To pre-empt the typical unfounded accusation of "You made up the statistics" here is the citation... http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0020/fig1.gif

In her first interview since giving birth, the teenage daughter of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said having a child is not "glamorous," and that telling young people to be abstinent is "not realistic at all."

I want to be billy......

Yet you want to send kids to school to protest abortion. They are old enough to do that, they are old enough to hear about sex, the reasons for abstinence, and birth control. Abstinence is discussed in this extremely brief part of the curriculum. Parents have to sign a permission slip and so ultimately they can have their child not attend the class without being penalized academically. I would have thought you would support sex education in school, to help prevent unwanted pregnancies, which lead to abortions. Furthermore, evolution is taught in science, not sex ed. Please explain the science behind intelligent design. Lastly, nostalgia for what you consider the good ole days before the 60's is fine, but it's unrealistic to believe we could ever go back to them. With the racism and the sexism during that time, I wouldn't want to personally.

i love when someone pretends that the "good ol' days" were really good days and better than now. I suppose its just human nature to have a revisionist history mind-set and it particularly hits some old guys (or perhaps some religious people also). there would be people in the 50s carrying on how things used to be better and more moral in the 20s, people in the 20s looked back to the 1890s as morally uplifting and so on.

or how colonists would look back in later years to 1637 and that it was surely providence that Underhill and Mason massacred the Pequot and what good that did for the moralities of the people, not to mention more land for us. extreme example, yes, but same type of reminiscence. (sorry, i just finished reading The Wordy Shipmates by Sarah Vowell. LOL)

in the 50s i seem to remember being scared to death of nuclear attack by the commies, drills to get under desks in school, air raid siren tests, extreme racism and sexism (as kittyv mentions), poor tolerance for disabilities, McCarthyism, fear and hatred that could easily compare with today. same thing, just different players (throughout history). yet in each of those times - just like today - there are improvements being made and people willing to roll up there sleeves and progress forward with new ideas and solutions, not just bring us backward to "better times."

i think r_t shows his age and out-of-date attitudes with this kind of stuff... and the fact that the "data" above solves nothing whatsoever. no worthwhile solutions. nada. just false happy go lucky good ol' day rememberances. *sigh*

sorry for the rant. i know i get carried away with this kind of stuff.

The chart says it all.

The news says the rest.

We went from a pre-marital pregnancy rate of < 10% and now we are close to 40%.

A chart showing the absolute number of pregnancies before wedlock would look even crazier given our population growth.

It amazes me the total inability to engage in a rational discourse on this.

Kittyv: Why do you ignore the statistics? Why did you not say a single word, or theorize on why the 60's (which is when we liberalized our sex education policies) led to such a dramatic increase in unmarried pregnancies?

Rolandmc: Seriously, what does she have to do with the point? Are you citing her as someone you consider an authority? What a pathetic failure to produce a rational response.

wrighter: I did not say diddly about "The good ole days", I pointed out a change in the approach to teaching sex ed and an associated explosion in unwed pregnancy. Why did you not stick to that subject? Debate the point, if you can. Or perhaps that is why you did not?

lonewolf: Funny. But really, Billy ended up getting one of the girls pregnant at school. Rather than abort her child, she kept it and sued him for paternity. He is now paying for the next 18 years. Oh, and he got herpes. His future wife will be at risk of uterine cancer if she gets it from him.

Here is another question for the liberals... Do you think our public schools are successfully addressing unwed pregnancy and sex education given the statistics shown?

http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0020/table2.html provides a good reason for vouchers in the inner cities.

r_t, you have over time on many occasions used good ol' days as your measure. the above is just another incarnation of the same.

you also have a consistent tendency to summarize everything in a catch phrase... as if issues can all be explained in a simple sentence or sound byte as you do for each decade above. it just isn't that way in real life, dude.

to answer your 9:33 question... in our most recent history, with the emphasis on abstinence and the hindrance of good/realistic sex education, i'd say no, our public schools are not being successful.

it's really hard to read that chart so i don't know what it really tells us, how reliable it is or where it came from.

without knowing if it is statistics of unwed teenage pregnancies, all unwed pregnancies regardless of age, USA only, worldwide, and so much more data that would be useful in a true analysis..... you are starting from the premise that you MUST be married in order to have sex, which is your own personal moral compass, but is not in itself a true measure of the success or morality of society, education, marriage, health, etc.

