The more I read about Governors Jan Brewer of Arizona and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, the more I think they would make a formidable ticket against Barack Obama and his court jester, Joe Biden, in 2012.

Brewer and Jindal are pro-life, pro-family, pro-2nd Amendment, pro-free enterprise, pro-energy production and pro-legal immigration. All the qualities we need in Washington, D.C., right now.

Brewer, the courageous and embattled Republican governor of Arizona, is once again being betrayed by other "leaders" in the United States, in favor of officials in Mexico.

We saw it on disgraceful display when President Obama and his Democrats in Congress gave Mexican Presidente Felipe Calderon a standing ovation when he told a joint session of Congress that Arizona's new illegal immigration law was unconstitutional. (I'm sure he's an expert on such things.)

Americans overwhelmingly agree with the core ideals instilled in the founding document of the United States.

The Declaration of Independence, written primarily by Thomas Jefferson, asserts that “we are all endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 88% of American Adults agree with this phrase. Only six percent (6%) do not.

The following sentence dives deep into the focus of government, stating, “Governments derive their only just powers from the consent of the governed.” Two-thirds (68%) agree with this statement while 13% disagree and 19% are not sure.

However, one of the most depressing realities in today’s world is that only 21% of voters nationwide believe that the federal government now enjoys the consent of the governed.

Another statement from the Declaration, “all men are created equal,” is supported by 84%. Just 13% disagree with it.

1. Emergency Room Volume to Go Up, not Down: Remember how Obamacare was going to reduce wait time in emergency rooms? Millions of previously uninsured Americans accustomed to using ERs for basic medical treatment would instead snatch up Obamacare coverage and start getting primary care from regular (and cheaper) medical practices. But, says Rick Dallam, it looks like “it’s going to be exactly the opposite over the next four to eight years.” In an article in The Hill, Dallam, a partner at a firm that designs healthcare facilities, notes: “We don’t have the primary care infrastructure in place in America to cover the need. Our clients are looking at and preparing for more emergency department volume, not less.”

2. Small Business’s are Hurt, not Helped: One of the great promises of Obamacare was that it would give folks working in small businesses better access to affordable care. Unfortunately, the Obamacare small-business tax credit just doesn’t get the job done, according to the National Federation of Independent Business, the nation’s largest small-business advocacy group. NFIB reports that provisions aimed at expanding small-business-sponsored coverage will have little real impact—though their cost will be all too real.

3. Jobs Cut, not Expanded: Thanks to Obamacare, low-skilled job seekers will find it even harder to find work. That’s the lesson drawn from a new analysis by White Castle, the iconic hamburger chain, which looked at how Obamacare provisions would affect the company’s bottom line.

I'm planning to move my family and extended family into Mexico for my health, and I would like to ask you to assist me. We're planning to simply walk across the border from the U.S. Into Mexico, and we'll need your help to make a few arrangements. We plan to skip all the legal stuff like visas, passports, immigration quotas and laws. I'm sure they handle those things the same way you do here. So, would you mind telling your buddy, President Calderon, that I'm on my way over? Please let him know that I will be expecting the following:

1. Free medical care for my entire family.
2. English-speaking gov. bureaucrats for all services I might need, whether I use them or not.
3. Please print all Mexican government forms in English.
4. I want my grand kids to be taught Spanish by English-speaking (bi-lingual) teachers.
5. Tell their schools they need to include classes on American culture and history.

In the third quarter of 2009, approximately 45 percent of U.S. residents lived in households in which at least one individual received government benefits, according to data released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. These benefits came from programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

According to the report, about 28.4 million households, or 24 percent of the U.S. total, received means-tested benefits — either cash or noncash — in an average month during the quarter. Medicaid (21.1 million), free or reduced-price school meals (11.5 million) and food stamps (9.3 million) were the most widely received such benefits. (Means-tested programs are those that provide cash or services to people who meet a test of need based on income and assets.) However, it was two non-means-tested programs, Social Security and Medicare, that affected the largest number of households, with 33.6 million receiving Social Security or Railroad Retirement benefits and 30.8 million receiving benefits from Medicare.

Democrats – terrified of the Tea Party movement – are coming out of the woodwork to warn about the so-called dangerous rhetoric of the right. There are just two problems here. No. 1, the 1st Amendment protects political speech whether anybody likes it or not. No. 2, the hypocrisy of the leftist political class is mind-boggling.

In 2003, when the left was going after President Bush with everything it had – remember "Bush lied and people died?" – it fell to Hillary Clinton to defend political speech. She said, “I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic.” She went on to say that dissent is perfectly proper no matter what administration is in power.

Well, that was THAT Clinton and that was then.

