Discovering The Connections

I am posting this article without any hard evidence–just a lot of very odd coincidences. I suspect that my suspicions will eventually be proven true, but as of now the hard evidence has not yet entered the public domain.

This article is based on three sources–two at Power Line Blog (here and here) and one at a website authored by James Howard Kunstler (here).

The issue in question is the origin and development of the unsubstantiated charges against Justice Kavanaugh. There are some obvious questions and problems with the entire episode–if Professor Ford wanted to remain anonymous, why did she contact the Washington Post, how do you charge someone with sexual assault if you can’t remember where, when, how you arrived at the location or how you got home–but you do remember that you only had one beer? But now there is another more important question–the connections among many of the people involved in Professor Ford’s making her accusations seem to be suspicious.

James Kunstler reports:

It turns out that the Deep State is a small world. Did you know that the lawyer sitting next to Dr. Ford in the Senate hearings, one Michael Bromwich, is also an attorney for Andrew McCabe, the former FBI Deputy Director fired for lying to investigators from his own agency and currently singing to a grand jury? What a coincidence. Out of all the lawyers in the most lawyer-infested corner of the USA, she just happened to hook up with him.

It’s a matter of record that Dr. Ford traveled to Rehobeth Beach Delaware on July 26, where her Best Friend Forever and former room-mate, Monica McLean, lives, and that she spent the next four days there before sending a letter July 30 to Senator Diane Feinstein that kicked off the “sexual assault” circus. Did you know that Monica McClean was a retired FBI special agent, and that she worked in the US Attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York under Preet Bharara, who had earlier worked for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer?

Could Monica McLean have spent those four days in July helping Christine Blasey Ford compose her letter to Mrs. Feinstein? Did you know that Monica McClean’s lawyer, one David Laufman is a former DOJ top lawyer who assisted former FBI counter-intel chief Peter Strozk on both the Clinton and Russia investigations before resigning in February this year — in fact, he sat in on the notorious “unsworn” interview with Hillary in 2016. Wow! What a really small swamp Washington is!

Did you know that Ms. Leland Keyser, Dr. Ford’s previous BFF from back in the Holton Arms prep school, told the final round of FBI investigators in the Kavanaugh hearing last week — as reported by the The Wall Street Journal — that she “felt pressured” by Monica McLean and her representatives to change her story — that she knew nothing about the alleged sexual assault, or the alleged party where it allegedly happened, or that she ever knew Mr. Kavanaugh. I think that’s called suborning perjury.

Mr. Kinstler concludes:

The Democratic Party has its fingerprints all over this, as it does with the shenanigans over the Russia investigation. Not only do I not believe Dr. Ford’s story; I also don’t believe she acted on her own in this shady business. What’s happening with all these FBI and DOJ associated lawyers is an obvious circling of the wagons. They’ve generated too much animus in the process and they’re going to get nailed. These matters are far from over and a major battle is looming in the countdown to the midterm elections. In fact, op-ed writer Charles M. Blow sounded the trumpet Monday morning in his idiotic column titled: Liberals, This is War. Like I’ve been saying: Civil War Two.

But wait–there’s more!

Scott Johnson at Power Line Blog shared the transcript of an interview between Senator Tom Cotton and Hugh Hewitt this morning:

Hugh, I believe the Schumer political operation was behind this from the very beginning. We learned last week that a woman named Monica McLean was Ms. Ford’s roommate, and she was one of the so-called beach friends who encouraged Ms. Ford to go to Dianne Feinstein and the partisan Democrats on the Judiciary Committee. Well, it just turns out, it just so happens that Monica McLean worked for a Preet Bharara, the former U.S. Attorney in Manhattan, now a virulent anti-Trump critic on television and former counsel to Chuck Schumer. So I strongly suspect that Chuck Schumer’s political operation knew about Ms. Ford’s allegations as far back as July and manipulated the process all along to include taking advantage of Ms. Ford’s confidences and directing her towards left-wing lawyers who apparently may have violated the D.C. code of legal ethics and perhaps may face their own investigation by the D.C. Bar.

As of now, all of this is simply incredible coincidence, but I suspect the truth will eventually come out.

