After more than a year of hot debate, National Healthcare became the law of the land with the stroke of the Presidential pen.  With it, however, America has become a more deeply divided nation.

With the historic inauguration of President Barack H. Obama, “change” came to America.  Gaining both the Presidency and overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate, the Democrats became well positioned to institute the liberal/progressive agenda that their core constituency has long awaited, with national healthcare as its crowning jewel.

Despite public opinion polls demonstrating popular disapproval of the legislation, the national healthcare reform bill swept through the House of Representatives with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi leading the charge.  Amidst the cheers and accolades of the bill’s supporters, the President felt vindicated having achieved his bid to become the first President to legislate national healthcare reform.

Despite Republican attempts to derail the bill, its passage has created a rift in our government with trouble in River City.  Vowing to repeal should the balance of power shift as a result of the 2010 mid-term elections, the Republicans are currently employing various tactics to force the bill back to the House for a revote.

Increasing numbers of Americans, after witnessing the power struggle in Washington, are wondering if the path that the Democrats have chosen is the right path for America.  Many questions are unanswered and the lack of transparency in the language has not been addressed.  All we know is a number of people in the country who do not have healthcare will ultimately be required to secure coverage or face a penalty issued by the IRS (Income Removal Service).

The ultimate question, however, is how burdensome taxes will become to pay for this legislation.  With a struggling economy and high unemployment, on whom will the burden fall?  Sources indicate that the heaviest tax burden would fall upon the wealthy.  But, who defines the word wealthy and how is it defined?  

Another thing of which we are certain is that some people will be exempted from the mandate.  Included among this latter group are illegal aliens, prisoners, the present Administration, and the good ole boys in the social club we call the U.S. Congress.

However there is a bright side to this, as it is estimated that the IRS will have to employ a minimum of 10,000 new agents to do the job.  The primary requirement for employment will be that those selected will have to be ruthless, because some of them may be chasing their relatives.

This bill is highly complex with a good portion of the mandates not taking place until 2013.  Some aspects of the new law, however, will take effect immediately.  According to Speaker Nancy Pelosi “pre-existing conditions and being a woman” happen with the stroke of Obama’s pen.  And, now that the bill has passed, the Speaker announced, “now we will know what exactly what we voted for.”

To summarize the passage of this historic piece of legislation, the losers are the wealthy and the big winners are the illegal aliens and the prisoners who will get free healthcare, because they are not citizens or subject to the mandate to purchase coverage.

If you think we have problems with our borders now, wait till the rest of the world hears the good news. We may have to change the sign on the Statue of Liberty to:

“Give me your tired, your poor, and your sick (with or without pre-existing conditions),

Your huddled masses, yearning to get free healthcare…” 

The Copenhagen Summit was hailed as the greatest agreement upon which nations the world over could not agree.  President Obama led the charge, offering billions of dollars to resolve the man-made global warming crisis.  In light of our plummeting economy, one must wonder from which well these billions will spring.  In 2010, recipients of Social Security will not get a cost of living increase, a situation that may extend into 2011, 2012, and beyond.  Does that begin to give you a clue as to this mysterious well?

In addition to the President’s munificent offer, Americans continue to suffer for their generous hearts; we are asked to empower third world nations with our charity, A.K.A. our rapidly dwindling funds.   The charitable endeavors include digging water wells for Africans, installing porta-potties for Afghans, and presenting “little blue pills” to Bolivians.

There is an old saying, “Charity begins at home.”  With thousands of senior citizens saddled with medical, utility, cable, phone, and food bills, President Obama could issue an Executive order, allowing the elderly to enjoy their golden years.  Not drilling those wells, installing those porta-potties, facilitating the horizontal mambo of those in the continent below ours, or single-handedly saving the planet can accomplish this.

