August 2009 Archives

The Hill is reporting today that Massachusetts has scheduled a special election for January 19th to fill Edward Kennedy's vacant Senate seat.  The question of whether there will be an interim appointment is still up in the air.  According to the article:

"Despite his endorsement, the governor acknowledged the fate of Kennedy's request ultimately rests with the state legislature, which is currently away on recess. Although House and Senate lawmakers agreed today to expedite hearings on the proposal, Patrick emphasized during the press conference that the bill's passage was all but certain.

"On the merits, the proposal seems to me reasonable and wise," Patrick said. "I hope the members of the legislature, regardless of party affiliation, will see that too, and consider utmost the needs of our citizens to be represented in Washington over the next five months.""

According to the facebook page of Michele McPhee, a local radio talkshow host:

"...Jeremy Gillis (is) the Town Clerk in Easton,and a member of the Executive Board of the Mass Town Clerks Association. He writes: Over the past week, clerks have been reaching out to the governor asking that the date of January 19th not be chosen..., as it fell the day after a federal holiday, the financial implications of having 2 elections is bad enough...it goes on to say the Dems "made this mess." Idiots."

By having the election on the day after a federal holiday, the people who set up the polls have to be paid holiday wages.  This greatly increases the cost of the election.  It will be interesting to see how this all works out.  It is my belief that there will be an appointment by the governor to fill the seat, but all bets are off as to who will be appointed.

Today's Boston Globe is reporting that Tedy Bruschi announced his retirement today after playing in the National Football League for thirteen years.  Normally I don't do football stories, but this man is a class act.  He is known locally as a wonderful example of a family man and a man with a fantastic work ethic.  He has played for the New England Patriots during the entire thirteen years of his football career. 

According to the article, Coach Belichick said:

"I've coached a lot of great players, and Tedy is up there with all of them . . . above them," said Belichick, who remarked that Bruschi always did the right thing on and off the field. "He's the epitome of everything you would want in a football player . . . I don't think I've ever seen a player do what he's done.

"How do I sum it up? How do I feel about Tedy Bruschi in five seconds? He's a perfect player. He's helped create a tradition here we're all proud of. He's a perfect player. He's a perfect player."

"That's something you'll never hear during your career," Bruschi said as he and Belichick laughed. "To have him say that to me is probably the best compliment he could ever give me.""

Best wishes to Mr. Bruschi in whatever he chooses to do in the future.  With his fantastic work ethic, I am sure he will be extremely successful in whatever he does.

On Friday, Investor's Business Daily posted a commentary on the fact that America has decided not to install a missle defense system in Poland because of Russian objections.  I am truly sorry to hear this.  First of all, this was a promise made to Poland before President Obama took office; to break that promise raises the question of whether promises made by America will be honored after an election.  Secondly, with Iran about to go nuclear, it is in everyone's best interest to have missle shields in place to avoid nuclear blackmail.  Thirdly, why are we letting the Russians dictate American foreign policy?

The editorial points out:

"This is a stark reversal of past policy and reneges on promises made by the current administration. Worse, it shows weakness. We got into a staredown with the Russian bear and we blinked.

"President Obama has vowed to support missile defense, provided it was "pragmatic and cost-effective." Well, the Congressional Budget Office rated the system going into Poland and the Czech Republic as the most effective of the alternatives.

"As for promises to our allies, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just this month said the U.S. would offer our allies a "defense umbrella" against threats from a possible Iranian nuclear weapon.

"Now, all that high-sounding defense rhetoric is out the window."

What we are seeing now is the action of a very inexperienced and naive president and state department.  Theoretically, because we have agreed not to put up the missle shield, Russia has agreed to help us deal with the problem of Iran having nuclear weapons.  I don't like being cynical, but I just don't see that happening.

Congressman Charles Rangel had added a new dimension to the expression 'found money.'  The Wall Street Journal posted an article on Friday about Congressman Rangel's latest financial difficulties.  Unlike you and me, to whom the definition of a financial difficulty would be owing money, Congressman Rangel's financial difficulty is finding an extra one million dollars or so that he had neglected to report on his Congressional Financial Disclosure Form.  Wow, all of us should have those problems (not the neglecting to report--just the finding part!).

The article reports:

"Among other issues, Mr. Rangel is currently under investigation regarding his use of four rent-stabilized apartments at New York City's tony Lenox Terrace and soliciting donations with his official letterhead for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at City College of New York, which was itself built with a $1.9 million earmark. Yet another part of the probe is his failure to report $75,000 in income from a rental villa at the beachfront Punta Cana Yacht Club, in the Dominican Republic.

"Mr. Rangel blamed that last one on the language barrier because he doesn't speak Spanish. We can only imagine what language he speaks with his accountants and tax attorneys."

Congressman Rangel is the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.  That is the Committee that oversees tax law.  Shouldn't he also be required to follow tax law?

It's time for the Democrat Party to be the ethical people they claim to be and remove Congressman Rangel from Congress.  

I understand that politics sometimes can get heated and that sometimes we disagree on things with our elected representatives and vice versa.  However, manners are important, and bullying is out of place in any circumstance.  There is also some wisdom in what your mother taught you--if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything.  Well, some basic rules of how to treat people were broken in Las Vegas last week.  I guess that's not a shock, but here's the story.

Senator Harry Reid was speaking at the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce luncheon.  Before his speech, Reid joined the chamber's board members for a meet-'n'-greet and a photo.  Bob Brown, the Review Journal director of advertising was one of the people in line.  The report of this luncheon in the Review Journal includes the following:

"Yet, as Bob shook hands with our senior U.S. senator in what should have been nothing but a gracious business setting, Reid said: "I hope you go out of business."

Later, in his public speech, Reid said he wanted to let everyone know that he wants the Review-Journal to continue selling advertising because the Las Vegas Sun is delivered inside the Review-Journal."

How rude!  Newspapers are there to report news.  They also editorialize and have editorial views, that is also part of their job.  To be so rude to an advertising salesman who is not even involved in the writing of the newspaper is ignorant and inexcusable. 

It's time to send Mr. Reid home from Congress so that he can remember that he is supposed to represent all the people in his state and also brush up on his manners!

The Washington Times ran a commentary by Cal Thomas this morning on the decision to investigate the CIA's interrogation policies after 911.  Mr. Thomas points out that up until now, anyone who disrupted a terrorist plot was regarded as a hero, now that person will be put under investigation and possibly charged with a criminal act. 

The article quotes Senator Joseph Lieberman:

"Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent, one of the few liberals who comprehends what we face, issued a statement: "I respectfully regret the decision by Attorney General Holder and fear our country will come to regret it too because an open ended criminal investigation of past CIA activity, which has already been condemned and prohibited, will have a chilling effect on the men and women agents of our intelligence community whose uninhibited bravery and skill we depend on every day to protect our homeland from the next terrorist attack.""

I don't consider it a coincidence that Eric Holder's former law firm is representing many of the terrorists at Guantanamo as they seek freedom.  Meanwhile, the Obama Administration Justice Department has chosen to overlook the violation of voting rights that occurred when Black Panthers stood outside Philadephia voting places with billy clubs intimidating voters.  Despite the fact that there is a video of their actions up on YouTube, they will not be prosecuted.

According to the Washington Times yesterday, the Justice Department will not pursue a criminal case against Bill Richardson, the governor of New Mexico.  We might remember that Bill Richardson was running in the Democrat Presidential Primary against Barack Obama.  He dropped out of the race in January 2008 and endorsed President Obama in March 2008.  Mr. Richardson was originally nominated to be Commerce Secretary in President Obama's cabinet, but withdrew his name because of the federal grand jury into his actions. 

It seems that our justice department has forgotten the concept of equal justice under the law.  The move to investigate the CIA will hurt us in the war on terror, the question is how much.

Today is the fourth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina.  At the time of the hurricane, my oldest daughter, her husband, and their children and cats were living in New Orleans.  I will never forget the early Sunday morning phone call that told me they were on the road heading for my sister's house in Tennessee.  Little did any of us know that they would not be back in their house until two days before Thanksgiving--they were some of the lucky ones.  Their next door neighbors did not get into their house until the following spring.

I was in New Orleans the summer following the hurricane and then again in late October.  The difference in the city in those six months was amazing.  The city was gradually coming back to life.  There were problems staffing some of the restaurants because there was a shortage of housing, but the city was coming back--the zoo and the aquarium had reopened and some of the restaurants in Jackson Square were up and running.

The people of New Orleans have shown amazing courage in rebuilding their city.  I wish the people of that great city the best as they continue in their task.  There are many good books written about the hurricane and its aftermath.  I just finished one called SUGARCANE ACADEMY, which dealt with the creative way that a group of people made sure some of the children evacuated had a good education while they waited for the schools to get reestablished. 

My children still own their house down there, although the military has moved them elsewhere.  I look forward to the day they will be back in New Orleans and I can visit them again.

Bloomberg.com reported yesterday that the United Arab Emirates seized a North Korean ship carrying weapons to Iran.  The cargo included explosives, detonators, and rocket-propelled grenades.  According to the article:

"The UAE two weeks ago notified the UN Security Council of the seizure, according to the diplomats, who spoke on condition they aren't named because the communication hasn't been made public. They said the ship, owned by an Australian subsidiary of a French company and sailing under a Bahamian flag, was carrying 10 containers of arms disguised as oil equipment."

President Obama has set the end of September as the date for Iran to respond to his request for new talks regarding its uranium enrichment program.  Iran claims to working on proposals for those talks.

It seems to me that this is an indication that what President Bush referred to as the 'axis of evil' has not changed its tune.  I sincerely hope that we do not negotiate with Iran--it is obvious that our negotiations with North Korea have brought us nothing but trouble, and I see no reason to believe that negotiations with Iran would be any different.

The Alliance Defense Fund, an alliance of Christian attorneys formed for the purpose of defending First Amendment rights, is defending the right of a New Hampshire mother to homeschool her 10-year-old daughter.  According to the article:

..."the court agreed the child is "well liked, social and interactive with her peers, academically promising, and intellectually at or superior to grade level" and that "it is clear that the home schooling...has more than kept up with the academic requirements of the...public school system," he nonetheless proposed that the Christian girl be ordered into a government-run school after considering "the impact of [her religious] beliefs on her interaction with others.""

The court has ordered the girl to attend a government-run school in Meredith.  The court also stated:

"In the process of renegotiating the terms of a parenting plan for the girl, the guardian ad litem involved in the case concluded, according to the court order, that the girl "appeared to reflect her mother's rigidity on questions of faith" and that the girl's interests "would be best served by exposure to a public school setting" and "different points of view at a time when she must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief...in order to select, as a young adult, which of those systems will best suit her own needs.""

There are a few things about this case that bother me.  Why is it necessary to move a child out of an academic and social setting where she is thriving?  Who brought this case?  Is this a matter of a non-custodial parent trying to create a problem that isn't there?  The only thing that is clear in this case is that parents should be free to educate their children as they see fit as long as the children are meeting the academic and social requirements legally established by state law.  Since this is obviously the case, I don't think the fact that the child has a strong sense of morality should be a problem--it seems to me as the child approaches her teenage years that might be a blessing!

Freedom Of Speech???

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

CNET News posted an article today on the beginning of curbing freedom of speech on the internet.  The bill, S.773, includes the following according to Thomas.gov:

"Directs the Secretary to develop or coordinate a national licensing, certification, and recertification program for cybersecurity professionals and makes it unlawful to provide certain cybersecurity services without being licensed and certified.

"Requires Advisory Panel approval for renewal or modification of a contract related to the operation of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority.

"Requires development of a strategy to implement a secure domain name addressing system.

"Requires the National Science Foundation (NSF) to support specified types of research and to establish a program of grants to higher education institutions to establish cybersecurity testbeds.

"Amends the Cybersecurity Research and Development Act to expand the purposes of an existing program of computer and network security research grants.

"Requires the NSF to establish a Federal Cyber Scholarship-for-Service program.

"Requires NIST to establish cybersecurity competitions and challenges to recruit talented individuals for the federal information technology workforce and stimulate innovation."

I'm not very good at interpreting gobbelty gook, but the bottom line here seems obvious to me--the government wants control over the internet.  I firmly believe that if President Obama's healthcare bill is defeated, there will be an attack on freedom of speech in talk radio and the internet, and cable news will attacked shortly thereafter.  All of us who value freedom of speech need to be aware of what is happening around us and ready to combat it.

Yesterday's Washington Times posted a story yesterday about Rifqa Bary, the teenager from Ohio who converted from Islam to Christianity then fled to Florida because she feared for her life.  When this news story broke recently, I was not sure what the situation was or what the media coverage would be.  The Washington Post, however, has posted some of the details of the story that I haven't seen anywhere else.

Mohamed and Aysha Bary, Rifqa's parents, declared themselves indigent and were given court-appointed lawyers paid for by the taxpayers, but Mr. Bary reported to Dun and Bradstreet that his business does $237,561 yearly.  Mr Bary dissolved his business on July 29, after hearing of his daugher's conversion to Christianity.  He was planning to move the family back to Sri Lanka. 