The Actual History Behind The Country Of Israel

Michael Oren is Israel‘s Deputy Minister for Diplomacy. On Tuesday he was interviewed by Hugh Hewitt on the subject of U.N. Resolution 2334, the Resolution that declared Israeli ‘settlements’ in parts of Israel illegal. Hugh Hewitt posted a transcript of the interview.

This is a highlight from the interview that explains why Resolution 2334 is neither appropriate or helpful:

HH: I have to begin by asking, you’re such a great historian, will you reset what the dispute over the territory is and why the Western Wall is not occupied territory, as the UN Resolution 2332 declares it to be?

MO: It’s, okay, I’ll try to do it as quickly as possible. In 1947, the UN declared that Palestine, as it was then known, would be partitioned into two states – an Arab state and an Jewish state. Notice, not a Palestinian state, but an Arab state. The Palestinians didn’t quite exist, yet, and at least not on the international radar. And the Arabs went to war to destroy the Jewish state when it was created on May 14, 1948. And the city of Jerusalem was divided. The eastern part of the city was occupied by the Jordanians, the West Bank was occupied by the Jordanians. In June, 1967, the Jordanians attacked Israel again. Israel repulsed the attack, reunited Jerusalem under Israeli rule, and captured the West Bank, or as we call it, Judea and Samaria. It is not occupied by international law, because the West Bank and East Jerusalem was never part of a recognized sovereign country. Nobody in the world, except for Britain and Pakistan, recognized the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. So the entire international law claim is spurious. But when Israel reunited the city and reunited the city, the Western Wall is in the eastern part of the city. The old city is in the eastern part of the city. We certainly can’t consider our homeland for 3,000 years to be occupied territory. You know, tell a member of the Sioux Nation that his tribal lands are occupied and he can’t live on them. That’s what the UN is telling us. They’re telling us more than that, that by living in them, we’re criminals.

HH: Yeah, this audience has heard Steven Pressfield talk about The Lion’s Gate, the book that will bring people to tears. And you’ve talked about it in your histories as well. It just is absurd. So what happened? Why would the United States do this? And what was the United States’ role in Resolution 2332, which was not vetoed in a breach of American policy that is as bad for the country of Israel as it is for the Palestinians and indeed the world?

MO: It’s bad for the world, and it’s bad for the United States, too, Hugh, and I’ll explain why. The American role was to stand back and let Israel take a tremendous hit, a tremendous hit that will expose us to sanctions and boycotts. It will kill the peace process. It will deliver a deadly, deadly blow to the people of the Middle East who look to the UN for salvation and get absolutely none at a time when hundreds of thousands of people are being massacred here. What does the UN do? It beats up on the Middle East’s only democracy. And America’s role, according to Prime Minister Netanyahu, was to cook it all up and to do some arm twisting and make it happen? Why? The Obama administration did this, I can recommend another book, I can’t do that because I’m in government, where it explains the Obama’s worldview, a worldview that sees the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the core conflict of the Middle East, sees the core of that conflict, the settlement and the occupation, as he calls it, and was going to do his utmost to his last day in office to discredit and delegitimize Israel for our position in settling our homeland and reuniting our ancestral capital, Jerusalem.

This resolution essentially states that Jews building houses on their own land is an obstacle to peace. Somehow it overlooks the fact that rockets fired into Israel from the Gaza Strip might be an obstacle to peace. Somehow it overlooks the fact that Hamas and the PLO have never acknowledged Israel’s right to exist–that might be an obstacle to peace.

It is a shame that this resolution was passed. If peace is possible in the Middle East, this resolution will make it more difficult to achieve. It is difficult to make peace with people whose goal is ‘to drive you into the sea,’ which has been the stated goal of the Arab nations surrounding Israel since 1948 when Israel became a nation. It is even more unfortunate that nations who generally support freedom do not support the only free country in the Middle East where Jews and Arabs have equal rights and religious freedom.The Israeli model of equal rights is the only path to peace in the Middle East, and the United Nations just threw a giant obstacle in that path.