Ignoring sex education does not appear to be working out very well. Wouldn't it be nice to see the current Congress dump the silly abstinence programs that cost so much and deliver such bad results? The facts:

- The Bible-belt leads the United States in teen pregnancies. The ten states with the highest teen birth rates, in percentage order, are Mississippi, Texas, New Mexico, Arkansas, Arizona, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Alabama, Kentucky and Georgia.

- Mississippi has the nation's highest teen pregnancy rate, displacing Texas and New Mexico for that lamentable title. Mississippi's rate was more than 60 percent higher than the national average.

- The teen pregnancy rate in Texas and New Mexico was more than 50 percent higher than the national average.

- The nation's lowest teen birth rates continue to be in New England.

[source: Center for Disease Control: National Vital Statistics Reports (v.57, no.7 - Jan 7, 2009) > accessed 26Feb2009)

New England, huh? Not bad for a bunch of free-thinking, over-educated, godless socialist liberals.

There are several homes within 300-400 feet of this site. There are people that work in their yards and have grandchildren who like to play outside. With an estaimated 40-80 lbs of dust generated eachj day, how are we expected to breathe?

Rational_Thinker is blaming public education for failing to do a parents' job. And he's lying again. He has no facts to validate his claim that sex-ed "liberalized" in the 1960s.

In 1940, the U.S. Public Health Service strongly advocated sexuality education in the schools, calling it an "urgent need." In 1953, the American School Health Association launched a nationwide program in "family life" education. Two years later, the American Medical Association, in conjunction with the NEH, published pamphlets for use in public schools. These were commonly referred to as "the sex education series" for public schools. In the late 1960s opposition to sex-ed took the form of attacks aimed against any form of sex ed in school. Sex education programs were described by the John Birch Society as "a filthy Communist plot."

If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.

Oh - - and while we're on the subject of sex-ed, does President Obama still advocate sex education for kindergartners? (Mormon Bishop Romney derided it as "learning about sex before learning to read.”)

Skeptic, you appear dishonest. If you look at the last link I posted, you will see that those states being "Bible Belt" is coincident with racial groups that tend to have much higher out-of-wedlock birth rates. Cite some statistics that show "Attend Church Regularly vs Don't Attend Church Regularly" premarital pregnancy rates. That will support your argument, right?

Thanks, bwire for your data on dust. It is absolutely critical to plot the dust rate against the out-of-wedlock first-birth rate to see if there is a relationship. Can we say that you can post pretty much any table or chart of data and draw conclusions from it through the use of unscientific processes that are flat wrong? Yes, we can. Just like the blog poster did in this case. He has shown no causal relationship between sex education in high schools and first births by unwed mothers. Just his opinion based on a table of data that is fifteen years old. And his opinion is, shall we say, opinionated. In other words he is pushing his usual agenda which includes interesting themes such as "public schools are bad" and "poor people are bad".

I'm also waiting for a rational response to Skeptic's January 2009 data about the Bible Belt. Funny that the areas of the country some would say are more "moral" and where more families have probably "opted out" of public-school sex education have the highest rates of out-of-wedlock pregnancies. Ignorance = bliss, I guess. At least until the rabbit dies.

Just FYI. My Catholic high school provided detailed sex-education training. So much for the idea that only public schools understand the need to tell kids about the birds, the bees, the STDs and the HIVs.

Below is more data from the Census Bureau. People have been getting married for the first time at an older age.

Hmmm...wonder if that's part of the reason for the increase in rate of first births that occur out of wedlock instead of any change in sex education in high schools? Buehler? Buehler? Anyone? Anyone? Or maybe it's dust. Who knows?

Census data...