I have a few questions.  Why are the taxpayers paying for a lawyer for someone who just sold a business worth $237,561 yearly?  Does anyone honestly believe that Rifqa would have been safe in Sri Lanka?  Thank God the courts did not send her back to her parents!!

We have had honor killings in America.  The murder of Aasiya Zubair Hassan , who was beheaded by her husband in Buffalo, New York, early this year is an example of one.  She was seeking to divorce her husband at the time she was murdered. In my limited experience with Muslims, I have met a woman who had to have her identity changed because she had left an abusive marriage and her brother was trying to find her to kill her because she had disgraced the family.  In America, murder is illegal and you go to jail for it.  That is probably the reason Mr. Bary was planning to move the family back to Sri Lanka.

I have no objection to Muslims practicing their religion in America, but where the culture of that religion clashes with American law, the law must prevail.  I am very glad that the courts made the right decision in this case.

 

 

Law? What Law?

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The current law in Massachusetts says that if a Senate seat becomes vacant during a Senator's tenure, a special election must be held no sooner than 145 days and no later than 160 days after a vacancy occurs.  This law was passed in 2004 when John Kerry was running for President and Mitt Romney was the governor of the state (a Republican).  Up until that point, the governor would appoint a replacement to fill the seat until the end of the term.

The New York Post posted a story today about the jockeying for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat that is currently going on in the state.  The Boston Herald also ran a similar story today.  I have a prediction--it's really not a very dramatic one--it's pretty obvious.  Governor Patrick will sign a law that allows him to appoint a Senator from Massachusetts to fill Ted Kennedy's seat.  That person will vote for healthcare reform.  The laws of the State of Massachusetts will be changed to accommodate the Democrat political desire of the moment.  This is obscene!

Yesterday, CBS News reported a small provision on the healthcare bill that might have been overlooked so far in the debate:

"Section 431(a) of the bill says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and "other information as is prescribed by" regulation. That information will be provided to the new Health Choices Commissioner and state health programs and used to determine who qualifies for "affordability credits." "

Great.  More people with access to our personal financial information.  Along similar lines, on July 14, 2009, Slate posted an article on the risks of using Social Security numbers for identification.  The article reminds us that:

"Ten years after the SSN debuted, the feds added a clarification to the card in capital letters: "FOR SOCIAL SECURITY PURPOSES--NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION." By that point, it was already too late. Three years earlier, President Franklin Roosevelt had issued an executive order allowing other federal agencies to use SSNs rather than launch their own systems. Within 20 years, the IRS, the Civil Service Commission, and the military were all using the numbers to identify people."

The advantage of using a Social Security number for identification is obvious--it is a unique number that theoretically will attach to only one person--but it was not originally intended for identification--it just evolved into that.  What sort of monster will this healthcare system morph into if another branch of government is given free access to the financial records of American citizens.  This gives new meaning to the joking description of the new healthcare plan as "All the compassion of the IRS with the efficiency of the Post Office!"

What Are We Thinking?

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Corner at National Review has a post today by Andrew McCarthy about the Obama Administration's policy toward terrorism.  Mr. McCarthy quotes a Wall Street Journal article which listed the successes of enhanced interrogation:

"The most revealing portion of the IG report documents the program's results. The CIA's "detention and interrogation of terrorists has provided intelligence that has enabled the identification and apprehension of other terrorists and warned of terrorist plots planned for the United States and around the world." That included the identification of Jose Padilla and Binyam Muhammed, who planned to detonate a dirty bomb, and the arrest of previously unknown members of an al Qaeda cell in Karachi, Pakistan, designated to pilot an aircraft attack in the U.S. The information also made the CIA aware of plots to attack the U.S. consulate in Karachi, hijack aircraft to fly into Heathrow, loosen track spikes to derail a U.S. train, blow up U.S. gas stations, fly an airplane into a California building, and cut the lines of suspension bridges in New York."

This report mentions the name Binyam Muhammed (who was planning to detonate a dirty bomb).   Mr. McCarthy points out that Binyam Mohammed was released outright by the Obama administration in February. He is now living freely in England. 

Mr. McCarthy's evaluation of the situation:

"...Release the terrorist who planned mass-murder attacks against U.S. cities but investigate the CIA agents who prevented mass-murder attacks against U.S. cities. I suppose that's what happens when control of the Justice Department shifts from the lawyers who spent the last eight years going after the terrorists to the lawyers who spent the last eight years representing the terrorists. That certainly is Change."

Just for the record, Andrew McCarthy is a former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York.  He led the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others for the bombing of the World Trade Center.  He has been involved in many areas of anti-terrorism since the 1990's.

Today's Washington Examiner posted an article by Mark Tapscott on the proposed healthcare bill and the debate as to whether or not it covers illegal aliens.  Well, according to the Congressional Research Service, it does.  The article points out:

"Under H.R. 3200, a 'Health Insurance Exchange' would begin operation in 2013 and would offer private plans alongside a public option...H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens--whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently--participating in the Exchange."
 
CRS also notes that the bill has no provision for requiring those seeking coverage or services to provided proof of citizenship. So, absent some major amendments to the legislation and a credible, concrete enforcement effort in action, looks like the myth on this issue is the one being spread by Obama, Reid, Pelosi, et. al." 
 
It seems to me that if there are no restrictions on noncitizens, they are covered under the proposal.  Why are the President and leading members of Congress who support the bill lying about its content?  What else are they lying about in the bill? 

Senator Edward M. Kennedy died last night at his home in Hyannis Port, Massachusetts.  Senator Kennedy had been in the Senate since 1962.  My sympathies go out to his family. 

In looking at Senator Kennedy's record in the Senate, there are a few things that should be mentioned.  Senator Kennedy was a powerful member of the Senate and worked tirelessly to enact programs that agreed with his vision of America.  He also personified the politics of personal destruction used against Republican Supreme Court nominees.  He was the driving force in the 1987 defeat of Robert Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court.  Senator Kennedy made a speech forty-five minutes after Robert Bork's nomination declaring:

"Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is -- and is often the only -- protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy... President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice"

The charges were totally unfounded, but the speech worked, and America lost a truly great Supreme Court Justice.  This was the beginning of the politicalization of the nomination process.  The campaigns of personal destruction were attempted again with Clarence Thomas and others, but failed.

Ted Kennedy spent his life working for what he believed would be a better America, that is to his credit, but he also played a very strong role in the loss of civility of American politics.

Yesterday's Hot Air posted an article by Doctor Zero on the necessity for democracies to be ferocious.  In speaking of the defense of democracy needed by America, he states:

"To suggest that enduring six months of Obama has made the CIA more hesitant to conduct effective intelligence operations is an understatement. Democrat political double-dealing is a crime that strikes at the heart of our venerated belief in civilian command of the military. We respect this arrangement, in part, because we believe it is proper for the civilian government to exhaust all peaceful, diplomatic avenues before we commit to war. You don't send Marine recon units to conduct subtle diplomacy. The Bush Administration did its duty in this regard - for all the liberal caterwauling about "Bush's rush to war," it took a hell of a lot longer than Barack Obama's rush to nationalize the health insurance industry and triple the deficit."

We need to seriously consider the consequences of Eric Holder's appointment of a Special Prosecutor to investigate the CIA.  This is an action more befitting of a banana republic than a democracy.   The actions of the CIA saved American lives--now they are being investigated for their heroism.  There were a few instances that we not within the guidelines, but they have been dealt with.  Why are we investigating something that has already been sorted out? 

Doctor Zero ends his article by pointing out:

"A few weeks ago, Eric Holder saw nothing wrong with Black Panthers using billy clubs to intimidate voters. Today, he thinks intimidating terrorists with cigars is a crime. Holder is the one who should be answering tough questions under oath."

There is something seriously wrong with this picture.

Yesterday's Washington Times is reporting that at the same time the House of Representatives was protesting bonuses given to corporate executives, they were quietly making arrangements to have their staff's college loans repaid with taxpayer money.   According to the article:

"The change, which took effect in May, means House employees earning up to $168,411, or the top level, are now eligible for government-funded subsidies to help pay down their student loans.

"House officials defend the change as a job-related benefit necessary to keep the government competitive in the hiring market - the same argument corporate chieftains used to defend their own pay scales."

Let's go back to the time when government did not feel entitled to tell people how much they could earn.  If Congress wants to complain about bonuses paid in businesses, they should clean their own house first!

Kung Fu Squirrels

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Please follow this link to the Daily Mail and look at the pictures.  I have never seen anything like this!

Freeze frame: The rodents are snapped mid-battle

Yesterday Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted a story about a computer error at the Veteran's Administration that resulted in 1200 veterans erroneously being told they were dying of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), better known as Lou Gehrig's disease, a 100% fatal condition.  Ed Morrissey points out:

"The notifications went out in a letter intending to inform ALS sufferers about the benefits available to them through the VA.  At that time, one of those benefits was end-of-life counseling and access to "Your Life, Your Choices," the booklet that refers veterans to the Hemlock Society when they feel life is no longer worth living.  I wonder how many of these veterans were given the booklet?"

We have all had some sort of adventure with bureaucracy, whether it be the state registry of motor vehicles, the post office, or (gasp) the IRS.  We need to remember these experiences as we consider whether we should turn our health care over to a large bureaucracy.  The frustrations of dealing with the post office, the registry of motor vehicles, or the IRS are nothing compared to the life-and-death issues healthcare involves.  What would have happened if the coding error that caused the veterans to be told they had a fatal disease had not been found?  What would have happened if a former soldier who thought he was dying decided to seek end-of-life counseling?  There are states in this country where assisted suicide is legal.  This could have been a problem much bigger than waiting in line at the post office or registry of motor vehicles.

There are small steps that can be taken to reform healthcare--making insurance accessible to everyone at a reasonable cost, tort reform, changes regarding pre-existing conditions, and the ability to buy healthcare across state lines.  None of these changes require the 1100 page monstrosity that is currently being proposed.

As people become aware of what is in the healthcare bill, the Obama administration attempts to turn people away from the bill.  Pay attention.  There may be a very quiet attempt to ram this legislation through Congress next month.  Meanwhile, the administration is attempting to distract us from healthcare and from another report that was released yesterday.

The Washington Post is reporting that Eric Holder has hired a special prosecutor to investigate the actions of CIA interrogators.  Just for the record, these actions have already been investigated and the guilty parties reprimanded.  A second investigation is just for show.

In related news, the government has released the CIA documents showing the results of enhanced interrogation.  The Weekly Standard posted its evaluation of the success of the techniques used.  Generally speaking, no one was harmed (only frightened) and American lives were saved.  If frightening terrorists becomes illegal, what in the world do we say about what terrorists do?  What about the frightened people in the World Trade Center?

Yesterday, the Weekly Standard posted Dick Cheney's statement about the release of the CIA documents on enhanced interrogation and the coming investigation.  This is the statement:

"The documents released Monday clearly demonstrate that the individuals subjected to Enhanced Interrogation Techniques provided the bulk of intelligence we gained about al Qaeda. This intelligence saved lives and prevented terrorist attacks. These detainees also, according to the documents, played a role in nearly every capture of al Qaeda members and associates since 2002. The activities of the CIA in carrying out the policies of the Bush Administration were directly responsible for defeating all efforts by al Qaeda to launch further mass casualty attacks against the United States. The people involved deserve our gratitude. They do not deserve to be the targets of political investigations or prosecutions. President Obama's decision to allow the Justice Department to investigate and possibly prosecute CIA personnel, and his decision to remove authority for interrogation from the CIA to the White House, serves as a reminder, if any were needed, of why so many Americans have doubts about this Administration's ability to be responsible for our nation's security."

Intelligence gathering is our main weapon in the war on terror--to handicap it is foolish and dangerous.

ABC News is reporting today that CIA Director Leon Panetta is threatening to resign.  According to the article, CIA spokesman George Little stated that the report was "wrong, inaccurate, bogus and false."   Not so fast.

The article states:

"Panetta was reportedly upset over plans by Attorney General Eric Holder to open a criminal investigation of allegations that CIA officers broke the law in carrying out certain interrogation techniques that President Obama has termed "torture..."

"Another source of contention for Panetta was today's public release of an investigation by the CIA inspector general on the first two years of the agency's interrogation and detention program. The report has been delayed by an internal administration debate over how much of the report should be kept secret."

As I said, I am not a fan of Leon Panetta, but it looks as if he is trying to protect the CIA.  He was not in charge of the organization during the time period that is being investigated, so any findings will not affect him.  Mr. Panetta is simply trying to protect the CIA from partisan politics, and that is in the best interest of American security.

I am in total agreement with the concept that celebrities need a certain amount of privacy, but I also agree that people eating in a restaurant have their basic rights also.

On August 7, Page Six of the New York Post reported that when Mrs. Obama and her two daughters stopped at Spike Mendelsohn's Good Stuff Eatery in DC for cheeseburgers, the cell phones were confiscated from patrons at the restaurant in order to avoid anyone taking pictures of the First Lady and her children.  That's awful.  If the First Lady does not want pictures of her or her children taken by people around them, she should avoid public places.  There are no laws against having a cell phone in a restaurant (although sometimes there should be!).  This oversteps the basic rights of people out innocently eating in a restaurant.  I wonder what would have happened if anyone had refused to turn their cell phone over.