The Continuing Squirm Of Those Who Represent The GOP Establishment

I thought the GOP establishment had given up on opposing Donald Trump, but recent events have proven me wrong. As I have repeatedly stated, I am not a Trump supporter, although I will vote for him before I will vote for Hillary.

However, in April The Washington Post reported the following:

Politico‘s Kyle Cheney noticed something interesting about Donald Trump’s big primary wins on Tuesday night. With a number of states still to vote — including the largest, California — Trump is poised to set a new record vote total in Republican presidential primaries. The current record is held by George W. Bush, with his 10.8 million votes in 2000. Trump, according to RealClearPolitics, is currently at a little north of 10 million.

Trump has brought out the voters. The article included the following chart:

VotesForTrump

So why in the world is the Republican establishment trying to torpedo him?

The comments below were posted by Hugh Hewitt at Townhall.com today:

“We’re going to get killed with this nominee,” Hewitt said.

“It’s like ignoring stage-four cancer,” he continued. “You can’t do it, you gotta go attack it. And right now the Republican Party is facing — the plane is headed towards the mountain after the last 72 hours.”

…As for Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), he predicted that Trump’s attack on Curiel could result in a convention challenge.

Hewitt, it seems, hopes this is the case. A candidate who causes this much controversy, he intoned, will not have a prayer in the general election.

Hugh Hewitt has recently taken over the time slot on the Salem network that used to be the Bill Bennett show. I love Hugh Hewitt, but I believe he is missing something here. The American people do not care that Donald Trump is a flawed candidate. They are so disgusted by the incestual existence of the political class in Washington that they would vote for Jack the Ripper if they thought he would change things. I’m not saying that this is good–I’m just saying that this is what is. What is becoming very obvious is that some of the establishment Republicans would rather see Hillary elected because she will maintain the Washington status quo than Donald Trump who would tend to upset the apple cart.

Donald Trump has legitimately won the GOP nomination. Taking that nomination away from him and replacing him with an establishment candidate would surely guarantee a President Hillary Clinton. Is that what the GOP wants?

One Reason Hillary’s Email Server Matters

The Daily Caller posted an article yesterday about an interview Hugh Hewitt did with former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. If you have wondered why Hillary Clinton’s private server is such a big deal, this might explain it.

The article reports:

Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates says, “I think the odds are pretty high” countries like Iran, China, and Russia hacked Hillary Clinton’s email server.

In an interview with Hugh Hewitt on Thursday, the former CIA director said “the Pentagon acknowledges that they get attacked about 100,000 times a day.”
(RELATED: Obama’s Former Defense Sec: Obama ‘Has Centralized Power’ In An ‘Unparalleled’ Way [VIDEO])

Hewitt asked Gates, “[A]re you surprised by the news that continues to come out about the former Secretary of State’s server and the fact that the intelligence community’s inspector general has said there was a lot of very highly classified information on her server?”

“Yeah, that’s a concern for me,” Gates said. “I never used email when I was head of CIA or head of the Department of Defense. As I used to joke, I didn’t want to have some chief of station overseas email me and say he was going to do something if I didn’t get back to him in three hours, and I would get back from a five hour hearing to discover I was two hours too late.

The information on Hilllary Clinton’s server was at a level that a leak would have put intelligence gathering methods and people at risk. Having a private server was foolish at best and dishonest at worst. The goal was probably to protect herself from those pesky Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests which might have revealed some of the monetary deals made while she was Secretary of State. Instead, she put the safety of Americans at risk to hide her dishonesty. She is not the kind of person we want as President.

The Friday Night News Dump

While the rest of us were recovering from Christmas, Hugh Hewitt was working. Today he posted an article at HughHewitt.com about some news the White House released on the day after Christmas (Friday) at 5 pm. The news was about President Obama’s desire to close Guantanamo.

Mr. Hewitt quotes a CNN New Story:

Once a detainee is deemed no longer a risk, they are either transferred back to their country of origin, or a third country that is willing to take them.

Sixty-four of the 132 remaining detainees have been ruled eligible for transfer.

Of the 64 eligible, 54 are from Yemen. But the United States is not willing, at this point, to send them back to Yemen because of concerns that the government — under pressure from al Qaeda and Houthi militants — cannot ensure they do not join al Qaeda elements there. The administration for the last several months has been trying to find a country that will take the Yemenis and provide security and human rights assurances for them.

