November 2009 Archives

I realize that I am a cultural dinosaur, but I am also part of a generation that brought informality in dress and demeanor into the culture.  I remember the days when people on airplanes wore suits and ties.  I remember the days when women wore hats and gloves.  I also remember when all that began to change.  I personally don't look particularly good in hats, so I wasn't all that sorry to see them go, but sometimes a lack of formality is out of place.  What I am about to relate is not a recent news story, but a troubling one.

On February 2 of this year, newsbusters.com reported that after the first day of his presidency, President Obama has chosen not to have the Marine Band play "Hail To The Chief" for him.  The Marine Band no longer provides musical interludes before and after the president's appearance--they have been replaced by a single piano player.  The music of John Philip Sousa has been replaced by the works of Cole Porter and Sting.  I guess this may be nothing more than a reflection of a changing culture, but to me it is an unfortunate change.  Out of respect for the office of the President, some of our recent Presidents chose to enter the Oval Office only when wearing a tie and jacket.  I regret the lack of respect for the traditions of the office of President shown by this change in music.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air reports today on a zoning board decision in Phoenix, Arizona, that makes food kitchens at churches illegal at Thanksgiving.  There will be a hearing on the matter on December 14th which will determine whether or not food kitchens will be legal on Christmas. 

The article points out:

"I'm not unsympathetic to the security issues of having homeless people wandering through residential neighborhoods looking for a meal.  I lived in Phoenix for a couple of years, and it's not an insubstantial issue.  However, the proper way to stop that is to have the police enforce the law, not decide that a free meal service to the poor amounts to a restaurant."

One of the reasons we have such an out-of-control government is that the churches somehow got out of the business of charity.  The churches are the organizations best able to handle the job of providing a 'safety net' in our society.  Generally, they know the people they are helping and are in a position to know if anyone is 'gaming' the system.  When the 'safety net' was turned over to the federal government, we lost the personal touch and 'gaming the system' became a way of life.  Personal accountability was somehow removed from the picture.

Hopefully this original decision will be overturned, and the local churches can get back to the business of feeding the hungry.

The Washington Times is reporting today that there is no provision in the healthcare bill currently being debated to stop illegal aliens (undocumented immigrants) from receiving health insurance. 

The article points out:

"A Congressional Research Service report notes that the House Democrats' bill does not expressly prohibit illegal immigrants from getting health insurance and, in fact, would mandate that they obtain insurance if they meet the "substantial presence test."

"That test calculates U.S. residency based on the number of days per year a person is in the country."

There is a belief in some circles that this is a moot argument because the White House and Democrat leadership in Congress have signaled that they will try to pass a bill next year that would make illegal immigrants legal.

The bottom line here is that placing the entire country under health insurance that is somehow government regulated will not save anyone money.  It will create an entire new bureaucracy that will grow and continue to need to be paid for by ever-increasing tax revenue from the taxpayers.

Michael Barone posted an article at the Washington Examiner website yesterday about the growing problem with the global warming data released by the Climate Research Unit at University of East Anglia near Norwich, England, (CRU).  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has relied on data from the CRU for their information on global warming.  Now that the CRU emails between the scientists studying and releasing the data have been exposed, there are real questions about the validity of the data. 

Michael Barone points out:

"Australian geologist Ian Plimer, a global warming skeptic, is more blunt. The e-mails "show that data was massaged, numbers were fudged, diagrams were biased, there was destruction of data after freedom of information requests, and there was refusal to submit taxpayer-funded date for independent examination."

Global warming alarmist George Monbiot of the Guardian concedes that the e-mails "could scarcely be more damaging," adding, "I'm dismayed and deeply shaken by them." He has called for the resignation of the CRU director."

According to WattsUpWithThat:

"The Science and Public Policy Institute issued a report on the money involved in funding the global warming debate in August concluding, "Over the last two decades, US taxpayers have subsidized the American climate change industry to the tune of $79 billion.""

Meanwhile, President Obama heads for the Copenhagen climate summit as if nothing in the climate debate has changed.  I think it's time to stop, take a deep breath, and consider the fact that there are some very powerful people heavily financially invested in global warming,  Unfortunately, some of those people are American politicians in a position to advance the 'global warming' agenda to their own benefit. 

The climate may be changing.  The climate has changed before, and it will change again.  To me, the real question is, "What effect do the activities of man have on climate?"  That question has not been answered.  Curbing pollution is a good idea.  Crippling the world economy to curb pollution is a really bad idea.

When Senator Carl Levin recently suggested a tax increase to cover the war on terror (see recent RightWingGranny post), I got curious to see how much of our tax money actually goes to defense spending.  This chart is from AskHeritage.org.

The article at AskHeritage.org also points out how the cuts in military spending have impacted the modernization of our military.  It lists specific cases where cutbacks have resulted in new equipment that is needed.  At the same time...

According to WikiAnswers:

"In 2005, Senator Judd Gregg, then Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee stated that "Mandatory entitlement spending now represents a whopping 55 percent of all federal spending. If left on its current path, that could jump to more than 60 percent in 10 years. That will force us to cut out other necessary expenditures or raise taxes and weaken our economy." Source: The Hill newspaper, Washington DC." 

"A paper written by Congressman Randy Forbes in April of 2008, "The Challenge of Giant Entitlements", states that "Entitlement spending, or government spending that takes place automatically every year without any action from Congress, is currently 62 percent of our overall federal spending."" 

The United States Budget needs some serious rethinking, but I am afraid that this administration is not capable of anything other than increasing spending and raising taxes.  To claim that the war on terror is the reason for our federal deficit is disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst. 

Please follow the link to this article at MichaelYonOnline.  There is nothing I can add to this article except to say that I hope everyone who reads this blog takes the time to read it.

Today's Washington Examiner posted an editorial about what is happening in Honduras today.  The forces of Democracy have prevailed despite meddling from Hugh Chavez and the United States State Department. 

Today Honduras votes for a new President.  The attempt by President Manuel Zelaya to violate the country's Constitution and serve another term as President was blocked, and a new President will be elected today.  Roberto Micheletti, who has served as acting President, plans to step aside quietly when the situation is resolved.  President Zelaya accepted a deal brokered by the United State that allowed the Honduran Congress which had removed him decide whether or not to reinstate him.  They have put off their decision until after the election so that his successor will have already been named, thus avoiding another attempt at an unconstitutional second term by President Zelaya.

The editorial concludes:

"By resisting Obama's earlier threats and bucking elite world opinion, Honduran leaders strengthened their democratic institutions for the future. The precedent of military obedience to civilian government will serve them well. Roberto Micheletti, who like Zelaya belongs to the Liberal Party, will step aside quietly after serving as interim president for a few critical months. (He is not a candidate for president.) His actions and those of his fellow party-members are heroic, ensuring that this crisis will serve as the bedrock for vigorous two-party competition for future elections. And another good thing: No matter who wins, the precedent of limited executive power will be firmly embedded permanently in the mind of the new Honduran president."

Congratulations, Honduras, on showing how to preserve Democracy!

This a bit of historical perspective on where we are today in the 'war on terror.'

When Hitler came to power in Germany in January of 1933, there weren't too many people alarmed by what was happening in Germany.   He quickly began building and populating the concentration camps (Dachau opened in March 1933), but the rest of the world was unaware of what was happening in them and thus unconcerned.   When Hitler began occupying the countries around him, the British still thought they could make peace with him.   No one wanted a repeat of World War I.  By 1940, Great Britain was the only country at war with Hitler's Germany, and America had amended its neutrality legislation in 1939 in order to lease weapons to Great Britain.  Americans were divided on whether or not to enter the war.  Technically, they had no 'skin in the game.'   There was no outrage at what was happening to the Jews because no one actually believed it was happening.  Although the Evian Conference attendees in 1938 expressed sympathy for the Jews attempting to flee Germany, they refused to change their immigration policies to give them refuge (with the exception of the Dominican Republic).  Until December 7, 1941, we had no 'skin in the game.'

Recently at a family event, I had lunch with some members of my extended family, all of whom were baby boomers or pre-baby boomers.  We talked about the things our parents had done in their lifetimes.  The parents represented included:  a Jew who served in the French resistance while hiding his family from the Nazis, an Army nurse who served overseas in primitive conditions, an Army enlisted man who had been captured early in the Battle of the Bulge and spent the rest of the war in a German POW camp, and an Army officer who was part of the D-Day landing.  My extended family had 'skin in the game' during World War II.   The generations that followed were different, however.  Of the approximately ten people sitting at the table, only two had served in the military--one in the French Army and one in the US Navy.  Of the families represented, only one had a connection with someone currently serving in the military.  According to chacha.com, there are 3,060,000 people in the military and reserves accounting for about 1% of the U. S.'s population of 305,816,827 people.

Today we have the best military in the world.  The men who volunteer for our Armed Services are the cream of the crop.  They are well-trained and professional, but because they are an all volunteer army, very few of us have 'skin in the game.'  Except to our soldiers and the people who lost loved ones on September 11, 2001, the war on terror is an abstract concept related to something that happened in New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D. C., more than eight years ago.  The protests against the war have not even caught fire because there is not a draft--again, most of us have no 'skin in the game.'

It is a sad fact that until terrorism directly affects our country again, the outrage against civilian trials for terrorists will be muffled, the protests against the war will lack passion, and America will tend to forget that we are fighting a war. 

I don't have a solution to this problem.  I just have a question, would the war in Afghanistan end more quickly if, as in World War II, more of us were aware that we do have 'skin in the game?'

We as a country have 'skin in the game!'

Yesterday's Washington Examiner is reporting that the Arabian Horse Foundation is setting up a scholarship in honor of Patrick Swayze and his wife, Lisa Neimi.  The couple owned Arabian horses and competed in horse shows for several years. 

According to the article:

"The scholarship will be awarded each spring to a youth involved with Arabian horses who seeks a performing arts career. It was launched with a pledge from Iron Horse Farms in Canton, Ga."

Larry Kinneer of Dayton, Ohio, President of the Arabian Horse Foundation, said that the scholarship is to honor the Swayze's love for Arabian horses and their contributions to Arabian Horse Foundation youth programs.

 

Yesterday's New York Times reported that the Justice Department has issued a five-page memorandum explaining why ACORN will continue to be paid money promised before their funding was cut off. 

The article points out:

"... on Oct. 1, President Obama signed into law a spending bill that included a provision that said no taxpayer money -- including money authorized by previous legislation -- could be "provided to" the group or its affiliates."

ACORN was founded in Arkansas in 1970.  It describes itself as a community organization group which registers voters, provides financial services to the poor, and works toward higher minimum wages and more affordable housing.  Sounds like an admirable group until you look at the specifics.  They registered the Dallas Cowboy's starting line-up to vote in Nevada and Mickey Mouse in Orlando.  (Somehow, I suspect Mickey voted without actually showing up).  ACORN was recently captured on video tape assisting a prostitution ring to obtain affordable housing. 

ACORN has also dumped documents in California as they were coming under investigation in that state and abandoned an office in Oklahoma after not paying the rent.  In both of these cases, information was obtained showing that they are not acting in a legal or non-political manner.  Both of these stories were previously covered on this site and can be found in the archives.  Why then, is the government continuing to fund them?

At a time when many people are unemployed or underemployed and money is tight, why are we spending taxpayer money to fund a group that engages in illegal activities?  We need to ask this question often, and we need to remember this in next year's elections.

Charles Krauthammer is one of the most astute political columnists of our time.  In addition to being brilliant, he is experienced in the world of healthcare.  He practiced medicine for three years as a resident and then chief resident in psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital before coming to Washington to direct planning in psychiatric research for the Carter administration.  At that time he began contributing articles to The New Republic.  He understands the medical profession and what is needed to improve it.

On Wednesday, Investors.com posted an article by Charles Krauthammer on how to fix healthcare in America.  He points out that the rules and penalties in the healthcare bill currently being considered were pulled out of a hat--they have no relation to real events.  That figures--most members of the Senate and the House of Representatives have limited knowledge and experience with the inner workings of the healthcare insurance industry (other than their own "Cadillac" plan). 