Planet Gore at National Review has a post about the adventures of someone who has driven an electric car.  He points out that once your lithium battery runs down, you have 'a tiny engine pulling a big car with a dead battery--you'll be the worst car on the road.'

The friend of the writer recounds his adventures in a Telsa roadster:

"After a few days of motoring around without recharging, I drove to San Francisco to conduct some interviews and suddenly realized that I had only forty miles left on the battery's original 240-mile charge. So I drove to my sister's house and plugged the car into a 110-volt outlet in her garage. Two hours later, the car had gained nine miles. On Highway 101 back to Menlo Park, I eyed the gauge the whole way, trying to suss out the optimal energy-conserving speed. . . . When I arrived at my hotel and left the car in its parking lot, which, like almost all the world's parking lots at the moment, lacks charging equipment, I had nine miles to spare: exactly the amount I'd gained through my sister's outlet. The next morning, magically, the car's battery had gained eight more miles. This seemed worrisome, somehow."

There is an entire infrastructure that we will have to redo in order to move away from the gasoline engine.  Somewhere in the process, we need to realize that electricity is energy too.  Consider the fact that according to Energy Information Administration, in the past two years half of our electricity has come from coal.  With this fact in mind, does an electric car produce any less total pollution that a gasoline-powered car?

Jeff Jacoby in today's Boston Globe has posted and editorial asking Senator Kennedy to resign.  He points out the Senator's recent efforts to change the law in Massachusetts so that the Governor will appoint his replacement when he leaves office, rather than leave the state with only one Senator until an election can be held.  It all sounds very noble until you remember that up until 2004 the law stated that the Governor would appoint a Senator if a Senate seat became vacant for some reason.  Senator Kennedy strongly campaigned to change that law in case John Kerry was elected President--he did not want a Republican Governor appointing Senator Kerry's replacement.  Now we have a Democrat Governor so it's different.  Do we have to change the law every time the Governorship changes parties?

Anyway, Mr. Jacoby points out that:

"For well over a year, Massachusetts has not had the "two voices . . . and two votes in the Senate'' that Kennedy says its voters are entitled to. Sickness has kept him away from Capitol Hill for most of the last 15 months. He has missed all but a handful of the 270 roll-calls taken in the Senate so far this year. Through no fault of his own, he is unable to carry out the job he was reelected to in 2006. As a matter of integrity, he should bow out and allow his constituents to choose a replacement."

It is somewhat disingenuous to change the law according to which pollitical party holds the governorship.  I really don't care which way the law is written--both ways of replacing a Senator have problems--look at what Illinois has gone through in the past year!  I do wish, however, that once the law is written, it will stay that way, regardless of who is sitting in the governor's mansion.

The Gun Owner's Action League (GOAL) has published on its website the statistics for gun assaults and homicides in Massachusetts.  Regardless on how you feel about the right to own a gun, the numbers show that tougher gun laws do not make us safer, they make us less safe.  The information below is taken from the Goal.org website:

According to the most up to date reports released by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health http://www.mass.gov/Eeohhs2/docs/dph/injury_surveillance/wriss_gunshot_sharp_94_06.pdf  the inconvenient truth is that the 1998 Massachusetts gun laws were not only a tragic failure, they were a deadly one.

Per 100,000

1998

2005

 

Gun Related Homicides

1.00

1.68

68% Increase

Assault Related Gun Injuries

4.6

7.9

72% Increase

Assault Related Hospital Discharges

1.5

3.9

160% Increase

Gun Assault Emergency Dept. Visits

**0.93

2.99

222% Increase

Gun Assault Outpatient Observations

***0.188

1.2

538% Increase

 

** This report only dates back to 1999

*** This report only dates back to 2001

 

I mention this now because the Governor of Massachusetts is attempting to change the gun laws in the state regarding "Firearm Exhibitions" and the redefining of "Bona Fide Collector".  The change in these regulations would end the junior shooting program in the state.  This is a letter I received from a participant of that program.

 

Hello, my name is Sarah; I am 15 years old, I am one of nine kids in my family.   I first got interested in shooting when I went with four of my brothers to a competition in Hopkinton for the Fall Foliage Match.   They hold this competition every November;   I thought it looked very cool and fun.  I remember when my brothers would come home with their medals and with their personal best scores-- it was cool to see them accomplish their goals in shooting.
So one day I asked my older brother Caleb if he could ask his coach if I could start shooting with them at the Taunton Rifle & Pistol Club.  I picked up the sport in November 2005.  I was 11 years old when I started.  My brother Caleb is my coach, and he is a certified coach.
I participated in my first match in April 2006.  I came in third in my division; my score was a 355-600.  I was really happy with my score.   After training and going to a few competitions, I went to a match At Reading Rifle Revolver Club.  That is where I met Maureen Trickett.  She coached my brothers in the past and took them and her team to a match in Palmyra, PA, and to Columbus, GA (at Fort Benning) for the USA Nationals, and the Camp Perry matches in Ohio.
Maureen started coaching me, and then made me a part of her team, the Mass Junior Rifle.   After training with her, I got to travel with the team. My first trip was Palmyra, PA, in 2008.  I really didn't know many on my team, but on this trip I got to know them more, and now my whole team are really good friends of mine.
This January I qualified for the Junior Olympics with a score of 555-600. I came in first overall in small bore, and I was 5 points better than the qualifying score for my division--and it was also my personal best score!  I came in second in Air Rifle with a score of 368-400, which was also my personal best in Air Rifle.   I was really happy achieving one of my goals to make it to the JR Olympics.
In April I got to go to the Olympic training center in Colorado Springs with my brother Caleb.  The first day for small bore I shot a 552-600; and the second day I shot a 541-600--a total of 1093-1100, which was my best at a 50meter range.  For air rifle I shot a 369-400 and 368-400, which is my average.  I was happy with my performance, and my goal is to go again next year and to beat my best score.
Our four person team recently went to GA Fort Benning for the Army Marksmanship Air Rifle Championships.  We qualified 7th in the country, and in the end we finished in second in the whole country!  I was very proud of my team and how we performed.
Shooting is a great sport; it gives you a chance to travel the country and even the world.  It can also help you get a scholarship for college.  You also can take it to the Olympic level, and even join the Army Marksmanship Unit.  You also get to meet a lot of people.
If I had never started shooting, I would never have gotten a chance to travel as much as I have, and wouldn't have met Maureen Trickett, and my team. They are some of the nicest people I have ever known; we all work great together; we are like a family,
Our programs are SAFE.
Our competitions are SAFE.
And most of all, our coaches are SAFE.
Please don't take our rights away,
Thank you for your time.
Sarah

  

I know Sarah.  She is a great kid.  I would hate to see her right (and other children's rights) to learn about gun safety and to shoot competitively taken away.  I admire her spirit of competition and her willingness to keep trying to improve her skills.  The life lessons she has learned in the junior shooting program will serve her well in all areas of her life.

Yesterday's New York Times Europe reported that the release of Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi had opened the way for Britain's leading oil companies to pursue multibillion-dollar oil contracts with Libya, which had demanded Mr. Megrahi's return in talks with British officials and business executives.  This statement was made by Lord Trefgarne, chairman of the Libyan British Business Council.

As far as the influence of the United States (many of the people on the plane were Americans), Power Line points out that:

"Megrahi has been transferred home to Libya. The release of the Lockerbie terrorist was said to be on humanitarian grounds, because Megrahi is said to be terminally ill. The action, though, was totally discretionary on Scotland's part and could have been stopped by Britain. The Obama administration did nothing meaningful to stop it from happening. Perhaps the White House and the State Department were too embarrassed to try. In June, when they made arrangements with Bermuda's prime-minister to transfer four of the Uighur detainees (trained jihadists) from Guantanamo Bay to the tiny island, they cut the British government out of the secret negotiations -- even though Britain, aside from being our closest ally, is responsible for the foreign policy and national security of Bermuda, its protectorate." (Emphasis mine)

What goes around comes around.

Today's American Thinker has a point by point rebuttal of President Obama's claims on his healthcare bill.  Please follow the link and read the entire article, but I will try to summarize it here.

1.  We need health insurance reform--not healthcare reform.

2.  The government has caused our problem--we do not have free market healthcare.  The government controls $.60 of every dollar spent on health care.

3.  The government has caused medical prices to skyroket--nothing can be done by the private insurance companies that has not been done by Medicare and Medicaid.

4.  Nearly thirteen million Americans are without health insurance.  No one in the United States is without healthcare.  Refusal of healthcare to an individual is illegal. 

5.   A government option will increase costs and lower the quality of care.  Look at what has happened to Medicare and Medicaid.  Rationing will have to be used to keep costs down.

6.  Private insurance will be phased out in five years--read the bill.

This is only the beginning of the facts that show the lies that we are being told.  Again, please read the full article.  At the end of the article, the Doctor who wrote it shows what he has to do to submit a claim for Medicare.  It's not pretty.

The New York Times politics and government blog (yes, there is such a creature--it's called The Caucus) posted an article Friday about the Obama healthcare plan.  They made some interesting points.

President Obama is meeting with former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle to discuss how to pass the healthcare bill without Republican support.  The President is claiming that the Republicans are blocking the bill for the sake of harming the Democrats.  This is simply not true.  There is a bi-partisan healthcare bill in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.  In the House it is called the Healthy Americans Act.  The Democrats so far have refused to acknowledge that it even exists.

The objections from the Republicans are reality based, but the reason the Obama bill has not been passed is that he does not have full Democrat support.  The problems with passing this bill are in the President's own party--please don't blame the Republicans--they don't have the numbers to stop it.

If the bill is passed without any Republicans it will probably include a tax increase on what will be termed 'wealthiest Americans.'  It will not mention that because of the way the tax code is written, that will include many small business owners who are not wealthy.  It will put a damper on hiring in the small business sector of the economy for years to come.

In an article published Thursday by the New York Times, Robert Pear reports that some of the fears on the elderly regarding the President's healthcare reform may be justified.  The article states:

"Knowing that Medicare itself faces a financial crisis, many older Americans object to Congress's tapping the program to help pay for coverage of the uninsured. They say they do not believe that all the Medicare savings will come from eliminating waste and inefficiency, as Mr. Obama says."

Part of the problem here is defining the uninsured.  I don't see any way the current plan proposed will avoid insuring illegal aliens.  That shouldn't have to be a consideration in a healthcare bill, but it is.  We need to sort out exactly who the uninsured are before we plan on spending a trillion dollars insuring them.  We also need to understand that people in this country do have access to emergency medical treatment regardless of whether or not they are insured.

Today's Weekly Standard blog points out that the New York Times has once again compromised the safety of those trying to ensure America's security in order to print a news story.  In discussing the secret air war against high value Al Qaeda targets in Pakistan, the New York Times reveals the location of the secret base the predator drones are operating from.   Evidently, the C.I.A. recently added a second secret base for the predator drones, and the New York Times chose to reveal that location.

In its article, the Times criticizes some of the mistakes made in the carrying our of the drone predator missions.  Anyone who has ever been involved in a war understands that mistakes will be made.  It is unfortunate that the Times chose to release classified information and then criticize a program that has successfully dealt with terrorists.  If we had a justice department that took the threat of terrorism seriously, the newspaper would be charged with leaking classified information.  It is truly sad that this is not the first time the New York Times has put reporting a story over the security of the nation.  You notice that when their reporter was kidnapped, they did manage to keep the story silent.  It's a shame they didn't have enough respect for their country to do that in this case. 

Valuing Life

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

There has been a lot of talk recently about whether or not there are 'death councils' included in the proposed healthcare bill.  Tuesday's Wall Street Journal posted an article on the government's involvement in Veteran's end-of-life issues.  According to the article:

"Last year, bureaucrats at the VA's National Center for Ethics in Health Care advocated a 52-page end-of-life planning document, "Your Life, Your Choices." It was first published in 1997 and later promoted as the VA's preferred living will throughout its vast network of hospitals and nursing homes. After the Bush White House took a look at how this document was treating complex health and moral issues, the VA suspended its use. Unfortunately, under President Obama, the VA has now resuscitated "Your Life, Your Choices."

"Who is the primary author of this workbook? Dr. Robert Pearlman, chief of ethics evaluation for the center, a man who in 1996 advocated for physician-assisted suicide in Vacco v. Quill before the U.S. Supreme Court and is known for his support of health-care rationing."

This booklet is not helpful in our dealing with America's veterans.  It may save money if our soldiers opt to refuse care, but to me, that flies totally in the fact of what this country is about.  The VA should be ashamed for even putting this book together. 

The article further points out:

"This hurry-up-and-die message is clear and unconscionable. Worse, a July 2009 VA directive instructs its primary care physicians to raise advance care planning with all VA patients and to refer them to "Your Life, Your Choices." Not just those of advanced age and debilitated condition--all patients. America's 24 million veterans deserve better."

I agree.