If the sixty-four are not dangerous, why would there be a problem sending them to Yemen? (Because they actually are dangerous–there is a game being played here).

The article lists President Obama’s reasons for wanting to close Guantanamo:

“It is something that continues to inspire jihadists and extremists around the world, the fact that these folks are being held,” Obama said. “It is contrary to our values and it is wildly expensive. We’re spending millions for each individual there. And we have drawn down the population there significantly.”

Guantanamo is not the problem in creating jihadists. Our values do include locking up people who are dangerous to society. Guantanamo may be expensive, but how much is an American life worth? A large percentage of prisoners released have returned to the battlefield and killed Americans. The fact that we have drawn down the population does not mean that we have done the right thing,

On December 24, Hot Air posted an article with the headline, “U.S. offering $5 million reward for Al Qaeda capo…who was released from Gitmo in 2006.” Unfortunately, that story is not unique.

Mr. Hewitt’s article concludes:

In short, an absurd, serial set of non-sequitors, about par for this president’s command of logic and persuasive argument. Windy and without logic or fact to back it up.  The new Congress should block him not only from closing Gitmo, but from expending money to relocate prisoners –a classic appropriations’ rider.  Given the way the world is going, we are going to need the facility for decades into the future, and a full throated defense of the necessity as well.

I hope we have someone in Washington who has that much wisdom.

 

Advice From A Knowledgeable Source

Townhall.com posted an article today by Hugh Hewitt giving advice to the outgoing Republicans in the House of Representatives.

Mr. Hewitts advice is simple:

First, do not cut the expected hike in the military housing allowance or increase the deductible applicable to medical services for military families on active duty. I would hope the GOP learned its lesson last year that your base is deeply committed to the proposition that the active duty and retired-career military should be the last category to receive benefit cuts, not the first in line to get whacked.

…Next, do not vote for a Continuing Resolution that is other than a stop-gap measure. Allowing a lame duck Congress to set spending for the balance of 2015 just after the country voted overwhelmingly to reject the authority of Harry Reid and his allies over that process would itself be a rejection of the people’s vote.

Mr. Hewitt then makes a very prescient prediction:

Look, this president only knows how to do one thing, which is how to make the Congressional GOP look bad –very bad in fact. That is his goal, his entire reason for being for the next 24 months. The president intends to force a shut down next fall, and no matter what you try and do between now and then, he will force that shutdown. The only thing you can do successfully is frame his incipient irresponsibility by quickly passing an updated version of the Ryan Budget –one which removes the sequester from the Department of Defense— and then follow up with the appropriations bills that conform to that budget, communicating every day of the year that you are acting responsibly and the president is refusing to do so.

Be ready. That prediction makes a lot of sense. The President is an expert at convincing the press that he is right when he is wrong. The voters are looking for two things in the new Republican Congress–one is a return to the idea of small, limited government and the second is the developing of a backbone to stand up to a lame-duck President. I am a Republican, and I am waiting for the Republicans to convince me that they are not simply interested in being in control of the bureaucracy, but understand the need to shrink the government and cut spending.

Something To Think About As The Benghazi Story Unfolds

Breitbart.com posted an article today questioning what the role of the media will be as the new revelations about the 2011 attack on Benghazi emerge. The article reminds us that the Obama Administration has tried to ignore questions about Benghazi by complaining that it is an ‘old story.’ Well, the reason it is an old story is that it has taken almost two years to even see the Obama Administration documents related to the attack. As those documents become public, the story becomes more interesting and the claim that it is an old story becomes less effective.

The article reports:

That’s what makes me think the story has legs, perhaps in a way it hasn’t since October 2012.  Everyone knows what this is: the White House caught red-handed lying about the death of four Americans, with documentation to prove it.  And it makes the media look ridiculous for uncritically parroting those lies in order to get Obama re-elected.  Some of them did it out of blind partisan loyalty, but others just convinced themselves the Obama version of the story had to be true, through a mixture of ideology and their general warm feelings toward him. 