Mr. Krauthammer recommends some basic and simple reforms:

• Tort reform  -  this will save at least a half a trillion dollars every ten years.  It is not in the bill because lawyers contribute a major part of Democrat campaign funds.
• The ability to buy health insurance across state lines.  Mr. Krauthammer points out that if we were not able to buy fruit across state lines, people in Wisconsin would probably not eat oranges in the winter.  Setting up a state-run orange grove in Wisconsin would not solve that problem, but that's what Congress is doing with the 'public option.'
• Taxing employer-provided healthcare benefits.  I really hate this one, but it makes sense.  If all of us bought private health insurance, it would be a much more competitive industry (and the government would get major revenue from those people who chose to stay in employer-provided programs).

Mr. Krauthammer concludes:

"Insuring the uninsured is a moral imperative. The problem is that the Democrats have chosen the worst possible method -- a $1 trillion new entitlement of stupefying arbitrariness and inefficiency.

"The better choice is targeted measures that attack the inefficiencies of the current system one by one -- tort reform, interstate purchasing and taxing employee benefits.

"It would take 20 pages to write such a bill, not 2,000 -- and provide the funds to cover the uninsured without wrecking both U.S. health care and the U.S. Treasury."

I really love the 20 pages part!!!

According to today's New York Post President Obama has announced that he will travel to Copenhagen next month to take part in the United Nations' Climate-Change Conference.  This is interesting in light of the recent incidents of leaked emails showing that the science of climate-change may not be as reliable as scientists claimed.   Yesterday's Wall Street Journal points out that from the beginning of the debate on global warming, a single view has been enforced.  The Wall Street Journal explains how the process of 'peer-review' was used in a way to make sure only one viewpoint was put forth.  Now that the emails from the Climactic Research Unit (CRU) in Britain have been made public, the lack of real scientific inquiry into climate change is obvious. 

The New York Post points out that at the Copenhagen conference:

"He (President Obama) reportedly intends to offer a goal of cutting US greenhouse emissions by 17 percent of 2005 levels by 2020.

"The White House won't declare exactly what sort of an impact that goal will have on the US economy. Or, more likely, it just doesn't know how much wreckage it will cause."

Using less energy is a noble goal, but crippling the United States economy is not part of the job description of a United States President--particularly when the science behind it is questionable.

In a time of war and hardship, a past President reminded us what was important.

Washington, D.C.
October 3, 1863

By the President of the United States of America.

A Proclamation.

The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union. Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defence, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle or the ship; the axe has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consiousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom. No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington, this Third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the Unites States the Eighty-eighth.

By the President: Abraham Lincoln

William H. Seward,
Secretary of State

This article has two sources, an editorial in the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday and an article in the Telegraph.co.uk late last week.   James Delingpole in the Telegraph suggests that if you own any stocks in alternative energy companies, you should start dumping them now. 

The telegraph lists some quotes from the emails from the Climactic Research Unit that were leaked last week:

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

"...The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

"This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the "peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that-take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board...What do others think?"

"I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.""It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I've had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !"

You get the picture.

The Wall Street Journal summarizes:

"For the record, when we've asked Mr. Mann in the past about the charge that he and his colleagues suppress opposing views, he has said he "won't dignify that question with a response." Regarding our most recent queries about the hacked emails, he says he "did not manipulate any data in any conceivable way," but he otherwise refuses to answer specific questions. For the record, too, our purpose isn't to gainsay the probity of Mr. Mann's work, much less his right to remain silent.

"However, we do now have hundreds of emails that give every appearance of testifying to concerted and coordinated efforts by leading climatologists to fit the data to their conclusions while attempting to silence and discredit their critics. In the department of inconvenient truths, this one surely deserves a closer look by the media, the U.S. Congress and other investigative bodies."

So why is President Obama going to Copenhagen to discuss a treaty to control global warming?

BigGovernment.com is reporting on the latest Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN) document dump.  This one was in Oklahoma where ACORN abandoned its office (the landlord claimed they owed back rent), and left documents and a computer behind.  The abandoned office provided some interesting information on the plans and goals of the organization.

Please click on the above link to see their plan on how to take over the state of Oklahoma for the Democrats.  If they were a Democrat organization, there would be no problem with their wanting to take over a state for the Democrats, but they claim to be a non-partisan, community assistance organization.  They are paid millions of dollars by the government with the assumption that the money will be used in a non-partisan way.  The fact that they were or have become a wing of the Democrat party means that they should not be receiving federal money.

There has been news of other ACORN document dumps posted at BigGovernment.com, and I am sure there are more to come.  Hopefully at some point the government will decide to investigate the activities of ACORN.

One of the problems with the war on terror is that we are not fighting uniformed soldiers from a recognized country.  The soldiers we are fighting have no rules--they cut off people's heads with dull knives and they mutilate people and bodies without remorse.  That is what makes the decision to proscute Navy SEALS for something they might not have done in capturing a terrorist leader in Iraq so strange.

Fox News is reporting today that three Navy SEALS have requested a trial by court-martial as the way to answer charges that they punched Ahmed Hashim Abed, whom the military code-named "Objective Amber," when they captured him.   Ahmed Hashim Abed was the alleged mastermind in the killing and mutilating of four Blackwater security guards in 2004.  There is some question as to whether Ahmed Hashim Abed's wound was self-inflicted.  Unfortunately, many of terrorists we are fighting understand our legal system in ways that we do not.

The article points out:

"Neal Puckett, an attorney representing McCabe, told Fox News the SEALs are being charged for allegedly giving the detainee a "punch in the gut."

"I don't know how they're going to bring this detainee to the United States and give us our constitutional right to confrontation in the courtroom," Puckett said. "But again, we have terrorists getting their constitutional rights in New York City, but I suspect that they're going to deny these SEALs their right to confrontation in a military courtroom in Virginia."

All I can conclude from the fact that these SEALS will be charged with anything at all is that our leaders do not understand the enemy they are fighting.  That is a dangerous place to be in the middle of a war on terrorism.

Today's Wall Street Journal is reporting on the effect of a change in the way Medicare pays for oxygen services has had on the people who use those services.

On January 1 of this year, in an attempt to reduce waste and fraud in medical-equipment reimbursements, Medicare changed the rules on payment for oxygen for people with conditions such as emphysema and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.  Under the new program, Medicare pays what it has traditionally paid for the first three years, then, according to the article:

"Suppliers are then required to continue providing oxygen services to patients for an additional two years, but at a sharply reduced payment rate. After that, patients are entitled to receive new equipment, and Medicare will resume paying suppliers at the higher rate."  

As a result of this change, some suppliers have closed, and others have been reluctant to take patients who are coming to the end of their first three years. 

The article further states that:

"The changes are supported by many in the industry, but some small suppliers say they can't afford them. It costs $2,500 to $3,500 for a company to go through an accreditation survey, says Wayne Stanfield, president of the National Association of Independent Medical Equipment Suppliers. But a supplier may spend tens of thousands of dollars to comply with the stringent requirements."

I totally understand the government's desire to save money, but this is not the place to do it.  Instead, why not take a look at the amount of bureaucracy involved in supervising this program.  Is it possible that if we instituted more common-sense regulations, it would take fewer people to administer them?  Is it time simply to overhaul the government--not its medical reimbursement programs?

Today's New York Post posted an editorial by Betsy McCaughey about how the pending healthcare legislation affects various groups of people.  She lists winners and losers if the legislation is passed.

Some of the losers are:

• The Middle Class  -  the requirement to have government-approved healthcare, the increased cost per family (subsidies will not go to the middle class--they will help pay for everyone else's insurance), and penalties (and eventually jail time) for failure to comply.
• People who currently carry health insurance only to cover emergency medical treatment (high deductible plans) who will be forced into a more expensive government plan.
• People with "Cadillac plans" who will be hit with an excise tax.  As the healthcare program grows, the definition of a "Cadillac plan" will change in order to raise more money.
• Women and men - the United States Preventive Services Task Force will be establishing new rules for routine medical tests.  These new rules will save money, but will put people at risk.
• Seniors and baby boomers - the plan cuts funds (and preventive screenings for seniors) in Medicare while increasing money and screenings in Medicaid.  We are taking money away from healthcare services for the elderly and giving it to the poor.

Some of the winners are:

• 21 million people who will be added to Medicaid.  The financial requirements to be eligible for Medicaid will be loosened so that more people can be added.
• People with pre-existing conditions who cannot be refused health insurance.
• Community groups seeking government money (p. 1209). (I can't wait to see the ACORN application for this one!)
• Low-income recent immigrants who will now qualify for Medicaid.  (Actually, as long as they are legal immigrants, I think this is not an unreasonable idea, but I would like to see it done by tax rebates for buying private insurance policies in order to avoid the waste that government programs are so famous for!)

In her article, Betsy McCaughey lists the pages and sections of the healthcare bill that apply to each group on her list.  The currently proposed healthcare bill is a nightmare for the future of our healthcare system.  We need change in healthcare that involves less government regulation--not more.  Let's start with tort reform, a risk pool for people with pre-existing conditions, portability of insurance across state lines, and tax credits for purchasing health insurance.  Those changes will bring down the cost and increase the availability for everyone. 

The healthcare bill released on November 19,2009, can be found at the Defend Your Healthcare website.  In that bill, on Page 1189, under the heading:

"SEC. 4105. EVIDENCE-BASED COVERAGE OF PREVENTIVE

SERVICES IN MEDICARE."

 

is a section that explains that the United States Preventive Task Force has the authority to modify or eliminate coverage of certain preventive services.  In other words, if this bill is passed, the government will now have the right to tell you that you cannot have a mammogram before age 50.  Since this task force will form the guidelines for individual insurance coverage (assuming there will still be private insurance), private insurance companies will not have to cover any tests the government decides are unnecessary.  Do you really want a government task force determining the kind of health services you are able to receive?

 

Today's Washington Examiner posted an article by Byron York further examining the firing of Inspector General Gerald Walpin.  On June 10 of this year, Inspector General Gerald Walpin received a telephone call from Norman Eisen, the special counsel to the president for ethics and government reform, telling IG Walpin that he had one hour either to resign or be fired.  This was in violation of the law that requires the President to give Congress 30 days' notice before dismissing an inspector general.  The article referenced above reviews the entire sequence of events that followed.  Generally speaking, the White House attempted to cover its tracks and claimed that IG Walpin was fired after an extensive review of his performance by members of the Corporation for National and Community Service [CNCS].  When that claim was investigated, it was found to be untrue.

The article points out:

"Just hours after Sen. Charles Grassley and Rep. Darrell Issa released a report Friday on their investigation into the abrupt firing of AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin, the Obama White House gave the lawmakers a trove of new, previously-withheld documents on the affair. It was a twist on the now-familiar White House late-Friday release of bad news; this time, the new evidence was put out not only at the start of a weekend but also hours too late for inclusion in the report."

The article concludes that the reason for the firing of IG Walpin was his aggressive investigation of misuse of AmeriCorps funds by Kevin Johnson, the mayor of Sacramento, California who is a prominent political ally of President Obama.

This seems to be another example of the "Chicago Way" that has come to the White House.

Andrew Breitbart's website BigGovernment.com has posted a story about the San Deigo chapter of the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN).  In October of this year, California Attorney General Jerry Brown announced that he would be investigating the activities of ACORN in California as a result of the videos made by James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles showing ACORN's willingness to help them engage in illegal activities.  After the videos were released, ACORN fired some employees and said that they would cooperate fully with any investigation. 

The article at BigGovernment.com points out:

"Interestingly, the local head ACORN organizer in California, David Lagstein was caught on tape earlier this month speaking to an East County Democratic Club.

"Mr. Lagstein stated: "...the attorney general is a political animal, but certainly every bit of the communication we have had with them has suggested that the fault will be found with the people that did the video and not the people with ACORN."

"Continuing, Mr. Lagstein stated: "...we are fully cooperating, some of the investigators visited our office this morning and I think they really understand what's going on.""

While claiming to cooperate with the investigation, the ACORN office in National City (San Diego County) dumped thousands of sensitive documents on October 9th, just days before the Attorney General was scheduled to visit their office.  The documents were dumped into a public dumpster, with no regard for privacy or issues regarding employment documents. 