Table MS-2. Estimated Median Age at First Marriage, by Sex: 1890 to the Present

Year Men Women

2008 27.4 25.6

2007 27.5 25.6

2006 27.5 25.5

2005 27.1 25.3

2004 27.4 25.3

2003 27.1 25.3

2002 26.9 25.3

2001 26.9 25.1

2000 26.8 25.1

1999 26.9 25.1

1998 26.7 25.0

1997 26.8 25.0

1996 27.1 24.8

1995 26.9 24.5

1994 26.7 24.5

1993 26.5 24.5

1992 26.5 24.4

1991 26.3 24.1

1990 26.1 23.9

1989 26.2 23.8

1988 25.9 23.6

1987 25.8 23.6

1986 25.7 23.1

1985 25.5 23.3

1984 25.4 23.0

1983 25.4 22.8

1982 25.2 22.5

1981 24.8 22.3

1980 24.7 22.0

1979 24.4 22.1

1978 24.2 21.8

1977 24.0 21.6

1976 23.8 21.3

1975 23.5 21.1

1974 23.1 21.1

1973 23.2 21.0

1972 23.3 20.9

1971 23.1 20.9

1970 23.2 20.8

1969 23.2 20.8

1968 23.1 20.8

1967 23.1 20.6

1966 22.8 20.5

1965 22.8 20.6

1964 23.1 20.5

1963 22.8 20.5

1962 22.7 20.3

1961 22.8 20.3

1960 22.8 20.3

1959 22.5 20.2

1958 22.6 20.2

1957 22.6 20.3

1956 22.5 20.1

1955 22.6 20.2

1954 23.0 20.3

1953 22.8 20.2

1952 23.0 20.2

1951 22.9 20.4

1950 22.8 20.3

1949 22.7 20.3

1948 23.3 20.4

1947 23.7 20.5

1940 24.3 21.5

1930 24.3 21.3

1920 24.6 21.2

1910 25.1 21.6

1900 25.9 21.9

1890 26.1 22.0

Well, I see why I was editing my last comment we have a response to the Bible Belt data. Here it is in all its glory:

"Skeptic, you appear dishonest. If you look at the last link I posted, you will see that those states being "Bible Belt" is coincident with racial groups that tend to have much higher out-of-wedlock birth rates. Cite some statistics that show "Attend Church Regularly vs Don't Attend Church Regularly" premarital pregnancy rates. That will support your argument, right?"

Yes, please. Cite some valid data that show churchgoers have lower out-of-wedlock first birth rates. If you have such data then don't hold back. While your at it, why don't you also provide data on churchgoers by race for the Solid South. Let's see what that tells us.

Looking forward to it.

Let's put this in context.

This is yet another string initiated by an intolerant, attention-seeking conservative who has no intention of ever listening to anything anyone else has to say. He is always right and will always tell anyone who disagrees with him - no matter what facts and figures they bring to bear - that they are wrong.

When he is cornered by too many opposing facts or is otherwise uncertain that he can run the dialogue his way he will drop out of a string and not return.

He seems psychologically incapable of taking in new information and changing his mind. He operates in his own bubble. Does this sound like anyone in particular?

Rational Thinker,

I didn’t know that I am the primary provider for the moral upbringing of my students. It’s a good thing that I have led a moral life. I stayed away from drugs, never smoked, and have been married to the same woman for almost twenty five years. But sometimes I feel that no matter what I say to my students about living a moral life, the rest of the world seems to give a different message. Perhaps you can add some charts during the same time period for the following:

The divorce rate in America

The number if unmarried couples living together

Drug use (both legal and illegal)

Sex scenes on television and movies that reinforce the idea that extramarital sex is OK

Professional actors, musicians and athletes (i.e. role models) involved in drug abuse and promiscuity.

Magazines that publicize these activities

Clothing styles

Advertisements using sex to sell product

I know all about the professorincollegewhowasliberalandscarredmeforlife story. But you are not being fair to the majority of teachers who do the right thing and lead honest, clean lives.

One final thing; are you suggesting that I am sexually abusing my students? Please explain your last little teacher remark.

R_T:

"...those states being "Bible Belt" is coincident with racial groups that tend to have much higher out-of-wedlock birth rates?" What "racial" groups might those be? I saw that same breed-like-rats "race" accusation on Storm Front.

In response to your second request; No.

I wasn't referring to church or religion (but we can, in another venue). I used the common vernacular designation "Bible-belt" states. Are you unfamiliar with the term? Have you not heard it before? If it would make you happier we can call them the "Failed Confederacy" or "Pro-slavery" states. We can even call them "Dixie." It doesn't matter to me one way or the other, just so we know what geography is being discussed.

Can we get back on topic now?