Today's New York Post posted an op-ed piece by Rich Lowry discussing what he calls the 'fallback' plan of the Obama administration concerning healthcare--relying on the sheer gulibility of the American people.

Mr. Lowry points to the current whoppers being told by the administration and the small amount of common sense that easily shows them as false.  He lists:

1.  Believing that a new government program which spends over a trillion dollars will restore fiscal health to the country.

2.  Not realizing that through budget figure manipulations, you can increase taxes in the beginning of a program while postponing some of the spending in order to make its negative impact on the deficit seem less than what it actually is.

3.  Believing that, contrary to the studies on the subject, preventive care will save significant amounts of money (we should believe that because the President keeps repeating it?).

4.  Believing that the government group in change of approving healthcare will not begin to ration healthcare as the costs of the program spiral out of control.

The article lists many more ideas being put out by the administration that simply defy common sense.  There are so many serious problems with the current healthcare proposals that we need to scrap everything that has been done so far and start over.  There are some good ideas out there--The Healthy Americans Act is one--and I am sure there are others. 

Generally speaking, if you want an industry to serve the American people well and to prosper, the best thing you can do is get the government out of the way.  That is what we need to do with health care!

 

The healthcare debate is heating up, despite the fact that Congress is in recess.  There are a few aspects of this debate which have been somewhat under-the-radar that need to be looked at. 

Power Line ran an article yesterday detailing who the White House has hired to manage the advertising campaign to promote the Congressional healthcare bill.  The article points out:

"Glenn (Reynolds of Instapundit)also quotes Politico's Ben Smith: "It's hard to imagine a situation in which, say, Karl Rove was still getting checks from a firm that was, in turn, employed by the drug lobby not drawing fire from the left, and Axelrod's arrangement is, a bit belatedly, getting that attention." Hugh Hewitt cites this Bloomberg story and calls it David Axelrod's very big problem."

There is an obvious conflict of interest here that is being ignored, but let's look at some of the other aspects of the story.

Politico is reporting:

"House Democrats are probing the nation's largest insurance companies for lavish spending, demanding reams of compensation data and schedules of retreats and conferences.

"Letters sent to 52 insurance companies by Democratic leaders demand extensive documents for an examination of 'extensive compensation and other business practices in the health insurance industry.'  The letters set a deadline of Sept. 14 for the documents." 

Meanwhile, the American Thinker reports:

"Nick Choate, a spokesman for Stupak (Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich), Chairman of House Energy and Commerce investigations and oversight subcommittee), said 52 letters were sent late Monday to the nation's largest health insurers, those with $2 billion or more in annual premiums. He said letters were not sent to other industry groups, some of which have been airing television advertising in support of Obama's call for legislation. (Emphasis added)"
 
I am nervous about any legislation that requires so much arm twisting.  The intimidation tactics being used against anyone who speaks out against this bill are not politics as usual.  The amount of real information being put forth by the people in support of this bill is miniscule.  That alone should make every voter suspicious of what is in the bill.
 
To get a better idea of what is in the bill and what it means to you, I suggest two websites--
 
 
Both these sites have parts of HR 3200 posted and in the case of Defend Your Healthcare, the site has information on both the Senate and House bills.
 
Do your own research and make up your own mind.

Yesterday I reported on the attempted advertising boycott of the Glenn Beck Show (see RightWingGranny) as reported in the business section of the Boston Herald.  Well, the story as they told it is not totally accurate.  ColorofChange.org is attempting to pressure the advertisers of the show to stop advertising, but there is some question as to their success.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air reported yesterday that despite what the media is reporting, some of the companies supposedly boycotting the Glenn Beck show have never advertised on the show!  Mr. Morrissey points out that WalMart has pulled its ads from the show stating that it chooses not to advertise on commentary shows--only on news shows.  Procter & Gamble has stated that they have not pulled their ads from the Glenn Beck show because they have never advertised there.  Procter and Gamble also stated that it would be avoiding commentary shows in order to avoid controversy.  CVS stated that although they advertise on Fox News, they had never requested advertising on the Glenn Beck show, but would not be advertising there because they did not like to tone of the show.

The bottom line here is that a boycott is being attempted.  That is perfectly legal as long as it is done within the bounds of the law.  My questions have to do with who is funding the organization suporting the boycott and what pressure is being applied.

I do apologize for believing the story I read in the Boston Herald!

This is the map of where the Obama Administration allows drilling of the United States coast.  This map is posted at Gateway Pundit.  

                   

Oddly enough, at the same time President Obama is blocking drilling here, he is lending money to Brazil for offshore drilling.  The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday:

"The U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars to Brazil's state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil's Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro. Brazil's planning minister confirmed that White House National Security Adviser James Jones met this month with Brazilian officials to talk about the loan."

There are a few problems with this.  If offshore drilling is such an offense to President Obama because of environmental concerns, why are we funding it overseas?  Why does a large foreign oil company need US funding?  President Obama has consistently criticized American corporations for their supposed subsidies in American tax policy.  Why does he want to use an empty Treasury to give cash to a Brazilian oil company?  Is this payback to George Soros for funding the Obama presidential campaign? 

According to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air, George Soros has taken an interest in Petrobras:

"His New York-based hedge-fund firm, Soros Fund Management LLC, sold 22 million U.S.-listed common shares of Petrobras, as the Brazilian oil company is known, according to a filing today with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Soros bought 5.8 million of the company's U.S.-traded preferred shares." 

The preferred shares are cheaper to buy and pay higher dividends.

America could achieve energy independence by drilling off its own shores.  Why is the Obama Administration blocking that drilling (which would also provide jobs, income, increased national security and also help the economy) while funding drilling in another country?

Today's New York Post posted an article today about New York State automobile dealers who have pulled out of the 'Cash for Clunkers' program because of delays in getting paid by the government. 

According to the article:

"The president of the Greater New York Automobile Dealers Association says about half its 425 members have stopped offering rebates from the program because they can no longer afford them."

The dealers are asked to pay the rebates out of pocket and are supposed to be reimbursed by the government.  Unfortunately, the automobile dealers in this group have only been reimbursed for about 2 per cent of the rebates that they have given. 

Do we trust these people with our healthcare?
Hugh Hewitt reported on his blog at Townhall.com yesterday about a conflict of interest controversy brewing around David Axelrod.  The story was originally reported at Bloomberg.com on Saturday. 

According to Bloomberg:

"Two firms that received $343.3 million to handle advertising for Barack Obama's White House run last year have profited from his top priority as president by taking on his push for health-care overhaul.

"One is AKPD Message and Media, the Chicago-based firm headed by David Axelrod until he left last Dec. 31 to serve as a senior adviser to the president. Axelrod was Obama's top campaign strategist and is now helping sell the health-care plan. The other firm is Washington-based GMMB Campaign Group, where partner Jim Margolis was also an Obama strategist."

The problem here is that David Axelrod's firm still owes him money and is continuing to pay him that money.  I am not a lawyer and do not understand the technicalities of the law here, but these are the same type of ties Dick Cheney was constantly criticized for by the Democrats even after Dick Cheney had totally broken ties with the company.

I have no idea what the outcome of this story will be, but I do hope the media will hold David Axelrod to the same standards that they have used on previous administrations.

Today's Boston Herald has posted an article saying that CVS has pulled its advertising from the Glenn Beck show on Fox News because Glenn Beck allegedly called President Obama a 'racist'.  The article reports that:

"ColorofChange.org, one of the groups leading the anti-Beck campaign, reportedly is now going after audio giant Bose and other companies that have advertised on Beck's show."

Please note that this is an organization that has set a goal of removing Glenn Beck from the airwaves.  They are putting pressure on all of his advertisers to stop advertising on his program.  I don't watch Glenn Beck on a regular basis--my schedule doesn't allow me to follow his radio or TV show closely.  I do feel that he is farther to the right than I am politically,
but he is entitled to believe anything he chooses and to state whatever he believes.  I will say that the programs I have seen have been well researched and he backs up his statements with valid information.

As far as accusing the President of being a racist, I have no idea if Barack Obama is a racist or not.  From some of his comments, I can conclude that at times racial stereotypes creep into his thinking--just as they sometimes do for any of us.  I don't think anyone in the world does not have some degree of bias or stereotypical image in regard to race.  I would love to see a colorblind society, but I am not sure we as humans are capable of that.

If we are willing to see Glenn Beck driven off the air, who will the next target be?  This seems to me to be thuggery against conservative speech.  This was tried against Rush Limbaugh years ago when he became spokesman for the Florida orange growers.  It didn't work then, although Rush's tenure as spokesman was ended after a year or so, and I hope it does not work now. 

Regardless of how you feel about Glenn Beck, it is not smart to allow an organized effort to drive him off the airwaves to succeed.

USA Today reported yesterday that 60,000 AARP members terminated their membership since July 1st of this year specifically because of AARP support for current healthcare reform bills.  An AARP spokesman reported that AARP typically loses some 300,000 members a month for various reasons.  He also stated that during that same period AARP gained some 400,000 new members during the same period and that 1.5 million members renewed their membership.  It sounds like the AARP is better at gaining members than keeping them.

At any rate, I would like to inform people of the alternative to the AARP--it is the American Seniors Association.  I just joined, so I am still learning about the benefits, but I am grateful for an organization that represents Senior Citizens in a way that more closely reflects what I believe than the AARP does.  Check out their website at the link above!!

President Obama has promised all of us that if we are happy with our present healthcare--like our plan, like our doctor, etc.--we will be able to keep it.  Yesterday's Washington Post takes a look at that idea.

According to the article:

"Legislation written by three House committees and the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions would allow eligible employers to move workers into a new marketplace for insurance, where they could choose from various coverage options.

"In the marketplace, called an exchange or gateway, employees could end up with more and better options, analysts say. Even a top Republican staffer to the Senate committee, who is not authorized to speak for the record, agrees with that assessment. But Democratic legislative aides said there is no assurance that any of the options offered in the exchange would be the same as employees' current coverage."

The thing to keep in mind while watching the healthcare debate is that the actual bill will be drafted in committee by the House and the Senate and will probably include ideas from all bills involved.  There are a few things to look for if the administration claims that government healthcare will save us money.  Watch for the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report on the bill that comes out of committee.  Examine the final bill carefully to see if tort reform is included (if not, savings will probably be nonexistent or minimal) and if health insurance companies will be allowed to write new private policies after the bill is enacted.  Also watch to see what cuts are being made to Medicare in order to fund parts of the bill. 

Understand, also, that the opposition is not coming from the Republicans--they are so powerless in Washington right now, their opposition would be futile.  The Democrats could pass any healthcare bill they wanted in a second if all Democrats supported it--the problem is that many Democrats realize that if they vote for any of the current bills, this will be their last term in Congress.

 

I will admit to being a football fan, and I have watched this story develop.  I have totally mixed emotions about Michael Vick playing football again.  Ed Morrissey posted his observations (and an interesting poll) at Hot Air yesterday.  Mr. Morrissey was in Pittsburgh when the announcement that the Eagles had signed Michael Vick was made.  In talking with people at the conference he was attending, he found that most of them opposed the decision to let Michael Vick play professional football again.  When he put a poll up at Hot Air, the response was not the same.

Ed Morrissey points out:

"Vick paid the price for his crimes, as determined by the court. His crime didn't involve the NFL or the games on the field -- unlike, say, gambling on his own team might have involved the NFL. Now that Vick has been released, he should have an opportunity to earn a living. If an NFL team sees him and his talent as a net gain as balanced against his reputation, then the two of them should be able to contract for his services. Of course, fans can also vote with their feet. If football fans don't like Michael Vick, they can avoid buying tickets to Eagles games, or jeer Vick and the Eagles on the field when they appear. That's perfectly legitimate, too.

"I think the NFL did the right thing by lifting the ban after Vick's release. I'm not especially supportive of the Eagles' decision to pay Vick to play football per se, but I definitely believe they should not have been blocked from doing so." 

I have very mixed emotions on this whole thing,  The fact that Michael Vick has currently surrounded himself with some very positive role models may be an indication that he is truly sorry for what he has done and is planning to pursue more constructive uses of his time.  The fact that Tony Dungy is working with him as an advisor is a very positive thing.  Michael Vick has paid a price for his crimes.  If he has truly changed, he does deserve a second chance.

I would like to point out some of the contradictions in what the President is saying in support of the healthcare reform bill and what the lawmakers are actually legislating.  My source for the following statements is defendyourhealthcare.us:

"Obama says: "Nobody is talking about reducing Medicare benefits.  Medicare benefits are there because people contributed into a system.  It works.  We don't want to change it.""

According to the article, as the President is saying this:

"The Congressional majority wants to pay for its $1 trillion health bills with a $500+ billion cut to Medicare. This cut will come just as Medicare enrollment increases by 30%.  Less money and more patients will necessitate rationing."

According the the article:

Obama says: "But keep in mind - I mean this is something that I can't emphasize enough - you don't have to participate.  If you are happy with the health care that you've  got, then keep it."