The answer to solving the problems of senior problems can be found in Gitmo.  It can be reopened.  Instead of hosting purported and admitted terrorists (“detainees”), the facility can be reopened to house the elderly.  Given all the privileges of the former occupants, the aged will have no bills, no worries, and all the comforts of home in a tropical paradise.  I can see myself now, sipping a Cuban Libra and watching the sun set on Guantanamo Bay, the soft sounds of Spanish guitars being strummed by field laborers after a hard day’s work.  My little town in New Jersey was never like this, with no cold winters and no bills, just balmy breezes and warm tropical days and nights. It’s great for aching bones and arthritis!

While the spirit of Christmas is still upon us, what better gift can be given the American seniors, who made this greatest nation on the earth, than the ability to enjoy the twilight of their years in peace and harmony?  “Peace on earth and good will towards men [and women]” — indeed!

Friday the 13th arrived, living up to its reputation.  Yesterday, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the man proudly calling himself the mastermind behind 9/11 will be tried not in a military trial, but in a civilian federal court in downtown Manhattan (New York City, for those of you not from the Big Apple).  Holder’s decision dovetails with President Obama’s plan to slam the doors on Gitmo, both literally and as an uncomfortable chapter in U.S. history that the President would rather have gone unwritten.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is not the first Guantanamo Bay detainee to face trial in New York City rather than at the hands of the military; one of his cohorts, Ahmed Ghailani, claims that distinction.  However, the administration chose, at the time of Ghailani’s trial, not to seek the death penalty.  One wonders, then, what is to become of the man who alleges to have pitched his evil plan to Osama Bin Laden, negotiated funding from the rebel Afghani leader, trained the assassins, and then blessed the systematic extinction of more than 3,000 innocent American lives.

The ramifications of Holder’s decision are both widespread and complex, and if you are interested in those legalities, start surfing the web.  I am not an attorney or a politician.  I am but a New Yorker whose city has been irrevocably altered by a handful of madmen.

If Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is to attain a fair trial, as is his right under Constitutional Law, will he receive one?  The prosecution will have to journey to a mountain in Tibet to locate a single New Yorker yet to hear of and/or unaffected by the horror and tragedy of 9/11; New Yorkers, of course, do not live in Tibet.  But even if juror objectivity can be established, how can those jurors possibly be Mohammed’s peers, when his peers, by his own admission, are terrorists?

In the days shortly following 9/11, when the Bush administration linked Bin Laden to the fallen Towers and the 3,000-plus cold-blooded murders, I had thoughts of what I’d like to see happen to the terrorists.  At first, I thought it might be fitting to roast Bin Laden and his cronies over the still-smoking embers of Ground Zero; I meant this literally.  I added to this fantasy by envisioning the loved ones of those killed taking a pound of flesh, again literally, from the bastards.  One pound at time, strategically incised, would not kill them outright and would surely not kill them immediately.  They would have died a slow, torturous death. I thought this a fitting end for the filthy lot of them.  With the full knowledge that such fantasies might call bad karma to befall me, I maintained them nonetheless, struggling with my morals as a Christian and with my civic duty as a native New Yorker.

A part of me would still like to see Mohammed and his cohorts let loose into the streets of my city.  If the faint-hearted are afraid to venture there, imagine how the terrorists might feel, facing a righteously enraged mob unrestricted in addressing those who plotted for five years (according to Mohammed) to annihilate their loved ones. And some part of me would dearly love to see these proceedings televised.

The other part of me says that the dirty bastard deserves a fair trial, for that is the only way to preserve what the terrorists sought so hard to destroy and what they still seek to obliterate.   Our justice system only works if it works for all, terrorists or not.  To deny the self-proclaimed architect of 9/11 a fair trial is to negate the tenets underpinning our Constitution.  And the toppling of the Constitution was their ultimate objective, not merely the felling of two mighty skyscrapers and their occupants.

Having said that, I hope the bastards do get the death penalty once they are tried as fairly as we can manage within our system.  And I hope that the executions are televised, to send a small message to every other anti-American murderer, including terrorists-in-the-making.

