no longer believe that all violence is bad. It may be unwanted, but it isn't always bad. Violence against freedom is bad; violence for freedom is necessary. Then, I thought about what Thomas Jefferson said.

Well, that made me ask how government can fear the people if it never believes that people will turn violent against it. I mean, haven't the Muslims proved that when the government fear the people they have freedom. Wasn't the government too afraid of the Fort Hood terrorist to stop him from killing fourteen people (there are reports that the woman was pregnant, that means 14 people died, not 13)? Wasn't the government too afraid of being labeled bigots to investigate him? Isn't our President too afraid of Muslims to make a decision in Afghanistan? Isn't our government too afraid to call the Fort Hood terrorist a "terrorist"?

Let's see who the government isn't afraid of. They called our returning military "potential right wing extremists.", didn't they? Didn't they say Christian fundamentalists were the most dangerous group of people in our country? I don't remember any Catholics flying planes into any buildings. Maybe, I overslept that day. The guy that killed a baby killing "Dr.", he was a terrorist, but not the guy that killed fourteen at Fort Hood. Tea party attenders are racist, homophobic, terrorists, but SEIU and ACORN are not. People that love the Constitution are "home grown terrorist", but the people that blow things up for environmental purposes, they aren't terrorists. People that exposed ACORN as criminal, they broke the law. ACORN on video showing possible laws being broken, they didn't break the law. Men that rape little boys, they get probation because they are OK. News channel that exposes judge and prosecutor that gave probation to child rapist, they are evil. Families that don't want their children taught that sex in the butt is wrong, they are evil. Schools that want to teach children that homosexuality is better than heterosexuality are OK. This list could go on and on.

I think it is clear who the government fears. I think it is clear that they don't fear the majority of U.S. citizens. Why? Well because, it is like those old macho movies when the tough guy cop catches the really, really bad guy and the bad guy turns to him and says, "You won't kill me. You don't have it in you. You're a cop, and the laws won't allow you to touch me. You will arrest me and I will be out by tonight." The government is counting on us putting our guns back in our holster and hoping the law will deal with them. But, let's be real. We know they won't see justice. We know they have paid off the judges and the prosecutors. We know they will be out by tonight. Why do you think they love Hollywood so much? I think it is because they know that Hollywood has convinced us that doing the right thing is the wrong thing, and standing against corruption is too risky and dangerous.

Do I think anyone should go blow up an FBI building? No way! Our government will only be able to discredit freedom loving U.S. citizens in that case. However, we must make it clear that we will not be walked on. We will not be put under the feet of the government. We will resist them, yes, even to the point of violence. If they turn their guns on us, then we will respond in kind. If they come to take away our freedom unjustly, then we will put them down. If they pass laws that are unConstitutional, then we will remove them from office politically first, but without removing any option from the table. The government has convinced the citizens of the United States that acting against a tyrannical, unConstitutional government is illegal, but it is not. It is not only legal, it is our duty.

Without a doubt my words may draw the attention of our government, but I am guessing that since I am not a Muslim it will not prevent them from trying to run me over. I am also confident it will likely lose the ear of many people that I would hope would listen to me, for my sake and theirs. Yet, when I ask myself what my freedom is worth, what my country's freedom is worth, what my family's freedom is worth, I find that it is more valuable than the good thoughts of people or the illusion of safety from our government. When I ask myself if I would have stood against National Socialism if I were in Germany before world war two, I would like to think that I would. The test is whether I will stand against any variation of Marxism in our country today. I will do my part to make our government again fear those who love freedom. I hope I won't be standing alone.

I am no expert on health insurance, although I did work as a customer service representative at one of the country's largest health insurance company. That gave me a first hand view of the other side. Believe me when I tell you that when the company polled its workers to see what their biggest complaints were by workers, the number one complaint was stress. While I didn't do a survey, I can tell you what my experiences were, and share some information I received in talking with others that worked there.

For me, and for others I talked to, the biggest stress creator was that when a customer called to find out if a test or procedure was covered there was no easily defined way to know. We could look at the plan policy, but that depended on what type of plan it was. Was it employer funded or insurance company funded? What CPT codes were going to be used? If the right ones weren't used it might not be covered, or only partially covered. Sometimes, the plan would say it was covered, but then there were notes that may indicate that the policy had changed. Sometimes the notes were at the end of the policy, sometimes they were somewhere else.

