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

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

** This report only dates back to 1999

*** This report only dates back to 2001

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

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

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

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

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

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

What goes around comes around.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article further points out:

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

I agree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Politico is reporting:

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

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

Meanwhile, the American Thinker reports:

“Nick Choate, a spokesman for Stupak (Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich), Chairman of House Energy and Commerce investigations and oversight subcommittee), said 52 letters were sent late Monday to the nation’s largest health insurers, those with $2 billion or more in annual premiums. He said letters were not sent to other industry groups, some of which have been airing television advertising in support of Obama’s call for legislation. (Emphasis added)”

 

1.  ClassicalIdeals.com

2.  DefendYourHealthcare.us

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to the article:

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

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

Do we trust these people with our healthcare?

Hugh Hewitt reported on his blog at Townhall.com yesterday about a conflict of interest controversy brewing around David Axelrod.  The story was originally reported at Bloomberg.com on Saturday. 

According to Bloomberg:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to the article:

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

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

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

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

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

Ed Morrissey points out:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According the the article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Barone ends his article with this thought:

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

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

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

According to the article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meanwhile, according to the article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to the article:

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

The article continues:

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

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

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

The article points out:

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

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

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

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

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

The article also points out:

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

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

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

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

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