R_T,

" The chart says it all. The news says the rest." A logical fallacy which implies you need say nothing.

you forgot the new sex ed of the 2000's

I have two daddies

James Fitzpatrick and Patrick Fitzjames

Funny Texas and Alabama have the highest teen pregnancy rates and states like Connecticut, Vermont and Delaware have the lowest.

Clearly the result of the change in pre-marital sex is not just a result of what is taught in school. What is far more influential are the changing dynamics of an entire culture and the acceptance in the views of sex over the last 80 years. How women were taught about sex was different in the 1950's than today as I am sure any of the older generations can attest to. Of course R_T makes posts brilliant blogt that fully encompasses the reasons for the changing environment.

Miuwtant at 12:45 was spot on about r_t. so true.

and i will add that through his illogical reasoning above, r_t has once again proven he is a bigot. skeptic with his tidy wisdom (unintentionally) set the trap with his facts, and r_t walked right through the door with his prejudices.

and common_scents is an internet troll... here solely to create a reaction and intended to upset, disrupt or simply insult. never a valid contributor to the discussion.

wrighter, you are showing that you cannot engage in a rational discussion without jumping into ad hominem.

skimammoth, if you followed the links you should have been able to do some of the math.

What percentage of Vermont women are "African American"?

Since AA women have much higher rates of unwed pregnancy, it only makes sense that states that have higher than average populations of AA women would have higher overall rates. Similarly, states like Vermont do not. But if you want to break the liberal vs conservative suggestion in my post, try showing that the white women in Vermont have a lower rate than the white women in Alabama, and that the rate is disproportionate to the percentages that claim to be conservative or liberal.

wrighter: thanks for the flattery

I notice these things, you know

being intelligent and all that

calling one of your alter-ego's for setting traps, etc. is textbook taken from my m.o.

thanks for the compliment

and better luck next time

to Acadian: teacher do try to moralize with kids, that IS the problem

the indoctrination by teachers of whacked out leftist, anti-white, anti male, anti-straight values

I can't tell you how many times my kids came home from school with handouts

paid for with my tax dollars presumably

telling the kids to tell us how to vote on a tax increase or some such initiative dealing with education or leftist agendas

Now we have TWO conservatives who post here regularly who are willing to drive their party into the ground at flank speed through their overtly racist posts.

The Republican Party will NEVER AGAIN win a national election if it cannot reach out to Hispanics. And if it somehow manages to connect with Hispanics then its chances of winning are still significantly reduced if it manages to continue to alienate 95% of black voters.

Keep on truckin', dudes. Your driving your truck full of explosives right into the headquarters of the RNC.

After my three kids have spend a combined total of 36 years in public schools in four districts in two states I can say this:

Not once have they ever come home with a handout or anything else telling them to tell us how to vote...on ANYTHING. EVER.

common_sense: Where do you live? County and State would be good enough. I have a feeling you aren't from these parts.

Texas is at the national average for race break down. Alabama is however above average though rather than conservative vs liberal teachings I think it is more Christian teachings vs. Non-Christian teachings. We all know Christians are the number one proponent of abstinence. So if we look at which are the more religious states across every race I think everyone would agree Texas and Alabama win hands down. So let me just get one thing clear. Even though kids will still have sex they should not be taught how to do it safely?

I am sorry Common Sense, I couldn't make out what you were trying to say to me in your first sentence. Could you please clarify? As far as your second point,why would a white, straight male like me indoctrinate children to hate white, straight men? Please clarify this as well. Thanks.

So, the liberals do not want to accept that their ownership of our education system has led to an explosion in unmarried pregnancies....

So, what WOULD be the force behind it? You know about force..force is the thing that causes something to accelerate.

What could it be?

The rapid proliferation of pornography in our society? -- Liberals have argued 1st amendment protects it.

The cultural acceptance of promiscuity? -- Liberals have promoted it.

The promotion of sexuality through the media? -- Ooops. Liberals again.

What IS the thing that drives unmarried pregnancy through the roof?

Oh yea...people who read the Bible and attend church regularly..that is it!

But wait, people have been reading the Bible and attending church regularly for hundreds of years and yet the rate of unwed pregnancies stayed well below the 10% rate for hundreds of years. That could not be it.

What could it be??

Oh I know...lets attack Rational Thinker with ad-hominem..that answers the question!