Derrick Roach at BigGovernment.com reports:

"I am a local licensed private investigator. I took it upon myself to keep an eye on what the local ACORN office was up to, in light of the release of the undercover videos. I retrieved these documents from the public dumpster."

He has posted copies of some of the documents at the link cited above.  He has also pledged that if the Attorney General of California does not properly investigate ACORN's activities, citizen journalists will.  Thank you, Mr. Roach.

Is the $300 million Mary Landrieu was paid for her vote on cloture in the Senate last night included in the cost of the bill?

The antics of ACORN came to light in the last election.  If you are not aware of them, please seach this site for a very incomplete, but representative list.  There was voter fraud, and more recently, advice on how to skirt the laws while engaging in sex trade with underage women.  Sounds like an investigation would be in order, but ACORN seems to have some pretty strong connections in the White House, and nothing is happening.  In fact, ACORN in Brooklyn is suing the government to get their funding back!  (see Right Wing Granny post of Nov 12, 2009)

BigGovernment.com has a post which may indicate where we go from here.  Andrew Breitbart appeared on the Sean Hannity show and stated that:

"Not only are there more tapes, it's not just ACORN.  And this message is to Attorney General Holder: I want you to know that we have more tapes, it's not just ACORN, and we're going to hold out until the next election cycle, or else if you want to do a clean investigation, we will give you the rest of what we have, we will comply with you, we will give you the documentation we have from countless ACORN whistleblowers who want to come forward but are fearful of this organization and the retribution that they fear that this is a dangerous organization.  So if you get into an investigation, we will give you the tapes; if you don't give us the tapes, we will revisit these tapes come election time."

There needs to be an investigation of ACORN.  If it takes Andrew Breitbart releasing his tapes to get it down, that's fine.  Just get it done. $53 million in federal aid has been given to ACORN.  I think it is time the taxpayers had an accounting of how that money has been spent.  Thank you, Mr. Breitbart, for your courage in trying to clean up our government. 

Yahoo News has posted an Associated Press article about Roman Catholic Bishop Thomas Tobin banning Representative Patrick Kennedy from taking communion in the Catholic Church in Rhode Island because of the Senator's stand on abortion.  This is an interesting story.  The article goes on to point out that the ban only applies to Rhode Island and that the Bishop did not bar Representative Kennedy from taking communion anywhere else.

Should a Congressman's faith play a part in his legislative views?  Thomas Jefferson seemed to think so.

""[I consider] ethics, as well as religion, as supplements to law in the government of man." --Thomas Jefferson to Augustus B. Woodward, 1824. ME 16:19 from a website of Jefferson Quotations."

Every one of us has a basis for what we believe.  That basis is founded in religion or some sort of life experience.  It is my feeling that any Church has the right to exclude people who openly espouse views that are in disagreement with their teaching.  If Patrick Kennedy wants all the privileges of a Catholic, then he should not be promoting legislative ideas that are in conflict with the Catholic Church.

If being a Catholic is important to a Congressman or Congresswoman, then the morality of the Church should have a place in their lives and their legislative decisions.  The fact that the Catholic Church opposes abortion is not new.  Most major religions of the world teach that killing the innocent is wrong.  I can think of nothing more innocent than an unborn baby.  There are churches that do not take a strong stand on abortion.  I am sure Representative Kennedy can find such a church to attend.

Remember during the presidential campaign when Afghanistan was the "good war" according to the Democrat party.  The Afghanistan war was the war we had to win in order to win the war on terror.  Well, that was then; this is now.

The public support for the war in Afghanistan has dropped as the war has dragged on.  I understand that, but even though the war has lasted a long time, the number of casualties in Afghanistan (and Iraq) is very low compared to the number of casualties in World War II (even though that was a much shorter war).  I realize that every casualty is important, and I also realize that although the number of casualties is lower, the number of seriously wounded veterans returning home is higher.  We are at a point where we need to decide as a country whether or not we are going to cut off terrorism at its root or simply deal with major attacks within our country as they happen (which they will if we abandon Afghanistan).  We have abandoned Afghanistan before (the book THE KITE RUNNER by Khaled Hosseini is a fictionalized, but realistic story of what happened next).  If we abandon Afghanistan again, we will have lost any credibility we might have had as an ally in that part of the world.

The opposition to the war in Vietnam was due in large to the fact that there was a draft.  I believe that many of the protesters of that war were spoiled children who simply did not want to be drafted and go to war.  They were used by the political forces opposing that war to eventually force America to abandon the Vietnamese people and allow a mass killing to take place in that part of the world.  Since there is not a draft now, organizing opposition to the War in Afghanistan has been more difficult for the opposition.  Now, however, there is a new approach.

Bloomberg.com reported today that:

"Higher-income Americans should be taxed to pay for more troops sent to Afghanistan and NATO should provide half of the new soldiers, said Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee."

There are a few things wrong with this statement.  NATO may not have half the soldiers to send.  American, China, Russia, and Iran are the only countries in the world making large military expenditures.  Even if they were members of NATO, somehow I don't think China, Russia, or Iran would be likely to help us in Afghanistan.  Secondly, according to Infoplease.com, the cost of the war in Afghanistan in 2009 will be approximately $173 billion dollars.  According to the Wall Street Journal on April 4, 2009, the cost of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) will be close to $375 billion.  According to The Heritage Foundation, the true cost of the Stimulus Bill (when you consider that the increased funding for programs the left loves like Head Start, Medicaid, COBRA, and the Earned Income Tax Credit will probably not be cut back) will probably eventually total $3.27 trillion.  (Follow the link to The Heritage Foundation to see the chart showing how they got that number.)  Meanwhile, the Democrats are working on passing a healthcare bill that will cost at least $848 billion over 10 years. 

Mr. Levin, I don't think the War in Afghanistan is the major contributor to the spending problem. 

Yesterday's Washington Examiner posted an article about the investigations into the Fort Hood shootings.  President Obama plans to have the FBI, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Pentagon, intelligence and other officials investigate the incident.  The goal is to see if there were some way the tragedy could have been averted.  Democrats in Congress have bowed to White House pressure and cancelled their investigation. 

The article points out:

"...administration declined to send anyone to a rogue congressional hearing on the matter Thursday. Sen. Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate homeland security committee, noted that --

"it will be very difficult to fulfill our committee's responsibility without the cooperation of the executive branch.""

The Obama Administration is totally unwilling to cooperate with a Congressional investigation into the Fort Hood shootings.  Since the FBI and the military were evidently involved in keeping an eye on the shooter before the incident, it seems odd that they would be asked to investigate their reasons for not taking action.  This is one time that I think a thorough Congressional investigation is in order!

One of the big stories on the internet yesterday was the story of a hacker who posted emails from Hadley Climatic Research Unit (CRU), Britain's largest climate research institute.  The emails suggest that scientists were altering data in order to make sure they could prove global warming.

The story is all over the internet.  My two sources are Power Line and (for the scientific type who actually understands how this works) WattsUpWithThat, which has charts, graphs, and other scientific things.

It's a simple story, but a very important one because of the timing.  Some of the people attending the upcoming meeting in Copenhagen had planned to use global warming as a reason to set up a 'world authority' that would have some control over every country on the planet.  National sovereignty was going to be negatively impacted by the need to control global warming.  If there is no need to control global warming, the concept of a 'world administrator' might not go over so well.

This is a copy of one of the emails posted at Power Line.

There is another email which talks about leaving a particular scientist out of the 'loop' because he might not be 'as predictable as we'd like."  That is no way to run a research unit!

Even if global warming is real, there is no evidence that man is responsible for it.  I believe we all need to take better care of Earth, but I also believe civilization can move forward while creating a 'greener' society.  I am not ready to give up my steak dinner to save the planet, because I do not believe that giving up my steak dinner will save the planet.  It might be healthier for me, but that is my choice--that decision shouldn't come from someone in Copenhagen I have never met!  

Until the global warming types are willing to switch to nuclear power, drill offshore safely, and thoroughly research other sources of energy (rather than make emply claims of what those sources of energy will accomplish), I refuse to take them seriously. 

Yesterday Der Speigel reported that scientists are puzzled as to why global temperatures have stopped rising over the past ten years.  Maybe they are about to realize that we really don't know all there is to know about what controls global temperatures. 

The article states:

"...not much is happening with global warming at the moment. The Earth's average temperatures have stopped climbing since the beginning of the millennium, and it even looks as though global warming could come to a standstill this year.

"Ironically, climate change appears to have stalled in the run-up to the upcoming world summit in the Danish capital, where thousands of politicians, bureaucrats, scientists, business leaders and environmental activists plan to negotiate a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Billions of euros are at stake in the negotiations."

The thing to notice in this quote is that "Billions of euros are at stake in the negotiations."  There is a move in some circles to make 'carbon credits' the new currency.  Many American politicians will make a lot of money if global warming regulations are put into effect.  The meeting in Copenhagen is not about climate--it's about making the countries that have prospered give up their prosperity and give large amounts of money to poorer countries.  Many of the countries receiving the money have political structures in place that will allow the leaders of the country to become very rich while having no impact on either pollution or the general population in that country. 

The bottom line here is simple.  It is foolish to make drastic worldwide economic changes to combat a problem that may not even exist.  There have been climate cycles since the world began, there is no reason to doubt that these cycles will continue indefinitely.

Yesterday The Hill reported that the House of Representatives passed the Medicare "Doc Fix" by a vote of 243-183. 

According to the article:

"Despite a vow to offset any new spending, the Democratic measure would cost $210 billion over 10 years but does not include a "pay-for" in the bill."

This part of healthcare legislation was passed separately from the major healthcare bill in order to make the "ObamaCare" bill appear to cost less than it actually does. 

Meanwhile, ABC News reported yesterday that "On page 432 of the Reid bill, there is a section increasing federal Medicaid subsidies for "certain states recovering from a major disaster."  Translated into English, this means that Democrat Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, who has been hesitant to vote for the healthcare bill, now has to consider the fact that Louisiana will receive $100 million in additional Medicare subsidies if healthcare reform passes when she decides how to vote on this legislation.

The article at ABC News posted the language in the bill that would give Louisiana the $100 million.  That part of the proposed reform takes two pages.  It sort of makes you wonder what the other 2000 plus pages contain.

I guess it's just more of the "Chicago Way."

Kimberly Hodgens-Smith is a friend of mine.  This is her story told in her own words.

In August 2006, I was 44 years old and attended my yearly physical exam. During that exam my physician examined my breasts while asking me if I performed self-exams. As she continued examining my breasts I responded "no if I did I'd be in here every other month scared out of my wits." She informed me there was new research stating that self exams may not be very effective at detecting breast cancer and that mammograms were the most useful diagnostic tool doctors had. Three weeks later I went for my yearly mammogram at the regional hospital near my home at which time a lump was found. Of significance is that my experienced primary care physician did not detect this lump a few weeks earlier and it was only detected by the mammogram. I was concerned when the radiologist said I'd have to return for an ultrasound and I'd need a surgeon to perform a core biopsy. I'm aware that most benign cysts can be biopsied by the radiologist or ultrasound tech so the fact that a surgeon was being called in right away was alarming. I chose to get my follow up care and biopsy done at an advanced care hospital in Boston. On September 11, 2006 I was informed of my results by the radiologist that indeed I had stage 1 Infiltrating ductal carcinoma in situ a cancer that would need surgery. The week that I waited to meet with the surgeon who would do my lumpectomy was indeed the worst week of my life so far! In synopsis I ended up having a lumpectomy that did not have clear margins and then underwent a bilateral mastectomy with reconstruction. I'm not the kind of person who wants to look over their shoulder and I certainly did not want the terror of a cancer diagnosis to consume any more of my life than necessary. Fast forward to 2009 and the news that the government task force assigned to reinvent our medical cogs and wheels have announced the intention of putting off screening mammograms until the age 50 for women. If this policy were in effect today it is very likely that my cancer would be growing and spreading as I write. I have 3 more years until I reach the age 50 and would not have access to mammogram. I'd most likely be facing a stage 3 cancer at age 50 with a higher likelihood of fatality. While I'm thankful to be cancer free today, I am aware that breast cancer can recur at any time. It is not like other cancers where you reach a 5-year-all-clear mark. If this mammogram policy becomes a reality I wonder how many mothers, wives, and daughters we are going to endanger? I could never adjust to that kind of CHANGE.