According to the article, as the President is saying this:

Two main bills are being rushed through Congress with the goal of combining them into a finished product by August. Under either, a new government bureaucracy will select health plans that it considers in your best interest, and you will have to enroll in one of these "qualified plans." If you now get your plan through work, your employer has a five-year "grace period" to switch you into a qualified plan. If you buy your own insurance, you'll have less time.

These are only two examples of the lies being told by people who are either misinformed or trying to fool the electorate.

Meanwhile, Bloomberg.com is reporting that the President and the Democrats are still supporting a 'public option' (which will eventually drive out private healthcare).  All of us need to watch carefully to see what is actually in the small print of the bill that Congress eventually puts together.

It is important to remember as this debate continues that the Democrat Party controls both the House of Representatives and the Senate.  Even though the Republicans are being blamed for the fact that the healthcare bill is bogged down in Congress, they do not have the ability to block any legislature the Democrats want to pass.  If all the Democrats supported any of the healthcare reform bills, they would have passed by now.  It is also important to remember that the reason Hillary's healthcare bill failed was that the details were made public, and the public objected.  That is why it is so diffficult to get information on what is in the healthcare bills currently proposed.

In today's Rasmussen Reports, Michael Barone has an open letter to those young voters who voted for Barack Obama.  Sixty-six percent of the the young voters (under age 30) voted for President Obama; thirty-two voted against him.  Voters over 30 voted 50 percent for President Obama and 49 percent against. 

In the article, Michael Barone suggests a way to measure the Obama Presidency:

"I ask you to examine them through the prism of a book published in 1999, when most of you were too young to vote: "The Future and Its Enemies," by Virginia Postrel (an Obama voter, too, by the way). Postrel assesses policies based not on whether they are liberal or conservative but on whether they are dynamist -- promoting or leaving room for change -- or stasist -- tending to freeze institutions and people in place." 

Mr. Barone points out that President Obama campaigned as a President of change, but a close look at his policies shows not change, but rather the reinforcing of current institutions.

Mr. Barone ends his article with this thought:

"The larger point is this: You want policies that will enable you to choose your future. Obama backs policies that would let centralized authorities choose much of your future for you. Is this the hope and change you want?" 

The Wall Street Journal ran an article on August 9 regarding the upcoming 2010 Census.  This Census will determine the number of Congressional Representatives for each state and the number of Electoral College votes.  That is the Constitutional purpose of the Census.

The upcoming Census plans to count all people in the country, legally or illegally.  This will increase the number of Representatives and Electoral College votes in states with large numbers of illegal aliens and lessen the actual representation of states without large illegal alien populations. 

According to the article:

"The 2010 census will use only the short form. The long form has been replaced by the Census Bureau's ongoing American Community Survey. Dr. Elizabeth Grieco, chief of the Census Bureau's Immigration Statistics Staff, told us in a recent interview that the 2010 census short form does not ask about citizenship because "Congress has not asked us to do that.""

I am very uncomfortable with the scenario I see playing out in the 2010 Census.  Remember the voter fraud perpetrated by ACORN in 2008 [The Dallas Morning News (along with many other news outlets) reported that ACORN had registered the Dallas Cowboys football team starting line-up to vote in Nevada].  The potential for voter fraud and unjustified changes in the Electoral College is enormous.  If you look at the map below, you realize that some of the states with the highest illegal populations are states that are very likely to vote Democrat.  If you give more Electoral College votes to these states based on a large illegal population, you are essentially allowing people here illegally to vote in the presidential election and depriving other states of equal representation for their citizens.  (The map came from a Power Line article posted today about a Gallop Poll of conservative and liberal views in each state.)

uipgwb2twkgdraglfzfwpw.jpg 

Ok.  I admit it.  I am a part of the Woodstock generation.  I didn't go to Woodstock.  On the day of the concert my active-duty Navy husband and I were on our way to Long Island to visit his parents.  We had no idea that there was such a thing as Woodstock.  We thought the traffic jam in Westchester County looked a little unusual for a Westchester County traffic jam, but somehow we managed to deal with it.

The American Thinker ran a piece on Woodstock yesterday.  Was it all important or was it nothing?  I guess it represented one part of the culture of that time and represented the drastic changes that were taking place in the culture at that time.  Think back to the things that changed as the 1960's ended.

Many of the baby boomers chose unhealthy lifestyles as a way to deal with the pressures around them.  Admittedly, growing up as an early boomer had its challenges--we practiced hiding under our desks in elementary school to protect ourselves from nuclear attack, and we were told to be afraid when Russia launched the first space satelite.  In our teenage years and young twenties, we saw a President assassinated (over and over again on television), we saw a man 'who had a dream' killed in Memphis, and a young Senator killed in California.  Regardless of your politics, all three of these men represented hope to a new generation coming of age.  We saw riots in some of our major cities and it seemed as if our country was falling apart and our government wasn't listening (kind of like today).  

For some of the boomers, the answer was pure rebellion against authority.  To me, that is what Woodstock was about.  This was no deep intellectual event--it was a bunch of teenagers and young adults having a last fling before taking on the responsibility of being adults.  As in every generation before and since, some of them grew up to take responsibility as adults and accomplish great things, and some didn't! 

Boomers had their challenges, but so did the generation that went through the depression and fought World War II, the difference is that the boomers have never really gotten over themselves. 

Actually, I am a little late to this story, but I think the message in it is 'pay attention' and find out the background of the person making the claim.

On Thursday, the Houston Chronicle reported that U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee stated that she had never met Roxana Mayer, a University of Houston graduate student and Texas Obama delegate who had falsely identified herself as a pediatric physician at the congresswoman's health care reform town hall meeting this week. 

According to the article, there was no record at the Texas Medical Board of Ms. Mayer having a medical license.  The article further reports:

"When queried by the Houston Chronicle if she held a medical license outside Texas, she responded via e-mail: "If my initial statement to the Houston Chronicle can not be substantiated, then I understand your responsibility to omit it.""

Meanwhile, according to the article:

"A single protester at Jackson Lee's event at St. Joseph's, Bryan Klein, appeared at the conference room door, distributing leaflets.

He was escorted from the hospital by guards but continued to hand out leaflets outside the front door.

Hospital spokeswoman Fritz Guthrie said Klein was removed because the session was closed to the public."

The current healthcare debate is very important to the future of our country.  An honest debate at this point would be very helpful.  We need a little more common sense and honesty from our representatives in Congress and a little less chutzpah! 

If you have noticed that articles on this website looked a little different toward the end of last week, it is because I am having computer problems.  I hope to have them totally solved by the end of next week.  Meanwhile, life has been interesting.  The program I use for my blog is evidently not compatible with the latest update of Internet Explorer, so the only computer I can use to blog is my own (on which I have not updated Internet Explorer).  When my wireless internet connection died last week, I was forced on to either of two computers, both of which have updated versions of Internet Explorer.  My husband then loaded Firefox on those computers so that I could use them to blog.  It works, but like everyone else, I am most comfortable on my own computer.  Some of the things I routinely do very easily I haven't figured out how to do yet.  Anyway, my apologies for any articles with lots of white space at the end and other little glitches.  Hopefully all will be well by the end of next week!

The Rush To Smear

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Yesterday's National Review Online posted an article by Andrew McCarthy dealing with some of the name calling that has been going on regarding the healthcare bill.  Mort Kondracke has blasted Rush Limbaugh for comparing Democrats to Nazis.  That wasn't one of Rush Limbaugh's more tactful comments, but let's look at it in context. 

According to the article:

"Nancy Pelosi, started this episode by comparing American citizens who oppose Obamacare to the Nazis and asserting that her political opponents were donning "swastikas." (Sen. Barbara Boxer simultaneously ripped Obamacare dissenters for their Brooks Brothers suits -- it's not altogether clear where on the twill the swastika goes.) Pelosi's tactic was the shopworn smear we on the right have dealt with for six decades. There is no conceivable substantive connection between opposition to Obamacare and German National Socialism -- they are antithetical."

The article continues:

"The comparison he drew was a substantive one: between the Democrats' proposal for socialized medicine and the German installation of socialized medicine beginning with Bismarck and reaching its shocking apotheosis with Hitler's National Socialism. (A transcript of what he actually contended is here, and his website has other relevant transcripts, since the argument was reiterated other times during the week.) The point was to show that if Pelosi wanted to engage in Nazi comparisons, the health-care policies of Nazi Germany had far more in common with the health-care policies of the Democrats than with those of the conservative opposition, which wants health care kept private and reforms to be market-based."

The bottom line for me is this.  Politics in America since I have been paying attention has not always been constructive.  Calling people who oppose a policy near and dear to your heart Nazis is tacky.  Comparing proposed legislation to past laws in other countries is informative.  Admittedly, Nazi is a word that stirs things up to the point where it inhibits real debate, but in the case of German socialized medicine, it was accurately used.  I have read the White House emails on healthcare.  They disagree with the wording in the actual bill!  I am not sure an honest debate is possible on this issue.  What needs to happen is that every American needs to read the bill (there are summaries of the bill available that tell you where to look for key points) and make up their own mind.  One of the best I have found is at ClassicalIdeals.com.  We need to do our own research because unfortunately what we are being told is not the truth.

Yesterday's Power Line posted an article breaking down the numbers of who the people who do not have health insurance are.  President Obama cites the number of unemployed as nearly 46 million Americans.  Power Line has the breakdown of who these people are.   About 6.5 million are enrolled in Medicaid or S-CHIP but didn't tell the census taker.  (Why is the census taker asking about health insurance?)  There are about 4.5 million people who are eligible for Medicaid or S-CHIP but have not enrolled.  There are about 9.5 million non-citizens who do not have health insurance (they still manage to get care through emergency rooms, etc.)  There are another 10 million who earn an income more than three times the poverty line, but choose not to be insured. The actual number remaining is about 15.5 million (one-third of Obama's 46 million) who actually are uninsured, cannot become insured simply by enrolling in a free program, are U.S. citizens, and cannot easily afford to purchase insurance. About 5 million members of this cohort are childless adults.

The article points out:

"And keep in mind that being uninsured is not the same as having to pay (or pay much) for treatment. I've heard illegal immigrants say that they find ways to receive free or inexpensive treatment for themselves and their children. In general, I've read (though I can't find the source) that the uninsured receive about half the amount of money per capita to pay for medical treatment that the insured receive."

The currently proposed legislation is basically unfair.  The article further states:

"One of the purposes of most health care "reform" proposals, stated or unstated, is to force these young people into the system--to force them, that is, to contribute money to pay the medical bills of others, beyond what they already pay in Medicare taxes. Whatever you think of either the justice or the wisdom of such a policy, it is not worth turning our health care system upside down in order to achieve."

President Obama is on a path that will pit young workers against retirees in the area of healthcare.  Younger workers who have chosen not to be insured will now be forced into insurance and insurance payments that they do not want.  You will eventually have class warfare between the young and the elderly.


Yesterday's Washington Times posted an article about a court case involving a northern Florida school principal and an athletic director who are facing criminal charges and up to six months in jail over their offer of a mealtime prayer. Liberty Counsel, an Orlando-based legal group is defending the two school officials who have been charged criminally for praying.

The article also points out:

"In January, the Santa Rosa County School District settled out of court with the ACLU, agreeing to several things, including a provision to bar all school employees from promoting or sponsoring prayers during school-sponsored events; holding school events at church venues when a secular alternative was available; or promoting their religious beliefs or attempting to convert students in class or during school-sponsored events.


"Mr. Staver said the district also agreed to forbid senior class President Mary Allen from speaking at the school's May 30 graduation ceremony on the chance that the young woman, a known Christian, might say something religious.

"She was the first student body president in 33 years not allowed to speak," he said."

Where is the lawsuit by the student who was denied her right to speak?

Whatever happened to manners?  It just seems to me that if someone is praying and you don't agree with the fact that they are praying or their prayer, you could just sit quietly until they are done.  I really think criminal charges in this case are a little ridiculous.  Don't we have enough of a backup in our courts?



CBS News reported yesterday on worries about President Obama's safety.  They are concerned that objections to the healthcare bill are fomenting racial hatred and danger for the President.  I'm not disputing the fact that there are people in this country that are 'over the line,' but those people have always been with us.  That is why we have people in charge of protecting the President.  But the change in tone in the press over the past few years is interesting.

In 2006 the film DEATH OF A PRESIDENT premiered at the 2006 Toronto International Film Festival on September 10.  It dealt with the assassination of George W. Bush, who was President at the time.

According to Wikipedia:

"Of the critics who liked Death of a President, in the New York Observer, Rex Reed identified the film as "Clever, thoughtful, and totally believable. This is a film without a political agenda that everyone should see".[14] In the Toronto Star newspaper, Peter Howell said, "The film's deeper intentions ... elevate it into the company of such landmark works of historical argument as Peter Watkins's The War Game, Costa-Gavras's Z and, closer to home, Michel Brault's Les Ordres. Every thinking person should see Death of a President ".[15] I"

We as Americans should always be concerned about our President's safety--it should not only be a concern when the President is someone the press supports.







I will admit to being a political junkie.  I follow political campaigns and listen to what is said.  Sometimes I think there are some really good ideas put out, but I am more than a little cynical about ever seeing any campaign promise actually kept.  Well, here's another one.