Also, some procedures had complex requirements that had to be met before it would be covered. While we could read the complex requirements full of medical jargon, we could not explain what they meant because we were not doctors and there was too much liability with explaining them; we had to suggest they get clarification from the doctor. It was not too uncommon to have to send a request to a claims processor to find out if a procedure would be covered. Even then, it might take days for the processor to discover the answer. The calls we took that we couldn't answer right away were put in our queue. It was not uncommon for my queue to be so full others would have to help me. I was told that it would take three to five years to get enough information to help these callers on the first call, even then that information could change within that time.

This was so common that I couldn't hack it there. I am a problem solver, and not being able to help these people stressed me out to the point it was taking a physical toll.

Based on my experiences, here are my suggestions on health insurance reform.

First, health insurance should only be for chronic and catastrophic situations. I understand that regular check ups can help prevent and catch problems early. Insurance companies say that early prevention lowers costs because it helps prevent higher costs for health problems found later. If this is true, then why is it that health insurance companies have continued to increase health maintenance and preventative care into health plans, but the plan costs continue to skyrocket? It would seem that instead of lowering costs, adding preventative care increases costs. Has anyone had their health insurance price go down in the last five years? Also, why are plans that cover preventative care more costly to the consumer than catastrophic only insurance plans if they help reduce costs?

A health plan that covers only chronic and catastrophic care would place the burden of preventative care on the consumer, which would allow that consumer to shop and compare prices. If health insurance companies believe that preventative care is helpful, then they can take a page out of the automotive industry. There are car repair insurance companies that require proof of maintenance. They don't pay for maintenance, but they require proof from the customer that they have performed routine maintenance on the car before they will cover some engine related repairs. Perhaps, the health insurance companies can require preventative care for customers that want a lower health insurance rate.

Second, health insurance is a contract between the health insurance company and the consumer. If a health insurance company drops a contract, then the consumer should have rights to sue for damages. If I, as a consumer, fail to pay my health insurance, then the insurance company can rightfully drop my coverage. However, what recourse does a consumer have when, after fulfilling their side of the contract, the health insurance company, in effect, breaches the contract. I understand that the health insurance company probably has a provision allowing them to drop the consumer at any time, but is it legal? Can a health insurance company take money for services that it doesn't provide? Would it be lawful for an online company to accept money from a customer and then decide not to ship the product?

Third, I have sympathy for health insurance companies when it comes to pre-existing conditions as a business person. However, I also have sympathy for the consumer. It isn't right for a person to wait until they are ill to purchase health insurance and expect that company to cover them. It also isn't right for a health insurance company to drop a customer that has an illness and expect that customer to be able to find a difference health insurance company to cover them.

Part of this problem could be solved by having individuals or families purchase health insurance policies instead of employers. It is not uncommon for a person to lose their job, and therefore their health insurance, because of an illness. If plans were tied to individuals it would be possible for the individual to retain their coverage, without an explosive price increase. The price of coverage should also not be determined by the employment status of that person.

Fourth, the CPT codes that are used in billing insurance companies should be more clear. There were times I had to tell my own doctor the proper code to use to get coverage from my health insurance company because the code definitions were unclear and ambiguous. There is no reason one or more full time members of a doctor's staff should have to be dedicated just to communicating with health insurance companies to ensure that they are billing properly. CPT codes should be standardized across all health insurance companies and government funded health insurance companies. Those codes should be clearly defined, and the coverage of the patient should also be clearly defined, with the proper CPT codes to use for each covered benefit.

Fifth, this has been discussed many times. Health insurance companies should not be confined by state borders. Health insurance is a service that can be sold over state lines and should be made regular. No state should be allowed to limit trade from other states.

Sixth, this has also been discussed. Legal reimbursement for pain and suffering should be limited to one million dollars. Some say two hundred fifty thousand, but if a doctor is extremely negligent, it would be good to be able to send a strong financial message to that doctor. Frankly, two hundred fifty thousand is chump change for some doctors. One million dollars might do a better job at getting their attention.