Today's Washington Examiner posted an article by Byron York on Wednesday's meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee and its discussion of terrorist trials.  During the meeting, Attorney General Eric Holder refused to reveal possible conflicts of interest involving Justice Department lawyers who, before joining the Obama administration, worked on behalf of Guatanamo detainees. 

According to the article, Senator Charles Grassley pointed out:

"I want to know more about who is advising you on these decisions. There are attorneys at the Justice Department working on this issue who either represented Guantanamo detainees, or worked for groups who advocated for them. This prior representation I think creates a conflict of interest problems for these individuals."

The article concludes:

"..."Sen. Grassley expects Attorney General Holder to respond fully to all requests from committee members, including the important requests for ethics recusals discussed at today's hearings," a Grassley spokesman said after the hearing. "Those requests should be complete and timely.""

Some of the law firms Justice Department lawyers worked for before joining the Obama Administration will be representing terrorists in civilian trials.  These law firms would probably not be involved in military trials.  There is a major potential here for a conflict of interest.

According to today's New York Post, the numbers we are hearing bandied about on the latest healthcare proposal are not quite revealing the entire picture.  According to the article:

"The Democrats cite the bills' projected costs from 2010-19. Yet, as the Congressional Budget Office reports, the bill would cost just $9 billion total from 2010 through 2013 -- versus $147 billion in 2016 alone. In the first 40 percent of what the Democrats are calling the bill's "first 10 years," only 1 percent of its costs would yet have hit.

"As the CBO analysis indicates, the bill's real 10-year costs would start in 2014. And in its true first decade (2014 to 2023), CBO projects the bill's costs to be $1.8 trillion -- double the price Reid is advertising."

 

The trick here is very simple.  If you beging to collect taxes to pay for healthcare starting in 2010 and don't actually let the full program kick in until 2014, you have three years of taxes without services to make the overall cost of the bill appear lower.

The other major problem with Senator Reid's healthcare bill is how it impacts cuts in doctors' pay.  The article states, "The bill says it would cut payments to doctors for services to Medicare patients by 23 percent in 2011 -- and never raise them back up, ever."  If you were a doctor, would you be taking any more Medicare patients?

This is a bad bill and should be stopped in the Senate.  The bill that needs to be put forth will include tort reform, portability of health insurance across state lines, insurance pools for pre-existing conditions, and tax breaks to help lower income people afford health insurance.  None of these items are included in the present proposal.  We need less government interference in healthcare--not more.

Williams Ayers was a domestic terrorist involved in the Weather Underground Organization that claimed responsibility for a dozen bombings between 1970 and 1974.  After he was acquitted of domestic terrorism charges in a civilian trial due to issues in evidence gathering, Bill Ayers stated, "Guilty as sin, free as a bird -- what a country, America."   Do we really need to do this again?

Today Yahoo News (via Associated Press) posted an article regarding another pirate attack on the Maersk Alabama today.  The owners of the Maersk Alabama have evidently learned from their experience in April--the pirates were fought off by private guards on board who fired off guns and a high-decibel noise device.

According to the article:

"However, Roger Middleton, a piracy expert at the London-based think tank Chatham House, said the international maritime community was still "solidly against" armed guards aboard vessels at sea, but that American ships have taken a different line than the rest of the international community.

"Shipping companies are still pretty much overwhelmingly opposed to the idea of armed guards," Middleton said. "Lots of private security companies employee people who don't have maritime experience. Also, there's the idea that it's the responsibility of states and navies to provide security. I would think it's a step backward if we start privatizing security of the shipping trade."

There is something in the American make-up that defends private property.  It is my opinion that the concept of defending yourself has been lost in a large portion of the rest of the world.  The ship escaped capture because the security forces were on board--they were not saved by naval ships in the area.  They avoided capture because of having people on board who thwarted the attack. 

Thank goodness that the owners of the ship took the precautions they did to avoid a repeat of what happened in April!

Yesterday at Power Line posted an article by Paul Mirengoff concerning President Obama's embracing of the International Criminal Court (ICC).   The Obama Administration has decided that the U.S. will participate in a conference with the members of this court.   Stephen Rapp, the U.S. Ambassador at large for war crimes, has stated, however, that we do not plan to join the ICC in the near future. 

The worrisome aspect of this is that we are involved in a war on terror with people who do not play by any rules.  This might put us in the position of being judged for our conduct in that war by people who favor the terrorists or favor the demise of the United States.  If President Obama is elected to a second term, he will probably join the ICC.  He is not politically stupid enough to join in his first term.  This is further evidence of the lack of understanding of this President of the importance of American sovereignty over 'global government.'

In a world of serious news and major political stories, this item might be overlooked, but to some of us, it is very important.  Yesterday The Christian Science Monitor reported that there will be a shortage of Eggo waffles in the grocery stores until mid 2010.  The shortage of Eggos is due to a summer flood at Kellogg's Atlanta factory and equipment problems at a Rossville, Tennessee, plant. This is serious--Eggos represent 73 percent of the frozen waffle market.

The market for frozen breakfast foods grew 6 percent last year.  The fastest growing part of the frozen breakfast food market is frozen breakfast muffins.  The shortage of Eggos may increase the growth of frozen breakfast muffins in the frozen breakfast food market. 

The growth of the frozen food breakfast market is a reflection of a few things going on in our society.  As wives struggle to balance career and family, frozen breakfast foods offer a lower-sugar alternative to some of the popular breakfast cereals.  For single people, the convenience and portion control are a plus. 

Hopefully, we will get our normal supply of Eggos back by July!

Today's Washington Post posted an article with an interesting proposal.  Al Home suggests that if Congress can pass a law to require all Americans to purchase health insurance, they should consider passing a law requiring all Americans to own guns.  The article points out that in 2008 more than 250 million guns were owned by U.S. citizens.  When President Obama was elected, there was a surge in gun sale, resulting in approximately 260 million guns in a population of nearly 309 million.  The article concludes that there may be more than 100 million citizens left unprotected against their gun-owning fellow citizens.

The article states:

"Surely everyone can agree that this is an outrage. Moreover, it is an outrage that Congress can easily fix, without months of committee meetings, town halls or tea parties. All that is required is a bipartisan, pro-constitutional bill to extend the Second Amendment's protection of gun ownership to all Americans, whether they like it or not."

This is an interesting idea.  At least the concept of gun ownership is in the Constitution, and I am sure there might be a few Republicans willing to make this a bi-partisan bill!

The article in the Washington Post is a good reminder of how ridiculous it is to require all Americans to purchase health insurance (with the threat of fines and jail time if they do not comply).  Hopefully, Congress is paying attention.

Yesterday's Washington Times posted an article about the rules of engagement set in place by General McChrystal in order to limit civilian casualties. 

According to the article, these are some of the rules:

No night or surprise searches

ANA or ANP must accompany U.S. units on searches

U.S. soldiers may not fire at the enemy unless the enemy is preparing to fire first

U.S. forces cannot engage the enemy if civilians are present

Troops can fire at an insurgent if they catch him placing an IED but not if insurgents are walking away from an area where explosives have been laid

Only women can search women

The only one of these rules that makes sense to me is the last one.  It is a noble concept to want to limit civilian casualties during war, but it makes no sense to have only one side following these rules.  In World War II, the allies made decisions that killed civilians in order to win the war.  Dresden was one such decision.  Allowing the Germans to  bomb a British city after the allies had broken the enigma code was another.  The military believed that to evacuate the British city would have shown that the allies had broken the code, so they allowed the people to remain in harm's way.  War is an ugly thing, and innocent people do get killed, but I can guarantee that if the Taliban regains Afghanistan, there will be a greater number of innocent people killed than would be killed in protecting the country.  Saddam Hussein killed more innocent people during his time as leader of Iraq than were killed in the Iraq war.

If we are not willing to let our soldiers fight the war we have sent them to fight and to defend themselves against a proven enemy, we need to bring them home.  One of the problems of Viet Nam was the rules of engagement.  We don't need to make that mistake again.

The Freedom Foundation Of Minnesota posted a report evaluating the federal government stimulus tracking website report on Minnesota.  The government website reports that 35 jobs have been saved or created as a result of $404,340 in stimulus spending in Minnesota's 57th congressional district.   According to the government website, in Minnesota's 27th congressional district 2.5 jobs have been created at a cost of $3,159,657.  In the 13th congressional district 5 jobs were created at a cost of $42,109.  Aside from the obvious high cost of some of those jobs, this sounds like good news, but evidently the government website didn't bother to fact-check its numbers--the 13th, 27th and 57th congressional districts in Minnesota do not exist,  Minnesota has a total of eight congressional districts.

As concerned citizens we need to keep track of where the stimulus money is going.  Our government should be required to give us accurate information on that subject. 

Just a note--according to the recovery.gov website, only 58% of the stimulus money has been awarded and only 13% actually received.  What are we waiting for?  Why not just give the money back to the taxpayers and let them grow the economy?

The Washington Post reported yesterday on a study done by Richard S. Foster of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.  The non-partisan report stated that the provision in the healthcare legislation proposed that cuts more than $500 billion from future Medicare spending would reduce benefits for some seniors and jeopardize access to medical care for others.  That is a rather obvious conclusion.  The legislation plans to add more than 30 million people to the ranks of the insured, many of them through Medicaid, at the same time it plans to cut the amount of spending on Medicare and Medicaid.  They are increasing the number of people served while cutting the amount of money available.  That's bad enough, but they are doing it at the time when the baby boomers are reaching Medicare age.  This makes no sense at all.

The article points out:

"In its most recent analysis of the House bill, the CBO noted that Medicare spending per beneficiary would have to grow at roughly half the rate it has over the past two decades to meet the measure's savings targets, a dramatic reduction that many budget and health policy experts consider unrealistic."

The only realistic way to cut spending per beneficiary is to reduce services and care available.  The only way to maintain the level of care and add 30 million people is to spend more money.  This healthcare bill has the potential to be very expensive.  According to Republicans, the report from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services forecasts an increase in spending of $289 billion.  The Democrats argue that the increase in costs will be offset by 'Medicare savings.'  I guess I wonder why if all these 'Medicare savings' are there, we have not taken advantage of them before.

Today's New York Post posted an editorial by Dick Morris & Eileen McGann on President Obama's opposition to a Congressional investigation into the shooting at Fort Hood.  He stated that we must "resist the temptation to turn this tragic event into political theater."  This remark was made at the same time he is creating "political theater" in New York City by putting Khalid Sheikh Mohammed on trial there.  The trial in New York City will provide a goldmine of information to terrorists on how we collect information and how our anti-terrorism apparatus works.  A Congressional investigation into Fort Hood will not compromise our safety in any way.  Why does President Obama oppose it?

The editorial in the New York Post theorizes:

"Obama and his handlers know that the key to building favorable ratings is to control the agenda. And the more the national discussion centers on national security and terrorism, the more Republicans gain. So the Fort Hood terror attack comes at an awful time for an administration trying to turn the nation's attention away from the terrorist threat....And, as evidence mounts that the FBI was on to Major Nidal Malik Hasan for years, the president is doing his best to stop Congress from finding out why these warnings went unheeded." 

The attack at Fort Hood caught people in authority not heeding warnings.  No administration wants their shortcomings exposed, but in a democracy, that exposure is required (with the hopes of avoiding a repeat mistake).

The article suggests that President Obama has an agenda in bringing terrorist trials to New York:

"As he (President Obama) likely decides to send more troops to Afghanistan and eyes abandoning the "public option" to secure Senate passage of his health-care plan, Obama has to rebuild his credibility on the left. A public circus that focuses on waterboarding and interrogations could be just what he wants and needs."

Politics may win elections, but it does nothing to keep our country safe.

Today's Washington Examiner posted an editorial suggesting that we ban government employee unions. 