Now we have former President Bill Clinton picking a fight with Rush Limbaugh over the Oklahoma City bombing. It’s déjà vu all over again. Fifteen years ago, President Clinton gave a speech in Minneapolis, and though he never mentioned Limbaugh by name, his target was unmistakable.

Proof that progressivism is alive and well on planet Earth came again this past week via a Wisconsin federal judge's ruling that the National Day of Prayer (NDP) is unconstitutional.

Appointed to the bench by Jimmy Carter, U.S. District Judge Barbara B. Crabb wrote that the government can no more enact laws supporting a day of prayer than it can encourage citizens to fast during Ramadan, attend a synagogue or practice magic. She further gave the rationale, "The same law that prohibits the government from declaring a National Day of Prayer also prohibits it from declaring a National Day of Blasphemy."

Even more preposterous logic is found in her words: "In fact, it is because the nature of prayer is so personal and can have such a powerful effect on a community that the government may not use its authority to try to influence an individual's decision whether and when to pray."

Dear Readers: Another April 15 has come and gone, and we now know that for at least 47 percent of Americans it was painless. Each year, the taxpayer watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste publishes its "Congressional Pig Book." This book features the outrageously wasteful ways Congress spends our money on pork projects and earmarks. Here are a few highlights — or in this case low-lights — of what you have paid for with your 2009 taxes.

— $800,000 to the University of South Alabama for oyster rehabilitation. First Tiger Woods and Jessie James, and now oysters need to attend rehab. Who's next, snails?

— $2.6 million for conservation and recovery of the monk seals population and Pacific crustaceans in Hawaii. If I'm not mistaken, seals eat crustaceans, so we could save half of that money if Hawaii would just pick a side. C'mon: crustaceans or seals?

— $200,000 for a tattoo-removal violence-prevention program in California. Wouldn't it be cheaper if people with tattoos simply paid for their own long-sleeved shirts?

WASHINGTON — The pro-abortion lobby cannot be happy about a law that has just been passed and signed in faraway Nebraska. There anti-abortion forces must have clout. The law bans most abortions 20 weeks after conception on the basis of "fetal pain." Thus, the Nebraskan pro-life advocates are saying that the suffering of a fetus is at least as important as the suffering of a chicken at a poultry processing plant or of a stray dog picked up by the animal control authorities. For liberalism, this could mean still more liberal crackup, as sympathizers for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and other advocates of animal rights are put in the awkward position of contemplating the pain suffered by that biological inconvenience that civilized Americans still call a fetus. If they contemplate with sufficient intelligence, they might conclude that a fetus has rights.

Naturally, pro-abortionists are promising a huge legal battle. There will be claims that the fetus does not suffer. Experts will be called in. The case will be as acrimonious as every abortion controversy has been since 1973, when, through the courts, pro-abortionists forced legalized abortion on the entire country. Had the question of abortion been left to legislatures, doubtless the process would have become legal in some states but not in others. Federalism's genius would abide. Diversity would exist.

1. New Spending Grows the Federal Deficit: The Congressional Budget Office sets the projected cost of the healthcare package from 2010 to 2019 at $940 billion, reducing the deficit by $138 billion. The true cost of the new law will be far greater. The legislation uses budgetary gimmicks to make it appear cheaper, including omitting cuts to Medicare provider payment rates, double-counting savings from Medicare and the CLASS Act, indexing benefits to general inflation rather than medical inflation, and delaying expensive provisions of the bill. When these costs are accounted for, the new law is likely to cost $2.5 trillion.

2. Bending the Cost Curve in the Wrong Direction: The provisions of the legislation aimed at reducing healthcare spending are reactionary, addressing the symptoms rather than the root causes of growth in spending. Instead of reducing spending in healthcare, the bill will increase overall health spending in the U.S. by $222 billion between now and 2019.

Fifty percent (50%) of U.S. voters say they are less likely to vote for their representative in Congress this November if he or she votes for the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey taken Wednesday night finds that 34% are more likely to vote for their Congress member’s reelection if he or she supports the president’s health care plan. Eight percent (8%) say the health care vote will have no impact on how they vote this November, and another seven percent (7%) are not sure.

Days after an acid attack in downtown Hong Kong, and in preparation for a non-conventional attack on Israel, the National Emergency Authority (NEA) will hold the largest-ever exercise to train security forces how to respond to a citywide biological attack.

The drill will begin Wednesday with the arrival at hospitals throughout the center of the country of dozens of people with a variety of symptoms. The hospitals - including Ichilov, Tel Hashomer and Wolfson - will not know who the impersonators are and will have to work to identify them as well as the cause of their symptoms.

The scenario is a biological terror attack. The IDF Home Front Command will work to clear the infected area together with the Israel Police and Magen David Adom.

Defense officials said Tuesday that Israel needs to be prepared for a biological attack.

"We need to be ready for everything that can happen," said one senior official, who is involved in planning the drill.