I realize that my microphone is small here, but I hope that those that read this will spread the word that conservative health care reform can't be just market based. It also has to include the idea of liberty and justice. Contract law was an important principle among our founding fathers. I think health insurance coverage touches on contract law. Can a health insurance company take payment and not disperse a product? Can the health insurance company break the contract to prevent further disbursement of the product after payment has been made? Generally, the answer is that it depends on how the contract was written, but if a contract is written to say that no product is guaranteed for payment rendered, then is that a legal contract. Doesn't that go back to the sale of snake oil? Is the company making claims it doesn't intend to keep? Would we allow drug companies to claim their drug cures cancer, but in the contract write that it may not? Why do we allow insurance companies to claim to pay for health care when there is a significant chance they may not?

These are all things I feel aren't being discussed enough by conservatives. Conservatives like to shout about small government, but then when it comes to regulation they sometimes act as though there is no government. Ideally, all of these ideas would be taken up by the states, except for the sale of health insurance across state lines which deals with interstate commerce. Let's be diligent to ensure that our Constitution and the principles our founding fathers advocated is followed while dealing with health coverage reform. I believe that will lead to more people able to be covered, without growing the federal government and without losing our liberties.

I recently wrote an article about Michael Durbin's article that both compared the anti seat belt argument to the abortion argument, and also claimed that not wearing a seat belt and getting in an accident was a violation of a rescue workers liberties. Here is Michael Durbin's article, and here is my article. Here is the comment he left in regard to my article.

The reason I am titling this article "What Is A Conservative?" in relation to his comments is because I think that they reflect, in my opinion of course, the dilution of true conservative values. Clearly, not necessarily the values of what some people calling themselves conservative retain, but conservative values non the less. I want to kind of take apart Mr. Durbin's comments so we can inspect the values, possibly conservative values, that lead to some of the statements. I am sure that this article will offend, but I think if it can be weathered until the end it will be worth it.

Mr. Durbin asked if I had watched the videos he posted regarding liberty, in particular the one that says a person's labor is a product of their liberty. No, but I did see the one about the trash can controversy. Ya, no government regulations for trash cans, that is super intrusive. Especially, when you have spent $18.00 on your own trash can. Seriously, I do agree with you about the trash cans. Yet, I am curious, are you saying we have the right to make decisions about small stuff like trash can selection, but the decision to buckle up is too important for us to make?

I find it amazing that a person can talk about a person's liberty, especially in regard to their work, and claim to believe it is important, but then turn around and advocate for laws that FORCE a person whose liberty it was to choose the path of a rescue worker to help someone, even if they don't want to. You asked if I would want it another way. Yes! I say yes. A true conservative is a person that holds fast to the values of freedom and liberty, even if the consequences of those values may negatively impact that person. Now, please don't turn this into a shallow exchange by saying that I am saying you are not a true conservative. I can only judge you buy your words. If a liberal sees me in a pool of my own blood and refuses to work on me because I am that jerk that called him a liar last week, well it sucks to be me. Of course, if his boss finds those qualities unbecoming of a rescue worker and fires him, then it sucks to be him. No one has the right to work, only the right to ask to work. More importantly, government has no say in either event.

You asked if I am screaming that my liberties are being lost because my car has to have headlights and turn signals to operate on public roads. See, this is how you tell the real conservatives from the "wanna bes" (not sure how the kids spell that). A conservative knows that his rights, freedoms, and liberties end when they begin to infringe on other peoples rights. Do people have the right to enter public domain and reasonably expect to be safe? The answer seems to be yes since we have police officers enforcing laws that promote public safety. Yet, how does my seat belt help others be safe? Should the law say my child has to be buckled? That argument could be made because my child should have a reasonable expectation of safety when I take them on to public roads. They can't choose not to go in the car with me. Again, I assert that not wearing a seat belt has no adverse effect on other people.

As you said, people that don't wear a seat belt have greater injuries than those wearing a seat belt, for the most part. You mentioned that 1 in 4 trauma patients who are not wearing their seatbelt in your town are on medicare, or don't pay the hospital bill after an accident forcing others to spend their money on them. I think this is where we get into a thick section of poop that the politicians have gotten themselves into. Here is my solution. First, get rid of medicare. There is no right guaranteed, no freedom to have, or liberty given that allows the government to give tax payers money to people for medical care. Yes, yes, I know. I am a heartless #@$@%#$#. Whatever. I find it heartless to take the money from hard working people, by threat of imprisonment, and give it to other people in direct violation of the Constitution. Second, acting as a stop loss for hospitals is not the role of any government. Stop trying to pass regulations to help businesses be more profitable. Your seat belt law acts as a lever which allows government to force private industry to treat injured people regardless of means to pay. If a hospital or doctor chooses to adopt that policy, then that is their right, but it is not the role of government, local or federal, to force companies to accept customers without means to pay. Finally, more injuries means more money for the hospital when patients are able to pay. How is that bad for the rescue worker, hospital, or anyone else being PAID to help that person?