…The media has a lot of tough questions about itself to answer, as these new email revelations blow the Benghazi story into the stratosphere.  I don’t think they’re going to heed Obama’s “ignore this one more time and save me” cry this time.  More of them are going to begin feeling the sense of anger and betrayal Tapper talked about with Hugh Hewitt.  Others might even retain some rudimentary capacity for shame.

It is interesting to note that so far, the only person who has done jail time for Benghazi is the innocent man who made the unrelated video. It would be nice to see that situation change.

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

One Reason I Love To Listen To Hugh Hewitt

Hugh Hewitt has a Salem Network talk show. He is a college law professor, a practicing lawyer, and a talk show host. Because I live in Massachusetts, I have to listen to him on the Internet at Townhall.com. I love his show.

Last night one of his guests was Karen Finney. She claims that Ted Cruz is the same as Joe McCarthy–both are very unhealthy for the country. When Hugh Hewitt asked her if Alger Hiss was a Communist, she refused to answer the questions and eventually hung up on Mr. Hewitt. That is an important question. After the fall of the Soviet Union, America was allowed to go through many Soviet records of subversive activity in the United States. Those records confirmed that Alger Hiss was a Communist, so even if you disagreed with Joe McCarthy’s style, his information was correct.

The audio clip of the exchange can be heard at Mediaite.

As I said, Hugh Hewitt is a lawyer. He asks logical questions, and explains often, “This is not a debate–it’s an interview.” If Ms. Finney is going to be a guest on the Hugh Hewitt Show, she might consider being willing to discuss actually facts rather than simply toss out allegations.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Representative Campbell, We Will Miss You

California Representative John Campbell announced last night on the Hugh Hewitt show that he will not seek another term in office. (Hugh Hewitt is one of the best talk shows on the air. The easiest way to listen to the show is at TownHall.com from six to nine pm Eastern time.)

This is the statement from Representative Campbell’s website:

Representative John Campbell (CA-45) to Retire from Congress in 2014

Washington – This evening, on Hugh Hewitt’s nationally syndicated radio show, U.S. Representative John Campbell (CA-45) announced his intention to retire from public service next year at the end of the 113th Congress.

Representative Campbell, first elected to the U.S. Congress in 2005 through a special election held to replace former Representative Christopher Cox, will have served five terms when he retires in 2014. Campbell, the Chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade, currently represents California’s 45th district.

Upon making his announcement, Representative Campbell authorized the following statement to be released immediately:

I have decided that I will not seek re-election to represent California’s 45th Congressional district in 2014. At the end of this term, I will have spent 14 years serving in full-time, elected politics. I am not nor did I ever intend to be a career politician. I am ready to begin a new chapter in my life.

It has been an honor and a privilege to represent the district where my wife and I have raised our children. I look forward to continuing that representation for the balance of the 113th Congress.  I have been blessed to have the unwavering support of my family, friends, and the residents of Orange County throughout these years, and for that I will remain forever grateful.

My passion for the conservative issues for which I have fought so vocally over that span has not waned. But in the future, I will continue the fight for more freedom and a less authoritarian government as a private citizen rather than elected official.

Drive fast and live free.

I remain respectfully,

JOHN CAMPBELL
Member of Congress

Representative Campbell is a regular guest on the Hugh Hewitt show. Those of us who listen to the show appreciate his knowledge of financial matters and the principles he stands for in Congress. Representative Campbell is a CPA and is a very successful businessman. He is a member of the full House Committee on Financial Services.

His rational voice will be missed in Congress.

Enhanced by Zemanta

A New Wrinkle In One Of The Current Scandals

One of my favorite radio shows is the Hugh Hewitt Show. I can’t listen to him locally, but I can listen to him on Townhall.com. Mr. Hewitt is a California attorney, law professor, and served in the Reagan Administration. His show is always informative, and he posts many of the interviews at HughHewitt.com.

The following is an excerpt from an interview with Congress Devin Nunes that took place on May 15th:

DN: So when they went after the AP reporters, right? Went after all of their phone records, they went after the phone records, including right up here in the House Gallery, right up from where I’m sitting right now. So you have a real separation of powers issue that did this really rise to the level that you would have to get phone records that would, that would most likely include members of Congress, because as you know…

HH: Wow.