The Hill is reporting that pork barrel (earmark) spending has increased in 2009.  According to the article:

"Earmarks, which are inserted in appropriations bills by members in order to fund specific projects, added up to $19.9 billion in 2009, according to an analysis by the Taxpayers for Common Sense and Center for Responsive Politics. Earmarks in 2008 spending bills were worth $18.3 billion."

According to the article:

"The member of Congress to win the most earmark money was Cochran, whose earmarks added up to $1.22 billion. They included funds for repairs to hurricane damage at an Army ammunition plant and for construction at the University of Mississippi School of Pharmacy.

"The House member with the most earmark money was Rep. Dave Loebsack (D-Iowa), whose earmarks totaled $217 million. Many of Loebsack's earmarks were also requested by Iowa's two senators, Tom Harkin (D) and Chuck Grassley (R)."

Term limits, anyone?






Charles Krauthammer has a post at RealClearPolitics about the healthcare debate and the idea that better preventative medicine will cut costs.  Charles Krauthammer has a stong medical background and is very well informed on healthcare in America.  He points out that the original justification for totally redesigning American healthcare was the fact that healthcare costs were bankrupting our economy.  When the Congressional Budget Office released a report stating that President Obama's healthcare plans would add $ 1.6 trillion dollars to the federal budget--not reduce costs, that claim became obsolete.  So they changed the rationale to the fact the better preventative care provided for in the bill would save us money.  Mr. Krauthammer points out:

"Reform proponents repeat this like a mantra. Because it seems so intuitive, it has become conventional wisdom. But like most conventional wisdom, it is wrong. Overall, preventive care increases medical costs.

"This inconvenient truth comes, once again, from the CBO. In an Aug. 7 letter to Rep. Nathan Deal, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf writes: "Researchers who have examined the effects of preventive care generally find that the added costs of widespread use of preventive services tend to exceed the savings from averted illness.""

Again, the justification for this bill turns out to be false, as are most of the claims put out by supporters of  the bill.  Yahoo News is reporting that the end-of-life counseling program has been dropped from the bill by the Senate Finance Committee.  At the same time, the President is claiming that provision was never there.  This is not a bill to rush through Congress--this is a bill that needs to be carefully examined and changed drastically.

Just for the record, the three main causes of the increases in American medical expenses are:

1.  Medicare has negotiated agreements with hospitals to obtain services at a fraction of the hospital cost.  The hospital then charges private insurance more to make up the difference.  The healthcare bill will not change this--it will only make it worse, eventually causing hospitals to close or limit their services.

2.  Preventative medicine is practiced to the extreme as a defense against lawsuits.  One lawsuit can bankrupt a practice.

3.  The cost of medical malpractice insurance has gone totally out of control.  This could be addressed by tort reform, which is not in the current healthcare bill.

It's time to scrap the current bill and deal with the actual problems!



Just in case you haven't heard of them, Minnesotans for Global Warming has posted their theme song on YouTube.  Please follow the link for some great pictures and a fun song!  I can totally understand why someone who lives in northern Minnesota would support global warming!!!
Today's Wall Street Journal ran an interesting article entitled, "Tax Withholding Is Bad For Democracy."  The article was written by Charles Murray, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Murray points out that withholding taxes does not give Americans the real picture of how much money they actually pay to the government.

He points out that 1% of American families paid 40% of America's personal taxes.  He further points out that:

"The families in the rest of the top 5% had family incomes of $160,000 to $410,000. They paid another 20% of total personal income taxes. Now we're up to three out of every five dollars in personal taxes paid by just five out of every 100 American families."

Because the money is withheld, we don't really get a sense of how much money is involved.  Mr. Murray also has some suggestions for combining payroll and social security taxes into general taxes withheld, since that is how Congress spends them.  This would not add any additional expense and would end the idea that some naive people have that some of their taxes are actually being saved for their retirement.  This idea is far too sensible for Congress to be willing to consider it!


Astroturf, Anyone?

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
Yesterday Power Line reported on the President's town hall meeting in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.  They linked to a report of Channel 9 WMUR in New Hampshire.  Evidently, supporters of President Obama's healthcare plan were bussed in, waited on the bus, and were directed into the facility by a man with a bullhorn.  Opponents waited outside in the rain.  There is nothing wrong with bringing in people of like political ideas in buses; it's just a good idea not to accuse your opponents of doing it when you in fact are using the buses! 

According to an article in today's Los Angeles Times:

"It seems that, despite all the media attention lavished on e-mail appeals to his supporters, not everyone pushing for President Obama's embattled healthcare reform plan these warm August days is an idealistic volunteer in it for the sake of helping move the country forward and gaining medical attention for millions of uninsured Americans.

"The website's large-type headline announces: "Work to Pass Obama's Healthcare Plan and Get Paid to Do it! $10-15 hr!"

"It's a web ad on Craigslist: "You can work for change. Join motivated staff around the country working to make change happen. You can make great friends and money along the way. Earn $400-$600 a week.""

Being an informed and involved citizen is a great idea.  But as a child of the 1960's, paying people to protest just goes against my grain.  If you are not protesting because something is important to you and you have taken the time to become informed, please stay home.

 

On Tuesday, one of the blogs at the Detroit News reported that Senator Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.), recently appointed to the Senate Energy Committee, stated that:

"Climate change is very real," she confessed as she embraced cap and trade's massive tax increase on Michigan industry - at the same time claiming, against all the evidence, that it would not lead to an increase in manufacturing costs or energy prices. "Global warming creates volatility. I feel it when I'm flying. The storms are more volatile. We are paying the price in more hurricanes and tornadoes."

We have had hurricanes and tornadoes for a long time.  Ms. Stabenow is a victim of the twenty-four hour news cycle.  Before the internet and cable tv, no one would have heard that remark other than people who read the Detroit News.  It is scary to me that this woman is on the energy committee.  Her knowledge of science and the scientific process seems rather limited.







The Hill posted an article today on the cost of the Cap and Trade Bill.  According to the article:

"The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) released a study Wednesday that found under a high-cost scenario the House global warming bill could reduce economic growth by 2.4 percent and cost 2 million jobs by 2030."

Even if you believe in the concept of man affecting the earth's climate, that is a very high price.  The biggest impact of the bill will be in the manufacturing segment of the economy.  Environmentalists have obviously objected to the numbers in the study.  Part of the difference in the cost is the environmentalists assumption that 95 new nuclear plants would be built by 2030.  NAM and ACCF assumed that only 10 to 25 nuclear plants would be built in the next two decades.   Currently, we are in a 30-year period in which very few new nuclear plants were built; since mid-2007, there have been 17 license applications to build 26 new nuclear reactors. 

Analyses by the EIA, Environmental Protection Agency and Congressional Budget Office can be found here, here and here.  

Defending Our Rights

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The current Justice Department seems to be more interested in politics than in doing its job.  Power Line posted an article yesterday with a link to a National Review article by Andrew McCarthy regarding the criminal investigations being launched against CIA interrogators.  Attorney General Eric Holder stated in April that "we're going to follow the evidence wherever it takes us, follow the law wherever that takes us."

If this Justice Department is so willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads, why, then, did the Department of Justice drop charges against the Black Panthers in Philadelphia who were intimidating voters?

According to the article in National Review:

"For the Obama/Holder Justice Department, other considerations outweighed following the evidence wherever it led. The Panthers who turned out to be above the law include Jerry Jackson, a credentialed Democratic-party poll-watcher who brays on MySpace about "Killing Crakkkas." Thanks to Holder's decision, Jackson is right back in business, having obtained new poll-watcher credentials just days after DOJ dismissed the case.

"The CIA interrogators are having a rougher time with prosecutors than did the Black Panthers. They are retaining counsel and preparing for a lengthy investigation that likely will prove personally and professionally ruinous. The Los Angeles Times reported over the weekend that Holder is close to naming a prosecutor to probe whether the agency and its officers committed criminal misconduct."

The Attorney General may score a few political points against the George Bush administration by ruining some lives in the intelligence community, but in doing so, he is making us less safe.  The result of this witch hunt will be a timidity in questioning terrorists that will quickly come back to bite us.  Meanwhile, people in America are allowed to intimidate voters to sway elections.  This is not the stuff of which democracy is made.

The information I am citing is from a website called ClassicalIdeals.com.  It is the website of Duke Professor John David Lewis, who studied to bill to find out what it would mean for him and his family.  The following comments are from his website.

A.  pages 284-288, SEC. 1151. REDUCING POTENTIALLY PREVENTABLE HOSPITAL READMISSIONS

1.       This section amends the Social Security Act

2.      The government has the power to determine what constitutes an "applicable [medical] condition."

3.      The government has the power to determine who is allowed readmission into a hospital.

4.      This determination will be made by statistics: when enough people have been discharged for the same condition, an individual may be readmitted.

5.      This is government rationing, pure, simple, and straight up.

6.      There can be no judicial review of decisions made here. The Secretary is above the courts.

7.      The plan also allows the government to prohibit hospitals from expanding without federal permission: page 317-318.

B.  pages 167-168, section 401, TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE

 

1.      This section amends the Internal Revenue Code.

2.      Anyone caught without acceptable coverage and not in the government plan will pay a special tax.

3.      The IRS will be a major enforcement mechanism for the plan.

 

C.  pages 26-30, SEC. 122, ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE DEFINED

 

1.      The bill defines "acceptable coverage" and leaves no room for choice in this regard.

2.      By setting a minimum 70%  actuarial value of benefits, the bill makes health plans in which individuals pay for routine services, but carry insurance only for catastrophic events, (such as Health Savings Accounts) illegal

This is all I am going to cover here.  Stay tuned for more on what the healthcare legislation being proposed actually says.  There is a lot of misinformation going around about this bill.  We could use some reform in health insurance, but this bill is not it.  There is a bi-partisan bill out there called "The Healthy Americans Act" that is cost neutral and will give us health insurance similar to the way car insurance is handled--portability, etc.  Some of the things in the proposed Democrat healthcare bill are scary and to reveal what is in the bill is not 'scare tactics', it is simply telling the truth.  The choice is not between reform and no reform, it is between a good bill and a damaging bill.  

 

According to a press release by SaratogaMuseum.org, the Juliett 484, a Russian submarine which at one point had been a museum open to the public in Providence, RI, is being taken to the scrap yard to be dismantled and recycled.  The Juliett 484 sank in April of 2007 during a heavy storm.

The press release also states:

"However, Frank Lennon, president of USS Saratoga Museum Foundation, former owners of the sub, has confirmed that the Foundation stands to obtain potentially significant financial benefits from the scrap proceeds.

"This will be a real financial boost to our ongoing efforts to bring the aircraft carrier USS Saratoga to life in Rhode Island as a family attraction, job training center, educational facility and Navy memorial," said Lennon."

As the wife of someone who was involved in the Anti-Submarine Warfare of the 1960's, I look forward to the opening of the Saratoga Museum.     

Yesterday, The Hill reported on a letter sent to President Obama by 71 senators representing some of the leaders of both parties.  The effort to press Arab states to recommit to peace with Israel is led by Sens. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) and Jim Risch (R-Idaho), and is being promoted and circulated by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. 

According to the article:

"A similar, bipartisan letter was sent by 226 House members last week to Saudi Arabia, calling on that country's leaders to deepen their commitment to peace with Israel."

I have been opposed to the way this administration has dealt with Israel, and I am delighted that Congress is adding balance to the situation. 

In an editorial published Sunday in the Dubai-based Khaleej Times, Dr, Ghassan Michel Rubeiz reminds us of the peace plan opposed by the Arab nations in 2002.  This Saudi-backed Arab peace plan asks Israel to retreat to 1967 borders, "attain a just solution" to the issue of Palestinian refugees and relinquish East Jerusalem to become capital of a Palestinian state. In return, Arab states promise to normalize relations with Israel.  

This is not a peace plan.  If the 1967 borders were so wonderful, why did the Arabs attack Israel in 1967?  Dr. Rubeiz objected to the letter which essentially said that Israel is working toward peace and the Arab states are not.  I guess my answer to that would be to ask to see the textbooks being currently used to teach Arab children.  What are the children being taught about Jews and the Jewish state?  I suspect that would answer any questions as to whether or not some Arab countries really want peace with Israel.

 

International diplomacy is very structured dance.  Certain moves mean certain things and certain actions draw preprogrammed responses.  What we actually see is not always what is actually happening, and when a diplomatic breakthrough is announced, chances are it was achieved long before the person announcing it arrived on the scene.  Sometimes what looks like a really good thing in one aspect has undercurrents that are not positive.  That is what happened with the visit to North Korea by President Clinton.

Today's New York Post has an article by Gordon Cucullu, author of "Separated at Birth: How North Korea Became the Evil Twin."   The article deals with the implications of the Clinton visit to North Korea.  Mr. Cucullu points out that:

"It didn't take long to learn at least the first concession. President Obama has broken with past US policy to agree to bilateral talks with North Korea -- a diplomatic plum that Kim Jong Il has sought for years, and a major coup in his attempt to nail down the succession of his 26-year-old son, Kim Jong Un."