You made me laugh out loud with that last post, Rational Thinker. I got a mental image of an angry little boy standing in a big cow pasture with a poo covered stick in his hand and the air filled with the steamy aroma of his hard labor, shouting NO FAIR! NO FAIR! NO FAIR! You spend your days hopping from post to post with your stick looking for a fight. Go home little boy, the wind will soon erase everything that you have done today. Leave the rational thinking to the grownups.

Skeptic says there is no such thing as race.

The 60's did have a great influence on the morals of this country. Timothy Leary, flower children, parents referred to by first name,

Woodstock (try that for pregnancy rate), if it feels good do it. In the 80's along came AIDS and things changed because of fear of dying not pregnancy.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/heart-to-heart: "Viewing this as a nonpartisan, nonideological, teen health issue—which also affects some 435,000 babies born into woefully disadvantaged circumstances—what emerges in all fairness is that the 3 percent jump between 2005 and 2006 (the most recent analyzed) in births among teens between 15 and 19 years of age equals the 3 percent increase in birthrates for all women. The year 2006 was an especially fertile one in America. And one good trend is that births among girls under 15 actually fell a bit. But, parents, heed this: The birthrate among all unmarried women rose an astounding 7 percent to almost 40 percent of all births—accounting for 1,641,946 little ones. Thus, out-of-wedlock births are a trend in society at large. In fact, the birthrate for all unmarried women has risen almost without interruption for 60 years. In the 1940s, when the first baby boomers were being born, it was closer to 4 percent."

People who not only read the Bible but also understand it would never condone waterboarding. So I have a big problem with a self-proclaimed Bible thumper who will in one breath support unnecessary war, capital punishment and torture and in the next breath pretend to get all bent out of shape by an increase in out-of-wedlock births because of the immorality of it all when it's really all about the attention-seeking problem he has. How pathetic can you get?

Nice post Acadian. I can just picture him. But I don't see a kid. I see a sixty-something, white-haired and red-faced angry man with a bit of a paunch who was locked in his room as a kid until he memorized his Bible verses while the other kids were out playing. Now he's tucked away in the back of his house ignoring his wife while he searches the internet with a grim look on his face looking for stupid stuff to post here to p*ss off everybody with a normal outlook on life, trying to drive a wedge between people wherever possible. I can see his face light up when he causes the kind of ping-pong response he is getting in a string like this. Truly a candidate for a psychological study, right along with c_s and AIP. The three of them far exceed their favorite punching bag Jack Sanchez on the looney meter. These guys peg it hard. Can you imagine what they are like in person? Yuch. Scary.

four-gin:

Do you think Dr. Heart-To-Heart Healy may have a political agenda? Here's why I ask:

She was a Senate Republican candidate who was later appointed to a variety of political boards, institutes and councils by George Bush the First. Next, Ronald Reagan appointed her deputy director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. After that she was a shill for George Bush the Lesser and his board member on the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology.

Who can forget the Bush Administration's unique record on science, health research and technology? That was Dr. Healy's work.

Here's another one you missed: Dr. Healy was on the Advisory Board of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, created by a tobacco public relations firm, and funded by Philip Morris, to find doctors willing to criticize scientific proof that smoking was unhealthy and caused cancer.

Most recently, she was employed by POTUS candidate John McCain to publicly deny he had kidney stones, high blood pressure and face and neck cancer.

Dr. Healy believes she is a conservative voice crying out in the scientific wilderness, and the lonely conscience of her too-liberal medical colleagues.

I think she has an agenda. I think she is a GOP politician with a medical degree.

You really should be more careful who you accept information from.

Hey, Our-Tea Boy,

Get this: Sexual activity for an evangelical Christian girl typically occurs just after she turns sixteen. The vast majority of white evangelical adolescents (74 percent) say that they believe in abstaining from sex before marriage. But according to national health data, evangelical Christian teenagers are far more sexually active than mainline teen Christians, Muslims and Jews. Worse, evangelical teenagers are significantly less likely than other teens to use contraception [source: Regnerus, Mark; “Forbidden Fruit: Sex and Religion in the Lives of American Teenagers” Univ. of Texas at Austin. Oxford University Press. 2009].