According to Department of Labor statistics released in January 2009, about 40 percent of government workers (at the federal, state, and local levels) are represented by unions.  The union membership in the private sector is less than 10 percent.

The problem is the conflict between the union's goal of increasing pay and benefits for its workers and the local, state, and federal governments' need to stop the spiraling tax rates needed to cover the additional cost.

Unions began as a way to prevent companies from taking advantage of their workers.  They were needed and accomplished many worthwhile things.  Now they have become those corporations, and no one is holding them accountable.  Union leaders have incomes and benefits that would make Wall Street blush.  Union money is routinely given to political parties without the consent of the union members.  The unions have become as corrupt as the corporations they once sought to clean up. 

The article at the Washington Examiner does not mention the unsavory connection between the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).  This is another reason to examine the relationship between unions and government employees.

The National Review Online posted an editorial by its editors on Saturday on bringing al-Qaeda terrorists to New York.  Andrew McCarthy posted an article at Nationa Review's The Corner on Friday on the same subject.

The editors of National Review reminds us that treating terror as a law-enforcement issue was one of the problems of the 1990's.  The article points out:

"While the champions of this (law enforcement) approach stress that prosecutors scored a 100 percent conviction rate, they conveniently omit mention of the paltry number of cases (less than three dozen, mostly against low-level terrorists, over an eight-year period, despite numerous attacks), as well as the rigorous due-process burdens that made prosecution of many terrorists impossible, the daunting disclosure and witness-confrontation rules that required government to disclose mountains of intelligence, the gargantuan expense of "hardening" courthouses and prisons to protect juries and judges, and the terrorists' exploitation of legal privileges to plot additional attacks and escape attempts."

Bringing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) to New York City will break the ice in making it easier to move the remaining Guantanamo terrorists into this country.  These are not American citizens, and yet we are transferring them to America and giving them the rights of the citizens they tried to kill. 

The argument for this insanity is that it will make us safer.  We need to remember that after following the course of treating terrorists as common criminals in the 1990's, we were rewarded with the September 11th attacks. 

Andrew McCarthy points out:

"Let's take stock of where we are at this point. KSM and his confederates wanted to plead guilty and have their martyrs' execution last December, when they were being handled by military commission. As I said at the time, we could and should have accommodated them. The Obama administration could still accommodate them. After all, the president has not pulled the plug on all military commissions: Holder is going to announce at least one commission trial (for Nashiri, the Cole bomber) today."

Mr. McCarthy points out that if the military commissions are going to continue, there really is no reason to bring KSM to New York for trial other than to open the gates for a trial of the Bush Administration.  I understand that politics is not a friendly business, but I feel strongly that the Obama Administration and the Democrats are putting politics ahead of national security.  These trials will be a serious blow to America's ability to defend herself.

Every now and then I post an article that I do not fully understand.  This is one of those times.  Although the details of this are confusing to me, I am posting it because what is being done here is important.

Thursday's Washington Examiner posted an article entitled, "Obama to weed out Bush political appointees who careered in; Establishes new political test for career jobs."  The article explains that John Berry, President Obama's director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), has issued a new directive that will introduce politics into the hiring process of civil servants.  The OPM was originally created to end the practice of civil service jobs being used for political rewards.  Now it is being used to make sure people who have ideas contrary to President Obama do not get those jobs.  This is done indirectly by using a time restriction.  Please read the entire article to get the details of what is at work here.

The article points out:

"...if you worked for President Bush in the executive branch at any time during his second term in the White House, you may not be approved. The same applies if you worked for a Republican Member of Congress at any point during the past five years.

"Amazingly, even Berry had to acknowledge in his directive that political appointees cannot be barred from career positions because of their political views. The whole point of the career service, after all, is to insure that federal workers are hired on the basis of merit, not their political views."

One of the things that bothers me about the Obama Administration is the way it deals with people who have ideas that are different from their ideas.  This is another example of that mindset.  Part of the strength of democracy is the free discussion of opposing ideas.  I am not sure that concept is allowed under this administration.

This is not original, and I do not know who wrote it, but it really points out the concept of how "spin" can influence how a story is told.

 

"A Harley biker is riding by the zoo in Washington, DC, when he sees a  little girl leaning into the lion's cage. Suddenly, the lion grabs her by the  cuff of her jacket and tries to pull her inside to slaughter her, under the  eyes of her screaming parents.
The biker jumps off his Harley, runs to  the cage and hits the lion square on the nose with a powerful punch.  
Whimpering from the pain the lion jumps back letting go of the girl,  and the biker brings her to her terrified parents, who thank him endlessly. A  reporter has watched the whole event.
The reporter addressing the  Harley rider says, 'Sir, this was the most gallant and brave thing I've seen a  man do in my whole life.'
The Harley rider replies, 'Why, it was  nothing, really, the lion was behind bars. I just saw this little kid in  danger and acted as I felt right.'
The reporter says, 'Well, I'll make  sure this won't go unnoticed. I'm a journalist, you know, and tomorrow's paper  will have this story on the front page... So, what do you do for a living and  what political affiliation do you have?'
The biker replies, 'I'm a  U.S.. Marine and a Republican.' The journalist leaves.
The following  morning the biker buys the paper to see if it indeed brings news of his  actions, and reads, on the front page:
U.S. MARINE ASSAULTS AFRICAN  IMMIGRANT AND STEALS HIS LUNCH.

That pretty much sums up the media's approach to the news these days."

Yesterday's Boston Herald posted an article about the move to require Bay State drivers 75 and older to pass a mental and physical test to renew their license.  I know 75 is the new 50 (or whatever), but elderly drivers (and their families) cannot always be depended upon to judge when an elderly driver should give up the privilege of driving.  I myself plan to be cruising around in my Mustang convertible when I am 99 years old, but I also have to admit that that may not be a realistic idea.

The article points out:

"Deborah Banda, director for AARP of Massachusetts, said the elder-advocate group has been meeting with lawmakers to complain about the arbitrary age cutoff: "We need to get unsafe drivers of all ages off the road."

"Pressure to pass stricter rules for elderly drivers skyrocketed this year following several deadly accidents, including one that killed a 4-year-old Stoughton girl crossing the street and another that crushed a Weymouth police officer against a utility truck."

There are a lot of side issues involved in the question of elderly drivers.  Is this age discrimination?  If families lived closer together and were more involved, would the elderly need to drive?  If public transportation were better, would the elderly need to drive?  My town has a senior citizens bus which transports people various places during the day, do more towns need buses like that?  How does our society regard the elderly and their need to feel useful and independent?

Public safety should be the overriding issue in this debate.  I don't like the idea of setting an arbitrary age for testing elderly drivers, but I think this may be an idea whose time has come.

Today Reuters is reporting that five of the detainees at Guantanamo are being sent to New York City for trial.  The detainees include Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who will now be tried in a civilian court instead of a military tribunal.  The majority of the people detained at Guantanamo were captured on the battlefield.  They are generally not American citizens, and there is no reason to give them the civil rights of American citizens.  Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has admitted to being one of the planners of the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center.  He is an admitted terrorist.  Why should he be entitled be tried in the civilian justice system of the country he was trying to destroy?  What kind of a trial did he give Daniel Pearl before he slit his throat?

Keep in mind that the blind sheikh,Omar Abdel-Rahman, was put in prison for the first World Trade Center bombing.  When he sat in prison, plans were made to do the job again.  Putting him in prison was not a deterrent to terrorists planning future operations in America. 

The article reports:

"(Attorney General) Holder said that he would authorize prosecutors to seek the death penalty against the five accused of the September 11 attacks and that they would be held at a federal detention facility in New York.

"The decisions about the terrorism suspects came as Obama's top lawyer, Gregory Craig, who was charged with leading the White House's troubled effort to close Guantanamo, announced his resignation Friday."

The fallout of the decision to try the Guantanamo detainees in civilian courts will unfold within the next two to five years.  It will include World Court trials of the members of the Bush Administration who worked so hard to keep our country safe.  As this unfolds, we can expect to find ourselves asking the question, "Does Democracy have the right to defend itself?"

Yesterday at Hot Air, Ed Morrissey reported on an answer given by Representative Nancy Pelosi in an interview regarding the healthcare bill the House of Representatives just passed.  Here is the exchange:

"Stone: Do you think it's fair to send people to jail who don't buy health insurance?

"Pelosi: ... The legislation is very fair in this respect."

There is nothing I can add to that.  Please follow the link and read the entire article.

Today's New York Post notes that the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) is suing the federal government for cutting off their funds following the video scandal involving trafficking in the underage sex trade.  ACORN claims that it was unfair of the government to cut off funds "without an investigation", and according to the Post "has asked a federal judge in Brooklyn to immediately reinstate the funding to its housing program."

According to the article:

"The suit, filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights, claims poor people will suffer due to the lack of funding.

"ACORN, which is based in Fort Greene, Brooklyn, has received approximately $53 million in federal aid since 1994."

I guess the question I have is, "How many poor people have actually been helped by that $53 million in federal aid, and how much of it has used in ways the taxpayers would not approve of?"

Anyway, lets see what the federal judge in Brooklyn does with this case!

HillBuzz is a website I first found during the 20008 Presidential Primary Elections.  It is run by a group of gay Chicagoans who support Hillary Clinton for President.  I don't spend a lot of time at that site, but there was a link I stumbled across in my internet surfing that intrigued me. 

One of things that we have been struggling with in American politics for a while is civility.  There are problems on both sides, but I seem to notice that they are more common on one particular side.  One of the things I have not liked from either side is the personal attacks on whoever holds the office of President.  Unfortunately, there have been some unfair personal attacks on President Obama and the unfair personal attacks on George Bush continue even after he has left public life.

The linked article at HillBuzz is a thank you to George and Laura Bush for the time they spent (without seeking publicity) with the Fort Hood soldiers.  The article notes the compassion, class, and willingness to solve problems of our former President.

This website was set up to help Hillary Clinton run for office, so there may be an underlying purpose in this article.  I believe that President Obama may be challenged in a Democrat primary in 2012.  He is vulnerable to challenges from his left and from his right.  You can't vote "present" continually when you are the President of the country and expect to stay in office.  This article may be the beginning of a challenge to the President from his right.  The other challenger from the right may be Evan Bayh.  Watch his actions in regard to the healthcare bill.

At any rate, it was nice to read the article.

This post is based on an Associated Press article posted at Yahoo News yesterday and an article posted at Boston.com yesterday.

The Associated Press article states that President Obama has decided not to accept any of the plans suggested so far on how to move ahead in the war in Afghanistan.  He is looking for another option (as the war continues).  The Boston.com article comments that the number of troops wounded in Aghanistan has increased dramatically. 

It has been more than two months since General McChrystal submitted his troop request and plan for winning the war in Afghanistan.  General McChrystal is the General picked by President Obama to lead the war.  General McChrystal is experienced and capable.  It is a disgrace that an American general asks for reinforcements because he needs them and those reinforcements are delayed for months.  Even if President Obama decides today to send the troops, there is still some time required to put the force together.  We will eventually lose not only the war, but the trust of our allies if the President continues to dither.

War does not provide the option of setting an end date.  If the Generals in charge of World War II had looked at D-Day, the losses, the future prospects, and the French government at the time, and acted by reconsidering and delaying sending more troops, you would probably be reading this article in German.

Strength against bullies works.  The bullies in this case are the Taliban and Iran.  If we choose not to stand up to them, we can expect the bullying to continue and we can expect eventually to be seriously impacted by that bullying.

I know there is something called the First Amendment, and I know that part of the college experience is the exposure to a variety of ideas, but at some point common sense needs to be part of the formula.  Today's Boston Herald posted an article about the speech domestic terrorist Raymond Luc Levasseur was scheduled to give at the University of Massachusetts--Amherst tomorrow night. 

Because Mr. Levasseur was forbidden to travel to Massachusetts by his Parole Officer, Mrs. Levasseur is expected to speak in his place.  (One of the comments posted on the article stated, "Scott Brown filed a complaint with the US Parole Commission that the out of state travel violated parole regulations and voila! Brown for US Senate!")  Interesting.