Mr. Cucullu also points out that National Security Adviser James Jones has said that no official messages were delivered and no promises made during President Clinton's visit--it was a private visit.  Mr. Jones also claimed that the bilateral talks were also coordinated with our allies.  Mr. Cucullu points out:

"In fact, genuine coordination would require considerably more diplomacy than could be mounted in the days since Clinton's return. So it's most likely we simply informed those "allies" of a fait accompli -- a slap in the face for our actual allies (South Korea, Japan), and cause for triumphal smiles for the Chinese and Russians."

Why are we throwing our friends under the bus and doing things that make our enemies happy?  Have we reached a point in our nation's history where we close our eyes to the fact that we have enemies? 

On Friday, the jobless rate dropped to 9.4 percent from 9.5 percent and the media celebrated the coming 'good times' thanks to the policies of Congress and the White House.  Wow!  Well, Investor's Business Daily has a slightly different take.

An article in Fridays IBDeditorials points out:

"The plain fact is, a recovery was baked in the cake as 2009 began. The main reason was the Fed went pedal to the metal on money creation in December, slashing its benchmark fed funds rate to zero.

Since then, the monetary base -- the most basic money supply controlled by the Fed -- has grown at an average yearly rate of nearly 100%. That's the biggest sustained rise since the Fed began in 1913.

More to the point, the stock market has had a fairly sustained rally since bottoming on March 9. Since then, share prices have added more than $3.6 trillion to shareholder wealth, a chunk of which will likely be spent in coming months."

The politicians will, of course, take credit for the improved economy, but unfortunately the amount of debt created in the process of 'stimulating' the economy will eventually slow it down considerably.  The federal stimulus has amounted to approximately $12 per person.  Somehow, I don't think that would be enough to reverse the direction of the economy.

Please follow this link to You Tube to hear some of the comments made by the people claiming to represent you that you are not hearing on your network news.

Section 1233

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Yesterday's Washington Post ran a story on Section 1233 of the proposed healthcare bill.  It is the section dealing with giving Medicare patients end-of-life counseling every five years.  Sounds like a good idea, right? 

First of all, let's look at this from a purely financial angle.  Statistically, most of a persons medical expenses occur in the last year of their life.  This could be the result of age-related issues in an elderly person, an accident in a person of any age, or a serious disease.  It makes sense to have a living will, medical power of attorney, etc.  But why is the government getting involved in this?  More than that, why is the government giving doctors a financial incentive to do this counseling?

According to the article:

"What's more, Section 1233 dictates, at some length, the content of the consultation. The doctor "shall" discuss "advanced care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to"; "an explanation of . . . living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses" (even though these are legal, not medical, instruments); and "a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families." The doctor "shall" explain that Medicare pays for hospice care (hint, hint).

Admittedly, this script is vague and possibly unenforceable. What are "key questions"? Who belongs on "a list" of helpful "resources"? The Roman Catholic Church? Jack Kevorkian?"

I think that those of us who want less government in our lives--not more, need to speak up about the plans Congress has for us.  Until they are willing to give up their current healthcare plan and be covered by the plan they propose for us, I'm not in favor of major changes! 

Whoops!!!

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The American Thinker using the Ottawa Citizen as its source, is reporting today that:

"In both the wider, deep-water northern corridor and the narrower, shallower southern branches of the passage, the Canadian Ice Service says pockets of more extensive winter freezing and concentrations of thicker, older ice at several key "choke points" are complicating ship travel."
This after the following prediction from the global warming people:
 
"... the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center is predicting another near-record meltdown by the end of this year's summer thaw."

Doesn't anyone ever confront these people with the facts on the ground (or water in this case)?

The sources of this story are an article in the Weekly Standard by an eyewitness to the event and a story at Power Line.

The Weekly Standard has the eyewitness report on the scuffle in St. Louis on Thursday at a Townhall meeting.  It was initially reported on twitter that several Service Employees International Union (SEIU) members (reported by an SEIU member) had been assualted by some Obamacare critics.  The Weekly Standard investigated further and found that some SEIU members had assaulted a man who was giving out flags with "Don't Tread On Me" on them at the event.  The Weekly Standard points out:

"On Twitter last night, there was a clear effort from liberals to portray any scuffles from last night's town halls as the inevitable violent eruption of right-wing mob members, but it is interesting that there was no violence until the night liberal interest group HCAN and Dem members of Congress started calling in union members to "protect" them and host these events. It's also interesting that the only documented cases of violence thus far seem to be going one way. The Slapper, seen on Drudge and in these pictures (9-17), is local Tampa Democratic operative Karen Miracle."

Power Line reports:

"Jim Hoft documents the contribution of the friends of Barack Obama to the doings outside the Rep. Russ Carnahan townhall in St. Louis yesterday. The friends of Barack Obama also turned up yesterday at the townhall featuring Rep. Kathy Castor outside Tampa Bay, Florida.

The mainstream media will dutifully report the emergence of Obama's thugs as representing a lapse in civility on the part of those who are revolting against Obamacare. The truth is that it represents the imposition of "the Chicago way" on the resistance." 

The union representatives are not at these meetings to protect the politicians--they are there as a scare tactic to anyone opposing Obama's healthcare legislation.  This is about as far from free speech in a democracy that we as a free country have ever been.  We as a people need to peacefully voice our opinions now at these townhall meetings and next year at the ballot box.

Please follow the link to amaze.fm to hear the song "Grandma Got Run Over By Obamacare."  It is priceless!!

I finally found a pdf copy of the House of Representatives healthcare bill I could download.  I am not about to print all 1,100 pages, but I am going to copy parts of the bill and post them here.  This is not 'fishy' information--it will be taken directly from the bill.

From Page 58:

 

5 ''(D) enable the real-time (or near real6

time) determination of an individual's financial

7 responsibility at the point of service and, to the

8 extent possible, prior to service, including

9 whether the individual is eligible for a specific

10 service with a specific physician at a specific fa11

cility, which may include utilization of a ma12

chine-readable health plan beneficiary identi13

fication card;

 

That sounds to me like healthcare rationing.  I don't want the government determining whether or not I can get a knee replacement!

 

Page 16 of the House Of Representatives Healthcare Bill

 

(A) IN GENERAL.--Except as provided in

12 this paragraph, the individual health insurance

13 issuer offering such coverage does not enroll

14 any individual in such coverage if the first ef15

fective date of coverage is on or after the first

16 day of Y1.

 

LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR

22 CONDITIONS.--Subject to paragraph (3) and except

23 as required by law, the issuer does not change any

24 of its terms or conditions, including benefits and

25 cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day be26

fore the first day of Y1.

 

In English, this means the end of private health insurance coverage.  Your private insurance coverage will be grandfathered in as long as there are no changes.  The minute any change is made, the company will not be allowed to write a new policy.  If a dependent is added, the co-payment is changed, or the premium changes, a new policy cannot be written.  President Obama is lying when he says that we will all be able to keep our private insurance (or else he doesn't know what is in the bill).  This is not 'fishy information'--it was taken from a downloaded pdf file of the bill!

 

Power Line is reporting today on the first conference in 20 years held by the Fatah Party of Palestine.  The article reports:

"Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas cited the widespread use of seat belts by Palestinian drivers as evidence of the advance of the rule of law in the territories."

I guess you have to start somewhere.  Also, the General Assembly of Fatah unanimously approved a resolution to investigate the cause of death of Yassar Arafat.  The article also pointed out:

"Khaled Abu Toameh reported that "many Fatah operatives, including some of Abbas's closest allies in Ramallah, have made it known that they would oppose any move to abandon the 'armed struggle' option." Moreover, "Fatah leaders responded with loud applause when two terrorists who committed the worst terror attack in Israel's history were referred to as heroic martyrs by former PA Prime Minister Abu AlaaIndeed."" 

Don't expect peace as long as the Fatah party is in power in Palestine--they are still committed to killing innocent Israeli civilians.  That is not a recipe for peace.

Sonia Sotomayer was confirmed yesterday as a Supreme Court Justice. The Wall Street Journal points out in an article today that she was questioned closely, but treated fairly.  Her confirmation was opposed by nine Republicans, but she was treated respectfully during the process.  Hopefully her confirmation will set the example for future confirmations when the Republicans are in power.  I doubt it, but that would be nice.

There are questions about Ms. Sotomayer's objectivity as a judge, but since she is a liberal-leaning judge replacing a liberal-leaning judge, I don't see that as a problem.  I am more concerned about the rumors concerning her temperament in the court.  We shall see in October.

The AARP has come out in favor of President Obama's healthcare proposal despite the fact that passage of the program may be detrimental to the health of its members.  One thing to remember when dealing with Senior Citizens is that many of them pay close attention to what is going on politically.  They are not tied down with the responsibilities of working, raising a family, and everything that goes with that, and often have the time to pay attention.  The AARP's endorsement of the currently proposed healthcare reform has not been well received by its members.

The Washington Examiner is reporting today that AARP members are beginning to voice opposition to the position taken by the leadership of the organization.  You Tube has a video of what happened at a recent AARP meeting in Dallas, Texas, when the AARP tried to sell their support of Obamacare.  These are not the Brooks Brothers protesters as charged by some Democrats--they are sincerely interested Senior Citizens voicing their opinions.  The AARP eventually left the meeting because they encountered opposition.  The video is amazing.  Democracy at work!!  Sometimes it isn't pretty, but it works!!

Townhall.com is reporting today that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, speaking in Kenya, says it is a "great regret" that the United States is not a member of the International Criminal Court.

The purpose of the court is to try people for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity when national courts are unwilling to do so.  The U. S. refused to sign on to the Court in 2002, fearing that soldiers looking for terrorists would be subject to prosecution because of international politics.

In deciding whether or not to join the International Criminal Court, we need to look at what the United Nations has become.  The United Nations began with the idea of peace and justice throughout the world.  It has become a place where brutal dictators head the human rights committee.  If the Court were run by countries with democratic governments, it would probably work, as the trials after World War II worked.  The Allied Forces after World War II were (with the exception of Russia) democratic governments.  They ran fair, non-political trials and dispensed justice.  There are too few powerful democracies in the world today to ensure that would be the case.  Consider that Israel has repeatedly been condemned by the UN, while Islamic suicide bombers are not even criticized! 

Investor's Business Daily posted an editorial today about the release of Laura Ling and Euna Lee, the journalists who were nabbed by Kim Jong Il's security forces while on a reporting mission on the China border.  While it is fantastic that they are safely home, many journalists are worrying what price was paid and will be paid for their release.

The article points out:

"Groveling, anyone? Kim now knows the current U.S. leader can be blackmailed -- if he didn't know it before. That's what made President Clinton so appropriate for this mission. It was from Clinton that Kim first learned this lesson.

In 1994, recall, Clinton sent former President Carter -- see a pattern? -- to North Korea to negotiate that country's denuclearization. Carter returned with a deal similar in its sycophancy and cynicism to the one Neville Chamberlain brought back from Munich.

In exchange for billions of dollars in food aid and even help for its "peaceful" nuclear power effort, North Korea vowed to behave and decommission its nuclear weapons program.

No sooner had the ink dried than North Korea began cheating. During the Clinton years, the U.S. and the U.N. signed three agreements with North Korea. North Korea broke its word each time."

Notice that just this week, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's security forces arrested three young American journalists for an alleged border violation of Iran.  Iran and North Korea have both learned that they can take American hostages and use them as leverage in any agreements between their countries and America.  This does not say good things for the future of American citizens traveling abroad. 

This is taken directly from the White House website at Whitehouse.gov:

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care.  These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation.  Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

What about the false information the Obama camp is spreading?

According to Politico.com, the White House has launched a counter attack on the people who oppose the total revolution in health care proposed by the President and the House of Representatives.

According to Politico:

"The new offensive started early Tuesday morning when the White House posted a video response to a hodgepodge of clips on the Drudge Report that portrayed President Obama as favoring the elimination of private insurance. On the White House blog, Obama's director of new media, Macon Phillips, asked supporters to send in leads for debunking chain e-mails or anything else that "seems fishy."

It continued through the day with press secretary Robert Gibbs and Democratic National Committee spokesman Brad Woodhouse both saying a series of confrontational town hall meetings were manufactured by Republicans, conservative groups and lobbyists who are paid to drum up opposition."

Why are they asking us to let them know who is organizing the opposition?  Aren't people who object to legislation allowed to do it as a group?  When lobbyists lobby for legislation, does the White House publish or use that information?

What the White House needs to understand is that those of us who oppose this healthcare plan are not necessarily in favor of the status quo.  What we are in favor of is less government intervention in our health insurance.  This is not about healthcare, it's about the health insurance industry.  The government sees a successful industry and wants to take the money out of it and put it in the government's pocket.  It's our job as citizens to stop them. 

All of us need to pay attention to the way this administration treats the people who disagree with them.  It is not befitting a democracy.