The gulf between evangelical sexual belief and evangelical sexual behavior is a minefield of teen pregnancies, religious guilt, and STDs. As you might expect, the Bible-belt states lead the nation in teen pregnancies. The ten states with the highest teen birth rates are Mississippi, Texas, New Mexico, Arkansas, Arizona, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Alabama, Kentucky and Georgia. [source: Center for Disease Control: National Vital Statistics Reports (v.57, no.7 - Jan 7, 2009)]. I'll see what I can find on teen STD rates state by state.

So, who should we believe, O Clueless One; the National Center for Disease Control or you?

Acadian; you are one funny Coonass, mon ami. Merci to you for joining in.

R_T, the last thing I can be accused of is being a liberal but call me old if you want because that I am. As a young boy, I remember my hormones raging and me trying to do what comes naturally. The big difference was that my father, not the school kept telling me that if I got any girl pregnant I would have to marry her, that along with some other wise advice kept me from following my dream of putting a notch on my gun every day of my life.

Sex education, how to handle financials, morality in general are best taught at home. I wouldn't blame the Government for the deterioration of morals as I would blame the parents who don't seem to spend much time anymore talking to their children, a lot want to be their friends, unfortunately parenting calls for love, discipline and teaching.

Kids are no different today than they were 50 years ago, the home life is what has changed radically and in my humble opinion where the blame for most of the things that we feel are wrong with this country lies.

Loomis, thank you for the true rational thinking.

Merci Skeptic. Now I'm gonna pass by my momma's house and den go make some groceries. Can't wait for crawfish season, Cher!

LR: The welfare state led to more homes without fathers to tell their kids to be responsible. They paid women to have kids, and they only paid them if there was no father in the home.

SOMETHING caused unwed pregnancy to skyrocket. I think it was liberalism taking over our society. The public schools have been a breeding ground of liberalism in our society. The media has been the other.

Acadian; You remind me of those teachers who invite the young girls to stay after class so you can give them special instructions. Especially the ones who appear to have a crush on you. Occasionally, a little boy.

Poke away, RT, you are a harmless old man. By the way, you've got a piece of poo on your face, you might want to wipe that off.

Big gulf between the 7:04 a.m. post just above and Skeptic's data in his 1:00 a.m. post further up.

The 7:04 post ignored the actual DATA in the 1:00 post. Instead it was filled with fact-free theories about cause and effect based on opinion. And that person with an opinion has a playbook with only one offensive play: Bash liberals and liberal thinking head on on every front. Repeat until effective. That play worked until November 2006. Now it needs to go into the dumpster along with the Statue of Libery play in football and set shots in basketball.

Conservatives, wake up! Is this the kind of local spokesperson you want? I am interested in a stronger Republican Party because the country needs an effective two-party system. Yet the reliably conservative posters here - with a couple of notable exceptions - seem intent on driving the party into the ground and nobody seems to want to push back and call them on it. The battle shouldn't be between conservatives and liberals any more. It should be between conservatives who have fundamentally different views of the future of the Republican Party to determine whether there will be a party worth a plug nickel or not over the next few years.

Acadian; "Broke-back" Ar_Tee = la tête de merde! Hahahaha!

Monsieur Penseur est fou aussi...tres fou!

Skeptic, I don't care what Healy may have been, or is going to be. You always find fault with the writer's philosophy (for you it is the messenger - not the message) even when there is truth in the message. You seem to have more of a penchant (agenda) of what you accuse this person of saying then she does. Have you ever found good in any conservative or conservative cause? I find many things liberal that I agree with. You are the great divider that loves to live in the cesspool of life. If you get your wish the country will collapse.

- Rational_Thinker,

Are you seriously proposing that states with more African-Americans have higher rates of unwed teenage pregnancy than "white" states do? I haven't heard anything that racist since Mississippi in the summer of 1959. Extraordinary claims like that require extraordinary proof. Got some?

.

-fourgen,

Let me put it this way; if I get my wish together we will build a healthier America; whereas if Rush Limbaugh's conservatives get their wish the Obama Administration will fail. And that failure may well mean the nation's economy will collapse. Draw your own conclusions.

Skeptic, once again you blame others without thinking about what you are trying to convey. How cam Limbaugh's conservetives cause Obama's Presidency to fail? In your mind what will this regime do to build a more healthy America? Do you have health care, who pays for it? How about a litany of passed failures as well as successes, no cut and paste, in your words only. You seem to be the wisest man in town, at least you would like us to believe that.