According to the Boston Herald:

"Levasseur, 63, served 20 years in federal prison for a string of New York bombings, His radical United Freedom Front was also responsible for the 1976 attack at the Suffolk County courthouse in Boston. Members of the group were convicted of the 1981 murder of New Jersey state trooper Phil Lamonaco."

Who in the world is sponsoring this speech?  Why would a group on a college campus bring in as a speaker a man who blew up buildings and murdered people?  Why is he on parole?  My children have long since graduated from college, but even then, sending them involved serious expense.  If this is the kind of speaker the University of Massachusetts is bringing in to talk to the students, the parents should refuse to pay tuition!! 

Yesterday Yahoo News posted an article about the Code Talkers of World War II.  This was a group of Navajo Indians whose role in the war was kept very quiet until recently.  Since there are only about 50 of these 400 men still alive, it is time to tell their story.

According to the article:

"... on Tuesday, 13 of the Code Talkers, some using canes, a few in wheelchairs, arrived in New York City to participate for the first time in the nation's largest Veterans Day parade, set for Wednesday.

"The young Navajo Marines, using secret Navajo language-encrypted military terms, helped the U.S. prevail at Iwo Jima and other World War II Pacific battles, serving in every Marine assault in the South Pacific between 1942 and 1945. Military commanders said the code, transmitted verbally by radio, helped save countless American lives and bring a speedier end to the war in the Pacific theater."

The Code Talkers, using a code based on the ancient Navajo language, changed the course of the war in the pacific.  The article reports:

"In the first 48 hours of the battle of Iwo Jima, six Code Talkers worked nonstop, transmitting and receiving more than 800 messages about troop movement and enemy fire -- none deciphered by the Japanese. What confounded the enemy most was that Code Talkers could use distinctly different words for exactly the same message."

Today is the day to honor all veterans.  We gratefully include the Code Talkers in the group that we honor today.

Yahoo News Canada is reporting today that Israel has released pictures and documents from the ship it commandeered last week near the coast of Cyprus. 

The article pointed out:

""Hidden among the dozens of other containers on board, and disguised as civilian goods, the ship contained a consignment of 36 shipping containers with 500 tones of arms en route via Syria to the Hezbollah terrorist organisation in Lebanon," the army and foreign ministry said in a statement.

""A total of about 9,000 mortar bombs of different types were seized, along with about 3,000 Katyusha artillery rockets, 3,000 recoilless gun shells, 20,000 grenades and over half a million rounds of small arms ammunition," the statement said.

"It was accompanied by photos showing the ship's manifest, containers bearing the logo of the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines and cargo with Iranian armed forces customs labels.

"Among the weapons seized were 2,124 Iranian-made 107mm artillery rockets and thousands of AZ111-A2 fuses manufactured only in Iran, the statement said."

It is very obvious that Iran, in its quest to be 'the major player' in the Middle East, and its quest to destroy Israel in the process, is doing anything it can to create chaos in the region.  It is understood that the weapons were headed to Hezbollah so that another round of fighting between Israel and its neighbors can begin.

The part of this that is so frustrating to me is that Iran is pulling the strings to create more conflict in the Middle East while they themselves are risking nothing in that conflict.  Although Iran is pulling the strings in Syria, Lebanon, and some of the territories the Israelis have given to the Arabs, there are other countries in the region who are opposed to the path Iran is taking.  Until Iran is dealt with--not only in terms of stopping its nuclear program, but in terms of fomenting unrest in the region--there will not be peace in the Middle East.

Today's Wall Street Journal posted an article about the two hidden motives involved in the quest to pass Congress' healthcare bill.  John Cassidy at the New Yorker points out that Congress is creating a new entitlement program that once it is put into place will be impossible to undo. 

The article states:

"...according to Mr. Cassidy, ObamaCare serves the twin goals of "making the United States a more equitable country" and furthering the Democrats' "political calculus." In other words, the purpose is to further redistribute income by putting health care further under government control, and in the process making the middle class more dependent on government. As the party of government, Democrats will benefit over the long run."

The passage of ObamaCare will create a permanent welfare state.  The money needed to support 'the public option' will be money taken from people who work hard to get ahead and create wealth for themselves and others and given to people who choose not to work.  It will also mean the cutting of medical care for the elderly of our country and an unfair tax burden on the people just entering the work force in order to pay for the program.  If the policies of the Obama Administration in healthcare and cap and trade are enacted, we can expect a permanent unemployment rate of over 10 per cent.

Happy 234^th Birthday

To the

United States Marine Corps

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal and today's Washington Post posted articles on the background of Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the man who opened fire at Fort Hood, Texas.  The article in the Washington Post is written by Frank J. Gaffney Jr., president of the Center for Security Policy, a columnist for The Washington Times and host of the nationally syndicated program, "Secure Freedom Radio." 

Mr. Gaffney reminds us that immediately following the shooting, the FBI immediately stated that the shooting was not an act of terrorism.  President Obama cautioned us not to jump to conclusions.  (The President was less cautious in judging the Cambridge, Massachusetts, police department).  Mr. Gaffney further points out that Major Hasan is a devout Muslim who has followed the principles of Shariah since 2001.  One of the dictates of Shariah  is that the faithful must engage in jihad, or holy war, to achieve the submission of unbelievers to Islam.

The supposed excuses for Major Hasan's behavior have been a bit much.  The Wall Street Journal article points out:

"As the meditations on Maj. Hasan's motives rolled on, "fear of deployment" has served as a major theme--one announced as fact in the headline for the New York Times's front-page story: "Told of War Horror, Gunman Feared Deployment." The authority for this intelligence? The perpetrator's cousin. No story could have better suited that newspaper's ongoing preoccupation with the theme of madness in our fighting men, and the deadly horrors of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, than this story of a victim of war pressures gone berserk. The one fly in the ointment--Maj. Hasan had of course seen no war, and no combat."

There were signs that there was a problem with Major Hasan.  According to the Washington Times article:

"Maj. Hasan gave away his belongings immediately before the shootings, saying to one recipient, "I am going away" - an act of charitable form of cleansing consistent with Shariah's injunctions to would-be shaheeds (martyrs).

"The New York Times also reports that, in the words of a friend, the night before the shootings, Maj. Hasan felt he should quit the military because, "In the Koran, you're not supposed to have alliances with Jews or Christian or others, and if you are killed in the military fighting against Muslims, you will go to hell.""

If Major Hasan is tried by the military under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, it is likely that he will face the death penalty for his crime.  Although I believe that is an appropriate end for him, I am concerned that the death penalty will make him a martyr in the eyes of other terrorists. 

I hope our leaders view this shooting as a wake-up call to the fact that the safety of our troops is more important than political correctness.

The end of the Berlin Wall was symbolic as well as practical.  It represented the triumph of freedom over tyranny.  In view of that, I would like to share a few quotes with you about war and what it means to defend freedom.

"War has ended more evil than anything the left has every thought of.  In the last 60 years alone, it ended Nazism and the Holocaust; it saved half of Korea from genocide; it kept Israel from national extinction and a second Holocaust; it saved Finland from becoming a Stalinist totalitarian state; and according to most of the people who put "War is not the answer" stickers on their bumpers, it saved Bosnian Muslims from ethnic cleansing."  --Dennis Prager

"None of the four wars in my lifetime came about becasue we were too stong.  It is weakness that invites adventurous adversaries to make mistaken judgments.  America is the most peaceful, least warlike nation in modern history.  We are not the cause of all the ills of the world.  We're a patient and generous people.  But for the sake of our freedom and that of others, we cannot permit our reserve to be confused with a lack of resolve."  --Ronald Reagan

"The most fundamental paradox is that, if we're never to use force, we must be prepared to use it and to use it successfully.  We Americans don't want war, and we don't start fights.  We don't maintain a strong military force to conqurer or coerce others.  The purpose of our military is simple and straightforward:  We want to prevent war by deterring others from the aggressions that causes war.  If our efforts are successful, we will have peace and never be forced into battle.  There will never be a need to fire a single shot.  That's the paradox of deterrence."  --  Ronald Reagan

These quotes are taken from the book, THE GOOD AND FAITHFUL SERVANT, by Hugh Hewitt.  It is a study of the role Christians should play in a democracy.  I strongly recommend it.

In remembrance of the twentieth anniversary of the Berlin Wall coming down, Power Line posted an article about Peter Robinson, the man who wrote the speech President Reagan delivered in Berlin on June 12, 1987.

Mr. Robinson was inspired to write the line "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" by a dinner conversation with a dozen or so Berliners (the dinner was hosted by Dieter and Ingeborg Elz).  Mr. Robinson asked his hosts if they had gotten used to living with the Berlin wall; the article reports what followed:

"The Elzes and their guests glanced at each other uneasily. Then one man raised an arm and pointed. "My sister lives twenty miles in that direction," he said. "I haven't seen her in more than two decades. Do you think I can get used to that?" Another man spoke. As he walked to work each morning, he explained, a soldier in a guard tower peered down at him through binoculars. "That soldier and I speak the same language. We share the same history. But one of us is a zookeeper and the other is an animal, and I am never certain which is which."

"Our hostess broke in. A gracious woman, Ingeborg Elz had suddenly grown angry. Her face was red. She made a fist with one hand and pounded it into the palm of the other. "If this man Gorbachev is serious with his talk of glasnost and perestroika," she said, "he can prove it. He can get rid of this wall.""

The US State Department and the National Security Council were not happy with that line in the speech.  They submitted alternative drafts of the speech on more than one occasion, but President Reagan insisted on leaving that line in the speech.  Thank God that we were blessed with a President with the courage to face important issues head on. 

On a personal note, I was attending a church conference when the wall fell.  I turned on the TV at one point and watched what was happening in Berlin.  I couldn't believe it.  The wall had been there since I was a young teenager.  In the early days of the wall, there were stories in the media all the time about courageous attempts to escape from East Berlin.  I never thought the wall would come down.  It seemed to part of a permanent iron curtain.  I still remember the images on television of people streaming through the wall to greet friends and relatives they had been separated from for more than twenty years.  It was an amazing sight.

Today's Washington Times is reporting that Senator Joseph Lieberman plans to start a Congressional investigation into the shootings at Fort Hood last week.  He has stated that if initial reports on the incident are true, the incident would be "the most destructive terrorist act to be committed on American soil since 9/11."

Senator Lieberman wants the homeland security committee to investigate the motives of the shootings and to see if there were any warning signs that were missed leading up to the event. 

According to the article:

"Really, in the U.S. Army, this is not a matter of constitutional freedom of speech," he (Senator Lieberman) said. "If Hasan was showing signs, saying to people that he had become an Islamist extremist, the U.S. Army has to have zero tolerance. He should have been gone."

Unfortunately, General George Casey, the Army Chief of Staff, has a slightly different take on the matter.  The article points out:

"But the Army chief of staff said Sunday that he is concerned that speculation about Maj. Hasan's Muslim faith and the motives behind the shootings he is accused of could spark retaliation against Muslim soldiers and hurt diversity within the branch's ranks."

That is the kind of logic that will result in more of our military being killed or wounded.  When we reach the point where political correctness prevents us from seeing warning signs because the person involved is from a certain group of people, we are endangering all of our soldiers. 

Today's Washington Times posted a story on vitamin D deficiency, a condition that millions of people are suffering from worldwide. 

Dr. Michael Holick, a Boston University professor of medicine and physiology, believes that the deficiency probably affects more than 50 per cent of the world's population.  As more doctors become aware of these numbers, they are suggesting to their patients that they take over-the-counter supplements. 

Vitamin D is produced when skin is exposed to sunlight.  Because dermatologists have discouraged exposure to the sun, wanting to limit skin cancers, people are using sun blocks or staying out of the sun. 

According to the article:

"Dr. Holick said his advice was to "be sensible," though he lost his job as professor of dermatology at Boston University School of Medicine in 2004 as a result of his belief in the benefits of sunshine. "Fortunately, I had other appointments" elsewhere at the medical school, he said."

I think this may be an area where balance is the answer.  Meanwhile, be prepared to hear both sides of this argument claim they are right!

Today's Power Line reports on Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano's, statements regarding the shooting at Fort Hood.  This is her statement:

"ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates -- The U.S. Homeland Security secretary says she is working to prevent a possible wave of anti-Muslim sentiment after the shootings at Fort Hood in Texas.