The House Republicans Oversight Website has posted a letter from House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Ranking Member Darrell Issa (R-CA) to Rham Emanuel citing threats used against Republicans who negatively reported on the success of the stimulus program.  Below are some excerpts from that letter, including some of the threats made:

Letter from Ray LaHood, Secretary of Transportation:
On Sunday, Arizona Senator Jon Kyl publicly questioned whether the stimulus is working and stated that he wants to cancel projects that aren't presently underway. I believe the stimulus has been very effective in creating job opportunities throughout the country. However, if you prefer to forfeit the money we are making available to your state, as Senator Kyl suggests, please let me know [emphasis added].
 
Letter from Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Interior: 
Some key Republican leaders in Congress have publicly questioned whether the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is working and suggested cancelling all projects that are not currently in progress. I believe they are wrong. The stimulus funds provided through the Recovery Act are a very effective way to create job opportunities throughout the Country. However, if you prefer to forfeit the money we are making available to Arizona, please let me know [emphasis added].
According to the website, Congressman Issa stated:
 
"At what point do you believe your practice of Chicago-style politics violates a public official's right to speak out in favor of alternative policies," Issa asks.  "The American people have a right to know what role you played in developing the threatening letters to Governor Brewer and whether you intend to continue to engage in these tactics in the future."

This is not American politics as usual and should be brought to the public's attention.  Anyone engaging in this type of practice should be promptly voted out of office.

According to the Attleboro Sun Chronicle, which is my local paper, my Congressman, Jim McGovern, stated at a townhall meeting last night that:

"The biggest obstacle to meaningful health care reform is the false information being spread by supporters of the status quo."

First of all, I received no notice of the townhall meeting.  Second of all, I don't necessarily support the status quo, but I definitely do not support the current proposal.  Let's look at some of that supposedly 'false information'.  My two sources for the following information are The Hill, which ran an article on The Healthy Americans Act on June 6 of this year, and the Washington Times, which ran an article today on the progress of the healthcare legislation the Democrat Party is proposing.

One of the things not being reported is that there is a bi-partisan healthcare bill sponsored by Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah).  A companion measure is being pursued by Reps. Brian Baird (D-Wash.) and Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.) in the House.  In the Senate, the bill is called The Healthy Americans Act and is S.334.  According to The Hill, the bill would:

"Require Americans to buy a basic health insurance policy for themselves (like we do for auto insurance), reduce healthcare costs by putting individuals into large private insurance "pools," slash healthcare paperwork and administrative expenses by eliminating several government bureaucracies and establishing electronic transfers and enrollment, and create bold incentives for more preventive care."

Unlike to Democrat legislation Congressman McGovern is supporting, the bill will not add additional cost to the healthcare system--it will eliminate some of the government interference with the free market in the healthcare industry that drives up the cost of healthcare.

The Washington Times reports on the current Democrat healthcare proposal:

"...the Congressional Budget Office has found that the legislation:

*Would not cover virtually all of the uninsured.

*Would increase the deficit by more than $1 trillion.

*Would increase in the long term, rather than reduce, the overall cost of health care."

The Congressional Budget Office is non-partisan and does not lie.  I guess my question now is whether my Congressman is misinformed or is simply not telling the truth.

According to The Times Picayune in New Orleans, the New York Times has just assigned a full-time reporter to New Orleans.  I find the timing of this very interesting.  The position has been vacant since April, and the New York Times says it wants to cover the slow recovery of New Orleans after hurricane Katrina.

I am interested in this article because I have children who own a house in New Orleans and were there (although evacuated) during Katrina.  I have driven through the lower ninth ward and seen the X's on the doors with the information on the searches of the houses.  It is amazing how much damage was done to the city by hurricane Katrina.  

I was impressed at how fast the Zoo and the Aquarium opened up after Katrina and at how fast the French Market and downtown areas came back.  I was in New Orleans just after the Aquarium reopened in October and then in May of the following year.  The difference was amazing, but when I talked to people at the French Market, they told me how difficult it was to find a place to stay and to find people to work in the restaurants.

My hope is that New Orleans will again be the great cultural city it has always been.  It is also my hope that the New York TImes will be fair in its reporting of the accomplishments of the Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal.  Hopefully, putting a reporter in New Orleans is not an excuse for trying to destroy Governor Jindal as they have tried to destroy ex-Governor Palin of Alaska.

This is the picture released by the White House of the President, Professor Gates, and Officer Crowley going out to have a beer together in the Rose Garden.  My putting this picture up is not about race--it's about manners.  Which person involved is actually helping the Professor down the stairs?  Which person involved is too self-involved to realize that the Professor might need help on the stairs?   We need to remember this picture when anyone in the government says anything about helping the average American with the problems we encounter in our daily lives!

The New York Post posted an article on Friday, July 30, about the compromise in the House of Representatives on health care.  The 'Blue Dog' Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee had refused to sign on to the health care plan, saying that the plan is too expensive and does not deal with the critical problems of the current system.

On Thursday, Representative Micke Ross (D-Ark.) announced that an agreement had been reached.  The positive part of the agreement is that it delays any vote inthe full House of Representatives until after the August recess.  This gives the American public a chance to examine the legislation--it might even give some Congressmen a chance to read it!

Please follow the link and read the article for the details of the agreement.

The article also reports something that you may not have heard a lot about:

"House Republicans put some new chips on the table on Wednesday in unveiling their own health reform plan, with a likely price tag of $700 billion. It offers a mix of tax credits and deductions to help people buy insurance, gives people more options to purchase private health insurance, and includes medical malpractice reform. It also avoids unpopular mandates on individuals and businesses to buy coverage."

This makes much more sense in today's economy.

Michael Barone has posted an article at Real Clear Politics today about the unintended consequences of the 'Cash for Clunkers' program.  The program was suspended Thursday night (while Congress tries to further fund it),  The House passed a bill to add another $2 billion to the program, but the Senate wants to make its voice heard.  According to The Hill yesterday,  Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) released a statement that said the price of their support to extend it would be tougher mileage standards.

According to Michael Barone:

"Mind you, the government hasn't yet shelled out the $1 billion authorized for Cash for Clunkers. Dealers reduce the buyers' prices and have to apply to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for the rebates and NHTSA -- surprise, surprise -- has only managed to process 23,000 of an estimated 250,000 applications. The checks, we are told, will be in the mail. Oh, there's another problem: The dealers are required to destroy the clunkers, which will reduce the supply and increase the price of spare parts for those low-income folks who can't afford to trade their clunkers in even with a $4,500 subsidy. So much for helping the poor."

It was mentioned on one of the Sunday news shows that only the motor on the cars turned in has to be destroyed, but I suspect most dealers will find it easier to just destroy the entire car, setting up a spare parts problem in the future. 

What I was not aware of was that the program offered $3,500 or $4,500 rebates for trading in  old cars for new ones with slightly (four miles per gallon) better gas mileage.  The aspect of this program that bothers me is the bribery of the American people to buy smaller cars.  If you really wanted to stimulate car sales, why not give everyone a $ 4,500 rebate to buy any car they want?  On the other hand, how long will some of the car dealers wait for their rebates, and will those rebates ever arrive?  Will the financial incentives the car dealers have put out to spur car sales hurt them financially while they wait for the government to come through on its promises?  Will the government actually make good on its promises? 

On Friday, CNS News reported that a bi-partisan group of Senators were uniting to introduce a bill to reinstate the Washington, D. C., school voucher program that was terminated in the stimulus bill.  The article states:

"According to (Senator) Lieberman, the bill would not only keep the program going, it also would allow it to continue taking in more students, including 216 who had been awarded scholarships for the upcoming school year -- only to see them vanish when the program was terminated."

Finally, it looks as if Congress may be in danger of getting something right!  According to the article, during the 2008-2009 school year, over 1,700 children were aided by the Opportunity Scholarship Program, enrolling in 49 different non-public schools. Hopefully, this bill will be passed and children is our nation's capital will have the opportunity to receive a good education.  While they are at it, vouchers should be legal all over the country!  Competition in education is a good thing and should be encouraged.

CBS News is reporting today that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner says that the U. S. must cut the deficit in order to have a sustained recovery from the current recession.  He stated that President Obama's Administration will do whatever is necessary to bring the deficit down, and would not rule out raising taxes.

He is right, but this is an amazing statement coming from someone in this administration.  On Thursday, April 30 of this year, the Washington Post reported that Congress easily approved a $3.4 trillion spending plan for the coming year.  That is in addition to the stimulus program of $787 billion.  Now this administration is talking about lowering the deficit.  Why in the world should we believe them?

If you believe that raising taxes increases income to the government, please read the Heritage Foundation article on the Laffer Curve.  Historical data since the 1960's shows that raising taxes lowers government revenue (as the people being taxed find ways to shelter their money), and what happens is that the tax burden on the middle class increases. 

According to an article at Power Line this morning:

"...But a value-added tax would "add to the burdens that the average American already faces," whether unfairly or not. The alternative, presumably, is higher taxes on "the rich." But the "rich" are already paying far more than their fair share. The latest IRS figures show that the top 1 percent of taxpayers pay more in federal income taxes than the bottom 95 percent combined."

This is not the way to grow an economy.

In order to have the two-state solution in the Middle East work, you need two states that agree on a 'two-state' solution.  Yesterday's Power Line reported that:

"Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah faction will reaffirm its refusal to recognise Israel as a Jewish state at a major congress next week, according to a document obtained by AFP on Saturday.

The congress document also reiterates the refusal of the Palestinian leadership to resume peace talks with Israel as long as it continues building Jewish settlements in Jerusalem and the occupied West Bank. ...

In the document Fatah underlines "its refusal to recognise Israel as a Jewish state" as demanded by Israel's hardline Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Fatah links this refusal to its determination to protect the right of Palestinian refugees to return to homes they fled at the time of the creation of Israel in 1948."

It should be noted that Arabs are allowed to buy land and settle in Israel, but Israelis are not allowed to buy land or settle in Arab areas.  Since the Arabs are the majority, this makes no logical sense at all.

Fatah is considered a 'moderate' Palestinian group.  If they will not acknowledge Israel's right to exist, how to do we expect to create peace in the region?

What Media Bias?

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Today on Fox News, I heard a commentator say that conservatives always complain that the media is biased.  She didn't seem to understand the complaint.  Well, every now and then figures show us what reality is.

Newsbusters.org has some notes today on how the economy is being reported under President Barack Obama and how it was reported under President George W. Bush.  For instance,  a 0.4 percent decline in the nation's Gross Domestic Product occurred in 2001 after 911 when George Bush was president.  The press declared this a calamity.  Friday, it was announced that the Gross Domestic Product had declined 1 percent.  The media applauded. 

When the GDP showed a .04 percent decline in 2001, the New York Times said in an editorial:

"Gross domestic product shrank by 0.4 percent in the third quarter of this year. That performance was better than most analysts expected, but still the worst in a decade. The economy is probably contracting even faster now, and the recovery many had hoped to see by year's end is not likely to arrive until well into 2002."

Compare that to this quote from Associated Press's Jeannine Aversa on the recent1 percent decline of the GDP:

"The economy dipped only slightly in the second quarter of this year -- falling at a 1 percent annual pace, better than expected. And many analysts think the economy is starting to grow again in the current quarter, setting up a long-awaited recovery."

So a 0.4 percent drop means that recovery will be slow in coming and a 1 percent drop means that recovery is just around the corner!  Do they teach math in journalism school?

According to today's Washington Times, the House of Representatives has passed a bill to limit executive pay packages on Wall Street.  First of all--Wall Street did not cause the economic crisis--Congress did.  If you doubt this, please watch the YouTube video called "Burning Down The House."  The video is about 10 minutes long, but it is well worth watching.

Anyway, the article points out:

""The sweeping compensation mandates in the bill, which were not subject to any committee review prior to its consideration, will have far-reaching and unintended consequences that will drive capital away from our financial markets," said Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama, the top Republican on the Financial Services Committee."

This is not an area for government intervention.  Government intervention in the mortgage market, although well-intentioned, gave us the mortgage meltdown.  People who could not afford to make mortgage payments were given mortgages, and those loans defaulted.  Very few members of Congress have ever owned or administered a business, very few of them have studied economics or how the business sector of our economy works.  Their job is to uphold the Constitution--they don't seem to be doing that very well.

This is the proverbial camel's nose under the tent.   Do you really think that if this legislation passes, at some point in the future, your wages will not be governmentally regulated? 

According to yesterday's The Hill, Nancy Pelosi has stated that the concessions on healthcare made to the 'blue dog democrats' could be changed as the bill makes its way through Congress.  According to the article:

"The Blue Dogs who cut the deal with Energy Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) said they have complained to Pelosi about reports that that their hard-won concessions might be removed.
 
"There have been some disturbing comments from anonymous aides in the papers, that this was 'just a bone' thrown to the Blue Dogs," said Rep. Baron Hill (D-Ind.), a member of the Blue Dogs. He said they were expecting to hear back later Thursday."

The concessions made to the 'blue dogs' were made in the name of getting this awful bill passed.  After these concessions have served their purpose, they will probably be scrapped.  If the 'blue dogs' are not smart enought to see what is happening, they deserve to be voted out of office in the next election cycle!

About this Archive

This page is an archive of entries from August 2009 listed from newest to oldest.

July 2009 is the previous archive.

September 2009 is the next archive.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.