Mr. Durbin, no one is forcing you to choose whose liberty you have to take. A free society is one that regulates itself. Yes, we should have laws that protect people from true violations of their freedom and liberty such as murder, theft, injury due to malice or negligence. These laws are reactive in nature, not preemptive. A true conservative understands that you cannot legislate away crime. Punishment, fast, firm, and public, is the only determent to crime.

OK, that is my case against the substance of your argument. Now, you wonder why I think you should be embarrassed, and said your argument was inept. Also, why oh why would I attack another conservative? Well, I am a conservative. More than that, I am a freedom loving conservative so I have no problem calling out oppressive people, regardless of what they call themselves. OK, I sense I need to back up a minute and explain what I mean by oppressive people. Am I saying that you are an oppressor? Well, I have a very black and white view of freedom. If you aren't for it, your against it. If a person is for freedom, then that person is a freedom lover. If a person is against freedom, then that person is an oppressor. If a person makes, passes, or helps to pass a law that infringes on another person's liberty, then that person is an oppressor. That person can choose, at any time, to stop being an oppressor, but at that moment they are an oppressor. That is what infringing on other peoples liberty does, it oppresses them.

An old proverb says that as iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. If I don't "attack" you, as you say, then I have no method to help sharpen you. Alternatively, I have no opportunity to be sharpened myself. This is one reason our founding fathers placed so much value on freedom of speech. I mean, I don't know if they specifically reference that proverb, but I am pretty sure they knew that freedom of speech was, and is, a foundational principal in the growth and enhancement of our society. If we go around being afraid to speak, or being afraid to be spoken to, then we cannot grow as human beings.

OK, but why blast, ridicule, and laugh at people for their inept arguments? I am glad you asked. It is false to believe that people change when they are comfortable. No one has ever said that comfort was the mother of invention, at least not to my knowledge. No, it is necessity that is the mother of invention. If no need is recognized, then no change can occur. If we, as freedom loving people want to change this country back into the way our founding fathers intended, then we must create an environment that forces people to recognize the need for change. To confront them with the absurdity of their ideology. Yes, to ridicule their ideas. To laugh at their baseless arguments. Especially, to ridicule them for having so low minded thoughts. We have become such a PC society today that an attack on ones ideals, their thoughts, has been equated to a personal attack on the person themselves. Especially, if that attack comes from a member of the group that person identifies themselves with. I am a conservative, but I am not a collectivist. I hold no loyalty to any collection of people. I represent myself and the truth as I see it. I welcome attack. I welcome people ridiculing my ideology, my truth. I look forward to defending myself and challenging others. Frankly, I think you should too.

You state in your reply that you think our efforts would be better served attacking those who take our liberties constantly. Yet, does it matter if those liberties are taken slowly or quickly, constantly or intermittently? Liberty lost is liberty lost. Any effort to take liberty should be fought. Also, how can a conservative possibly defend ones self from those that seek to steal liberty when they have the hypocritical log in their own eye? Can we honestly confront those that want to fundamentally change our country with integrity when there are those on our own team that have been willing participants in the effort, regardless of the degree or speed? Isn't that where that saying comes from about throwing stones when you live in a glass house? Can a person honestly call themselves a conservative because they stand up for the right to pick their trash can, but not the right to choose their own safety habits? Is liberty that limited? Do I not have the right to control my destiny, even if that choice leaves me paralyzed or dead? If not, then do I really control my destiny? Or is the depth of my liberty trash can deep?

These are the ideas that define a conservative, at least the way my grandfather defined conservative. He grew up in the great depression and fought in WWII defending the world from a German government that wanted to control or murder every person in the world. When we stop spending ourselves into bankruptcy, move to sound money principals, get government back to the limitations placed on it by the tenth amendment, and stop allowing babies to be murdered under the euphemism of "choice", then I might allow politicians today to tell me what we should say is conservative.