"Janet Napolitano says her agency is working with groups across the United States to try to deflect any backlash against American Muslims following Thursday's rampage by Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, a Muslim who reportedly expressed growing dismay over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."

This is an amazing statement.  What about doing something to insure the safety of all American troops on American soil?

Today's Washington Times is reporting that the House of Representatives passed their version of healthcare reform late last night by a vote of 220-215.  One Republican voted for the vote--Representative Anh "Joseph" Cao of Louisiana, the man who replaced William Jefferson. 

The only amendment that was allowed to the bill was the amendment that prohibits federal money being used to pay for abortions.  It is not clear whether that amendment will stand when the bill is combined with the Senate version.

According to the Washington Times, the bill that passed the House of Representatives would:

"...establish a government-run public insurance plan, require nearly all employers to provide insurance, institute insurance industry reforms and distribute tax credits to help the poor and middle class buy mandatory insurance coverage. It would cover 36 million of the nation's uninsured population.

"It would be paid for with cuts to the Medicare program, which Democrats said would eliminate waste and fraud, and new taxes on single Americans reporting incomes over $500,000 or couples making over $1 million.

The bill will cost $1.2 trillion dollars.  The much less expensive Republican healthcare bill was rejected by a near party-line vote of 258-176.

Congress will not be impacted by the changes made to the healthcare system.  The rest of us will be required to go into government plans within the next five years.  It's time the professional politicians went home to live with the laws they have passed. 

Channel 2 in New York reported Friday on Governor Paterson's intention to seek another term.  The Governor's poll numbers are at about twenty percent, and President Obama has asked him not to run in 2010--Republicans like Rudy Giuliani consistently beat him in the polls. 

Governor Paterson, encouraged by the fact that President Obama's campaigning in New Jersey did not help Jon Corzine win the governorship there, has decided that New York politics are local, and he can win.  He has hired Harold Ickes, who was former President Bill Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff, to help with his campaign. 

If there is a Democrat primary for governor, it is quite likely that Governor Paterson will be challenged by state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo.

Governor Paterson became governor of New York when Eliot Spitzer resigned because of a sex scandel.  Governor Paterson was sworn in as governor in March of 2008. 

According to Friday's Wall Street Journal, one of the not discussed aspects of the Healthcare bill being debated tonight in the House of Representatives is that it will partially repeal tax indexing for inflation. 

According to the article:

"In order to raise enough money to make their plan look like it won't add to the deficit, House Democrats have deliberately not indexed two main tax features of their plan: the $500,000 threshold for the 5.4-percentage-point income tax surcharge; and the payroll level at which small businesses must pay a new 8% tax penalty for not offering health insurance.

"This is a sneaky way for politicians to pry more money out of workers every year without having to legislate tax increases. The negative effects of failing to index compound over time, yielding a revenue windfall for government as the years go on. The House tax surcharge is estimated to raise $460.5 billion over 10 years, but only $30.9 billion in 2011, rising to $68.4 billion in 2019, according to the Joint Tax Committee."

Because this is in the middle of 2000 pages of legalese gobbeltygook, the provisions hasn't been very widely reported. 

The article points out that indexing taxes to inflation has been in effect for thirty years.  Both political parties have agreed that it is unfair to tax increases in income that represent inflation, rather than real gains in income.  As government spending policies lead us into an era of inflation, this is going to be a very significant point. 

Today's New York Post took a look at some of the background of Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army doctor who began shooting people at Fort Hood.  The Washington Examiner also has an article on the history of Major Hasan.

The Washington Examiner reports:

"Hasan reportedly shouted "Allahu Akbar!" before the killings, wrote Internet postings justifying Muslim suicide bombings, considered U.S. forces the enemy, and opposed American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as wars on Islam. His rampage at Ft. Hood has the markings of an act of Islamic terrorism."

I realize that a majority of Muslims who live in America are law abiding, peaceful, productive people, but unfortunately, there are some Muslims who have a more radical nature. 

Before being transferred to Fort Hood, Major Hasan attended the Muslim Community Center in Silver Spring, Maryland.  The New York Post reports that Imam Faizul Khanis, who has been the main prayer leader there for a long time, is a friend of Hasan.

The New York Post reports that the Imam Faizul Khan:

"...is a leading board member of the Islamic Society of North America -- the main Wahhabi-lobby group in the United States, established by Saudi Arabia to impose extremism on American Muslims. ISNA has a long and disgraceful record of promoting radical Islam."

The New York Post also reports on some other connections of that mosque.  It seems as if there were some things in this man's record that should have been a concern to his chain of command.   

NBC Chicago has a report today on the President's speech following the shooting at Fort Hood yesterday.  It's not news to anyone who reads this site regularly that I am not a fan of President Obama, but his lack of gravity at his press conference yesterday afternoon was unbelievable.  I realize that he had just ended an important conference that was not a somber event, but he needed to take a breath before walking out to make a statement about the events in Texas.  The article cited has a much more detailed political analysis of the impact of the President's speech, I was just horrified by the human aspect of it.  The lightness the President conveyed at this time was inappropriate and an insult to a country that was stunned by the event.  I hope there will be some sort of restatement or apology.

Today's CNSNews posted an article explaining the financial windfall that will come to the AARP if the current healthcare bill is passed into law. 

According to the article:

"Rep. Dave Reichert (R-Wash.) told CNSNews.com that it is possible AARP could benefit financially from the passage of the bill, which includes $500 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicare Advantage. According to Reichert, if the cuts to the programs result in reduced benefits, more seniors will have to purchase "Medigap" coverage, highly regulated private insurance that fills in holes in Medicare coverage.

 

"UnitedHealth Group offers Medigap coverage branded with the AARP logo, on which AARP collects royalties."

Medicare Advantage is the Medicare program that many seniors choose because it gives them the most freedom and the best care.  It is a privately run program (although partially subsidized by the government).  If Medicare Advantage is discontinued, more senior citizens will be buying Medigap coverage.
 
Reichert has stated,  "What we know is that in 1999, their (AARP) total royalties (from gap insurance policies) amounted to 11 percent of their revenue, and today, it's over 60 percent of their revenue, and 38 percent of that revenue comes from their health care royalties, and from United," Reichert said. "I don't want to wildly fling accusations, but I think that there seems to be, and appears to be, a conflict of interest that needs to be investigated a little bit further."

The AARP is hoping that its members won't notice that they are being thrown under the bus in order to increase the profits of the organization.  Senior citizens vote and pay attention.  I am hoping they will not be fooled.

My deepest sympathies and prayers go out to those families that were impacted directly or indirectly by the shooting at Foot Hood yesterday.

 

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article today on the alternative healthcare proposal the Republicans have put forth.  The Congressional Budget Office has scored that proposal and says that the plan:

"...which relies on interstate competition, HSAs, and tort reform, would only cost $61 billion in the first ten years of the plan -- or slightly less than 6% of what Democrats plan to spend to overhaul the entire system."

The bill would also reduce premiums 5 to 8 percent for individual healthcare plans, 7 to 10 percent in the small group market, and 0 to 3 percent in the large group market. 

This plan deserves a fair hearing as an alternative plan to a government takeover of health insurance.  Hopefully, Congress will pay attention.

Power Line reported today on Israel's seizure of weapons on a ship bound from Iran to Syria.  The Israelis had been monitoring the ship for several days when Israeli Seals boarded the ship in the middle of the night and uncovered certificates within containers that documented Iran as the point of origin for some containers, with Syria as the intended destination. 

According to the article:

"The weapons seized on the ship included some 3,000 rockets of various types, as well as 60-millimeter mortars, 7.62-rifle Kalashnikov-ammunition, F-1 grenades and 122-millimeter Katyusha rockets. The ship's cache was reportedly ten times the size that of the Karine A's that Israel seized in 2002."

There is little doubt that the intention was to eventually use these weapons against Israel.  It seems to me that when Iran threatens to wipe Israel off the map, we should take that threat seriously.  In the 1930's no one was ready to believe there would ever be concentration camps run by the Germans, so no one took action.  Are we in the same place with Iran now?

Yesterday's The Corner at National Review posted an article by Pete Hegseth about a group of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who will be in Washington, D. C., today to petition their Congressmen and the White House to fully support mission success in Afghanistan.  They want to encourage Congress to provide General McChrystal with the troops and support he needs to win the war. 

The group sponsoring the gathering is Vets for Freedom. a group of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who will be meeting with various Congressmen to encourage providing the American troops in Afghanistan with the things they need to win the war. 

Please read the article at The Corner at National Review to see the list of some of the veterans who are involved in this effort.  These veterans have served in these areas and have insight into what is needed to win.

Thank you to these veterans for their service in war and for their service in helping Congress see what is needed to win the war on terror.

Yesterday's Washington Examiner posted an editorial about the ever-changing job saving numbers being claimed by the current White House.  It cites an Associated Press report that at the Southwest Georgia Community Action Council 935 jobs were saved.  That's really amazing since only 508 people work there. 

According to Associate Press:

"The Georgia nonprofit's inflated job count is among persisting errors in the government's latest effort to measure the effect of the $787 billion stimulus plan despite White House promises last week that the new data would undergo an "extensive review" to root out errors discovered in an earlier report."

Regardless of the number of jobs created or not created, the problem with government stimulus programs is that the money has to be paid back at some point.  This means that consumers have less money to spend and that economic growth slows down for that reason.  There is also the danger of numerous pork projects and businesses owned by major political donors receiving government money with no real jobs created.  If the government truly wanted more jobs, they would cut taxes on everyone, particularly small businesses, and get out of the way. 

Breitbart.com reported yesterday on an alternative healthcare proposal the Republicans in the House of Representatives are drafting.  The draft is 230 pages long, as opposed to the 1900 pages in the Democrat proposal.  A spokeswoman for Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said that changes were still being made to the bill, but the hope is that the bill will be introduced  by the end of this week as an alternative to the Democrat proposal. 

According to the article:

"...the Republican plan increases incentives for people to use health savings accounts, caps non-economic jury awards in medical malpractice cases at $250,000, provides various incentives to states with the aim of driving down premium costs and allows health insurance to be sold across state lines.

These proposals are designed to reduce the cost of health insurance for all Americans without raising taxes. 

The article reminds us that:

"Across the Capitol, senators are waiting to see the final language and price tag on a health bill that Majority Leader Harry Reid and a few other top officials wrote in secret. It's not clear when those details will be available and Reid, D-Nev., may not be able to begin debate on the issue until the week before Thanksgiving."

Generally speaking it is possible to reform healthcare insurance in America without the government taking it over.  I believe that is what needs to be done.  It seems as if the Republican proposal is much closer to that than the Democrat proposal.
 

The Hill is reporting today that five House Republicans plan to add an amendment to the Democrat's healthcare bill that would automatically enroll members of Congress in the public option program.  I think that is a wonderful idea.  Let Congress try it for three or four years, and if it keeps healthcare costs down while providing quality healthcare and not raising taxes, the rest of us can join them.

The article points out:

"The Pelosi health care bill could force millions of Americans off their current plan and onto the government-run plan, but there are hypocritical Members of Congress who are not willing to enroll in the same government plan," (Steve) Scalise said in his statement. "Speaker Pelosi and her lieutenants need to put their money where their mouth is and support our amendment."

It will be interesting to watch the vote on this amendment.

Politico is quoting Nancy Pelosi as saying:

"From our perspective, we won last night," the California Democrat told reporters during a Wednesday photo op. "We had one race that we were engaged in, it was in northern New York, it was a race where a Republican has held the seat since the Civil War. And we won that seat. So, from our standpoint, no, a candidate was victorious who supports health care reform, and his remarks last night said this was a victory for health care reform and other initiatives for the American people."

It is my hope that if winning one race out of three in an election is a victory, the Democrat Party will have more victories.

The Washington Examiner has a different take.  In it's editorial analyzing yesterday's election results, it points out that Americans elected President Obama on his promise to cut federal spending and to cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans.  The direction President Obama and the Democrat Congress have taken since the election does neither of these two things.  In fact, the legislation that has been passed or proposed since the 2008 election has increased the federal deficit considerably.  This is what the vote last night was about. 