In the words of Jesus Christ, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.  And render unto God what is God’s.”   The execution of Mohammed and his followers for their crimes of terrorism would kill both of those birds with a single stone.

In an election with national repercussions, New Jerseyans will go to the polls tomorrow to elect a Governor.  Many view the New Jersey race, along with the Virginia gubernatorial election and a Congressional election in New York state, as a referendum on the year-old Obama presidency and Democrat control over Congress.

As a not-quite impartial observer, I, as I am sure many of the State’s residents, have been amused by the nature and tone of the campaigns.  If you watch and accept as true his commercials, incumbent Democrat Governor Jon Corzine has done a fabulous job over the past four years – reducing property taxes, protecting the environment, improving access to healthcare, bolstering education, fighting unemployment, and leading an affirmative response to the recent economic downturn that has saved the State from disaster.  Of course, if you believe the ads of his Republican challenger, former U.S. Attorney Chris Christie, Corzine’s term of office has been a total disaster and Christie has the answers and expertise to solve the State’s problems.  Then, there is independent challenger Chris Daggett.  A former Regional Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency and Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection under Republican Governor Kean, Daggett represents somewhat of a wildcard in the campaign.  His candidacy could potentially benefit Governor Corzine by siphoning votes from his challenger, Chris Christie, and has led some critics to assert that that is precisely his motive in the race.

As the campaign has unfolded, the mudslinging has intensified, including apparent attacks by the Corzine campaign on Christie’s weight (yes, Chris – if not yet married – could have been the bachelor on More to Love).  It seems that candidates will do or say anything to get elected; only to renege on campaign promises once elected.

In this vein, I have collected and below present some advertisements by the candidates.  Unfortunately, independent Chris Daggett’s campaign had fewer resources, making his advertisements harder to find.  Yet, I feel that the ads below are a fair sampling of what the candidates were saying about themselves and each other.  I will attempt to caption them according to their content.

The following ad is a Corzine commercial targeting one of his core constituencies – liberal women concerned about women’s health issues and the right to choose:

The next ad is an anti-Corzine message distributed by the Christie campaign, appealing to his more conservative Republican base:

The next ad is a Corzine attack ad:

Our next advertisement is a Christie attack ad amateurishly mimicking Rod Serling’s Twilight Zone:

The next ad impugns challenger Christie by implying that he is fat:

The following example is a form of testimonial in which former Governor Tom Kean praises and endorses Republican candidate Christie using the famous “perfect together” expression that Kean had use in various state promotional advertisements:

Finally, this last ad is independent Daggett’s. It uses footage from a gubernatorial debate to suggest that he (Daggett) is, in fact, the favorite of both of his rivals:

I hope that you have enjoyed these ads and that they have enhanced your confusion as to whom you will support in tomorrow’s election. Whomever you are supporting, be sure to vote!

As we enter the new millennium of the “audacity of hope,” one has to wonder if the current direction of government conforms to the promised future of this country.  It is the first time in the history of our country that government has taken over the financial system including mortgage lending, a major national enterprise in the form of an automobile company, and is in the process of taking over the health care system.  This truly is audacity in action.

Our President claims he is a Christian, but he insists he has a Muslim background and announces it to the world.  Biblical teachings say you cannot obey two masters, which leaves us wondering the master that President Obama obeys.

I guess we are receiving the answer to that question as we witness what he does and not what he says. Recently, the enemies of our country were released from internment at Guantanamo Bay Prison and sent to Bermuda at the taxpayers’ expense to live the life of Riley. Can anyone in this country explain to me how sworn enemies of our country get away without punishment for their actions?  How can we as Americans look in the eyes of families who have lost sons or daughters to men such as these?

The Founding Fathers created a constitutional government with three branches to insure that checks and balances can be achieved so one branch could not dictate to the other two.  It is the sworn duty of these branches to uphold that rule regardless of party affiliations.

History will record the actions that take place today and if we are a constitutional government or not.  Let’s hope our elected representatives adhere to the rules of a constitutional government and show their true colors.