The message to all elected officials is simple.  The American people want lower taxes and less government interference in their lives.  This is something Congress needs to keep in mind as the healthcare debate continues.  The question for the moderate Democrats is simple, "Are we willing to pass government healthcare at the expense of being reelected?"  That is the question that will ultimately shape the final debate on healthcare.

Fox News reported that the current healthcare proposal will create 111 "new boards, bureaucracies, commissions and programs" if it is passed.  Let's make a conservative estimate about the money involved in creating and maintaining that sort of bureaucracy.  If every new agency has only one head, one staff member, and a place to meet, the minimum cost would be at least $200,000 per year per agency.  That's even before the government spends a penny on healthcare.  How is this going to save money?  Also, have you ever seen a government program that got smaller?  How much was Medicare supposed to cost when it was started?

It really is time to throw this bill overboard and start from scratch.  We need tort reform, health insurance sold across state lines, provisions made for pre-existing conditions, and a tax credit to help lower income people purchase insurance.  The government does not need to run health insurance, they just need to free up the insurance companies to do business.  As I reported in an earlier article, the insurance companies averaged about 2% profit last year.  They are not greedy corporations taking advantage of Americans; right now Congress seems to fit that description!

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article yesterday asking if it is constitutional to require people to purchase health insurance.   Senator Orrin Hatch, a member of the Judiciary Committee, is questioning the legality of that requirement.  

In an interview on CNS News, Senator Hatch stated:

"Well, let's put it this way: If that is held constitutional-for them to be able to tell us we have to purchase health insurance-then there is literally nothing that the federal government can't force us to do. Nothing. Now, whether or not the states can is another issue. The states may be able to. But since that government is closer to the people, those state representatives know that their very political lives depend on not doing things like that to the people."

Please follow the link to read more of the interview.  The interviewer pointed out that if you are sitting at home not engaged in any sort of commercial activity, the government should not be able to require you to buy health insurance.

I am waiting to see if the constitutionality of this requirement will be part of the healthcare debate.

Let me just say right now that I have no problem with people being successful and making money.  Entrepreneurs helped make this country great.  We have, however, come to a place where a person in a position to influence government decisions can have an unfair advantage in the marketplace.

Yesterday's New York Times posted an article in their Energy and Environment Section spotlighting how much money Al Gore has earned by investing in 'green energy' ventures subsidized by the government (while traveling the world promoting green energy and leaving a very large carbon footprint!).

The article points out both sides of the argument:

"Representative Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, asserted at a hearing this year that Mr. Gore stood to benefit personally from the energy and climate policies he was urging Congress to adopt.

"Mr. Gore says that he is simply putting his money where his mouth is."

As I said, I have no problem with Mr. Gore's success, I just question his science and his motives.

The article also points out that Al Gore is not unique:

"Other public figures, like Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who have vocally supported government financing of energy-saving technologies, have investments in alternative energy ventures. Some scientists and policy advocates also promote energy policies that personally enrich them."

Somehow, we need to find a place where public policy and lawmaking is based on honest governance--not on personal enrichment.

This article is not meant to debate abortion.  It's purpose is, however, to point out that people  can change their ideas on what is legal and moral.  KBTX.com in College Station, Texas, is reporting that Abby Johnson, who had worked as the Bryan Planned Parenthood Director for two years, handed in her resignation on October 6th. 

Ms. Johnson's resignation was due to two factors.  She was troubled by viewing an ultrasound of an abortion procedure, and by the fact that Planned Parenthood was moving its business model away from preventing pregnancy and toward abortion.  Obviously, abortion is more profitable. 

The article points out:

"Johnson now supports the Coalition For Life, the pro-life group with a building down the street from Planned Parenthood. Coalition volunteers can regularly be seen praying on the sidewalk in front of Planned Parenthood. Johnson has been meeting with the coalition's executive director, Shawn Carney, and has prayed with volunteers outside Planned Parenthood."

Planned Parenthood has filed restraining orders against both Johnson and the Coalition For Life.  According to the article "The temporary restraining order contends that Planned Parenthood would be irreparably harmed by the disclosure of certain information."  A hearing about the order has been set for November 10.

Ms. Johnson had worked for Planned Parenthood in some capacity for eight years.  I wonder what information Planned Parenthood is concerned about being disclosed. 

I lived in New Jersey as a teenager, and I will admit that I am concerned about the integrity of the election process in that state.  Big Government posted an article yesterday about some of the things they are seeing as New Jersey prepares to go to the polls tomorrow.  Dirty tricks are not new to political campaigns, but it is a good idea to be aware of them when deciding how to vote. 

The article points out:

"(Chris) Daggett's run for office is certainly convenient for Corzine, as he will help split any anti-Corzine vote. And, as a Corzine political appointee, one wonders if his candidacy wasn't a set up to begin with. Now, in the final days of the campaign, it appears state democrats are paying for robo calls supporting Independent Chris Daggett. First reported here, the robo calls attack Christie (but not Corzine) and promote Daggett. At the end of the call, it is mentioned that the calls are paid for by a "project of the NJSDC." No idea what that acronym stands for, but New Jersey State Democratic Committee, isn't too big of a stretch. More interesting is the fact that the return number on the calls is the same number that was used to promote Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley's election in closing days of the 2006 race."

The fact that Chris Dagget was a political appointee of Jon Corzine leads me to believe that either Chris Daggett is challenged in the area of political loyalty or that his running for governor was designed to re-elect Jon Corzine, who has dropped significantly in popularity.  The other interesting aspect of this race is the appearance of people wearing ACORN t-shirts at a hospital in Newark signing and collecting absentee ballots. 

My favorite quote from the article:

"...the state Democratic Committee recently sent a letter to the Secretary of State, arguing that any absentee ballot that is rejected should still be counted as a "provisional" vote. The letter complained that almost 3,000 absentee ballots had already been rejected "solely on the basis of a comparison of their signature to the signature on record." Solely? If the signature of the voter doesn't match the signature on the ballot, is there really a reason to look at anything else? The letter from the state Democrats suggests that election officials should simply verify that the address on the absentee ballot matches the address on record. Right, and my bank should go ahead and cash any suspicious check as long as the address on the check matches my home address."

I don't know if things have changed, but the joke in Jersey City when I was young was that as voter registration was going on, you would see people walking through the cemeteries with clipboards collecting names.  Are we still there?

If you are a New Jersey resident concerned about election integrity, please follow the link to the Big Government website to see what steps you can take to prevent election fraud.

Today's New York Post posted an editorial explaining how the healthcare proposals currently in the House of Representatives and the Senate would effect small businesses.  Part of the problem with the current proposal is that small businesses would not only be required to pay at least 72.5 percent of insurance premiums for an individual and 65 percent for families, but the healthcare they pay for would have to meet federal guidelines. 

According to the article:

"Data from a 2009 Kaiser Family Foundation survey suggest that at least 30 percent of firms with fewer than 200 employees that now offer insurance would fail the test for family coverage, and about 20 percent would fail for individual coverage."

Has anyone stopped to think that if Americans got back in the habit of paying for routine health costs out of pocket and having insurance to cover accidents, serious illness, etc., how much the cost of health insurance could be reduced?  In Massachusetts, which has compulsory health insurance, policies that cover only accidents, serious illness, etc. have been declared illegal in the state and have been discontinued.  This increases the cost of health insurance for everyone.

The article points out:

"The bill offers a few subsidies to help small businesses pay for insurance. But the credit would cover only half the cost -- and only if businesses agree to comply with a list of government demands on coverage requirements.

"In any case, the subsidy is gradually reduced for businesses that employ more than 25 employees or pay average wages above $20,000 a year. And it only lasts two years -- after that, the business owner is on the hook for the full cost of the expensive coverage."

When you increase the expenses for small businesses, the businesses hire fewer people and unemployment stays high.  If you believe that the economy is recovering, the current healthcare bill will end that recovery. 

Halloween was yesterday, but today in New York State things got weird.  Yesterday, Dede Scozzafava (chosen by the local Republican Party without the benefit of a primary election) dropped out of the race for Congressman in New York's 23rd District.  After withdrawing from the race, Mrs. Scozzafa threw her support behind Democrat Bill Owens--her former opponent.  Mrs. Scozzafa was chosen by the Republican mucky-mucks to run for office in order to hold that seat for a Republican.  Theoretically that was her intention.  Now she is supporting the Democrat in the race rather than the Conservative who was embraced by the Republican Party when Mrs. Scozzafava resigned.  Huh?

The Hill's Blog Briefing Room reports:

"Nevertheless, Scozzafava's decision on Sunday is bound to infuriate Republicans, many of whom announced within hours of her suspension that they backed Hoffman and hoped soon to welcome him into their caucus. The Republican National Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee and a host of party leaders urged their members to do the same, in part to defeat the growing meme that Republicans were warring among themselves about the NY-23 race."

This is an amazing story.  It will be truly interesting to see who wins this race!

On October 11, RightWingGranny linked to an article at Hot Air which gave the details of the savings in healthcare costs that would be achieved by tort reform.  CBO director Douglas Elmendorf has stated that tort reform would reduce the federal deficit $54 billion over the next ten years.  Please keep that fact in mind as you read this post.

The blog at BigGovernmnet.com is reporting on the part of the proposed healthcare bill that deals with tort reform.  The authors of the bill not only do not support tort reform--they intend to penalize states that have successfully passed it. 

According to the Big Government blog:

"Section 2531, entitled "Medical Liability Alternatives," establishes an incentive program for states to adopt and implement alternatives to medical liability litigation. [But]...... a state is not eligible for the incentive payments if that state puts a law on the books that limits attorneys' fees or imposes caps on damages."

I can't help but wonder why the authors of this bill have chosen the array of new taxes to pay for their program rather than saving money by doing something that not only saves money but also brings common sense to the system. 

Ed Morrissey posted an article at Hot Air this morning about the unemployment projections of Jared Bernstein, chief economic adviser to VP Joe Biden (CBS' Morning Show on Friday).  Mr. Bernstein stated, "As far as the overall economy is concerned, private sector forecasters tell us that by the second half of next year, net job growth should be positive, unemployment should be coming down."

I realize that unemployment is a lagging indicator in a recovery, but this seems to be some serious lag.  According to Mr. Bernstein, unemployment will not begin to go down until late next summer. 

There is a chart in the article at Hot Air showing unemployment with the stimulus package and without the stimulus package.  There is not a whole lot of difference between the two.  The only problem is that after the stimulus, we have an awful lot of debt to repay.

I'm not being sarcastic, this is an honest question.  I liked it when I no longer had to deal with cigarette smoke when I went out to dinner (although I still feel bad for the huddled groups of smokers standing outside on cold winter days because their right to smoke inside was taken away).  But the new enemy of Americans is fast food and vending machines.  I know we have an obesity problem in this country, but I hate to see the government intervene in my eating habits. 

Why not go after some of the ingredients manufacturers are putting in my food?  MacDonalds french fries used to have sugar in them, do they still?  Obviously, french fries are not health food, but does sugar make it worse?  What about high fructose corn syrup?  It extends the shelf life of food and is cheaper than sugar, but what effect does that have on weight?  Is putting a label on something the way to discourage people from eating it?

In an article posted Friday, Politico is pointing out that:

"Buried deep in the House health care bill is a provision, likely to raise nanny-state hackles, requiring fast-food chains and vending machine owners to notify customers of calorie counts -- by conspicuously posting nutritional information on menus or machines.

"The provision -- Section 2572 -- requires retail food establishments "part of a chain with 20 or more locations" to list calorie counts "on the menu board including a drive-through board," as is currently required in New York City and other localities."

Do I want to see a calorie count when I go out to dinner?  (Just a note, when the calorie count law was enacted in New York City in chain restaurants, the calories consumed by each person dropped by about 106 fewer calories per purchase).   To calculate the actual result of that figure, you would have to know how often each person ate there, how many people were included in that purchase, etc. 

Aside from the fact that putting up calorie counts is expensive, I just don't like the idea of the government policing the food at my local chain restaurants.