DN: …members of Congress talk to the press all the time.

HH: I did not know that, and that is a stunner.

DN: Now that is a separation of powers issue here, Hugh.

HH: Sure.

DN: And it’s a freedom of press issue. And now you’ve got the IRS going after people. So these things are starting to cascade one upon the other, and you have the White House pretending like they’re in the clouds like it’s not their issue somehow.

This whole discussion of abuse of power just got very interesting.

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Short Primer On The Debt Crisis

Last night Hugh Hewitt spent three hours with Representative John Campbell talking about the debt crisis.It was an amazingly educational show.

Representative Campbell’s House of Representatives web page lists some of his committee assignments:

As a member of the House Committee on Financial Services, he has taken an active part in addressing the country’s top economic issues, including mortgage lending, corporate governance, banking reform, and insurance regulation. Through the recent economic crisis, he was influential in the responses to the crisis that averted a collapse in our markets and economy. Currently, he serves on the Capital Markets and International Monetary Policy subcommittees.

John also serves on the House Committee on the Budget, where he has had a hand in crafting portions of The Roadmap for America’s Future.  This plan championed by Congressman Paul Ryan contains a comprehensive proposal to ensure health and retirement security for all Americans, to lift the debt burdens that are mounting due to reckless spending, to reform and simplify the tax code, and to promote jobs and competitiveness in the 21st century global economy.  John is also a leading author of the Taxpayer Choice Act, which would make America’s tax system simpler and fairer by providing the opportunity to take advantage of an optional flat tax, in addition to repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).

As a Certified Public Accountant and a former small business owner, Representative Campbell provided a lot of insight into where we are in terms of our current financial crisis.

America crossed over its debt ceiling of $16.4 trillion on December 31st. What that means is that the government cannot issue any new debt. The government is required, at least temporarily, to live within their means.

There were three main points to the discussion:

1. The debt crisis is coming and it could occur at any moment.

2. The debt crisis is caused by a spending problem–not a tax problem.

3. There are immediate spending reforms that would address the problem.

One of the things that I learned from the program is how Washington spends money. There is discretionary spending and mandatory spending. Discretionary spending includes defense, government agencies, etc. Mandatory spending includes all entitlement programs. The three main entitlement programs are Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Other entitlement programs include food stamps, student loans, etc. These two types of spending are funded in different ways–discretionary spending has to be approved by Congress every year and signed into law by the President. Mandatory spending is already law, and unless Congress acts to change it, the spending automatically occurs.  Therefore, when President Obama says that raising the debt ceiling is only paying the bills that Congress has voted for, he is not being entirely accurate.

We are in financial crisis. Unless the spending is slowed, we will continue to see high unemployment and slow economic growth. Until more Americans begin to pay attention and vote for economic growth, rather than against it, America will continue to decline.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Something To Watch For In The Presidential Debates

Hugh Hewitt (my favorite talk show host) posted an article at the Washington Examiner yesterday about President Obama’s poker tells. I am not a poker player, but I understand the concept of watching your opponents’ actions in order to win a card game.

The article lists the ‘tells’:

First, the president begins a pattern of “ahs” and “uhmms” which are as embarrassing as they are revealing. The awkward pausing punctuated by these semi-stutters increases in frequency as the president senses his own flailing about.

Next, the president begins filibustering. His average length of answer in every press conference is already epic, but he has been getting worse as the presidency has dragged on.

…the president’s feigned outrage that anyone would interrupt or question him. When this happens, his countenance displays a disapproving sneer and his voice clouds with displeasure. It is practiced. It is also profoundly anti-democratic and arrogant, and if he plays this card on this stage, it will backfire.

Watch as well for nonresponsive self-pity, verbal essays on how difficult it was when he took over and how hard he has been working.

Finally, watch for the parade of straw men, the president’s favorite rhetorical trick.

Television has changed presidential debates–those who heard the Nixon-Kennedy debate of the radio declared Nixon the winner–those who watched it on television declared Kennedy the winner. I believe that Al Gore’s antics during the time that George W. Bush was speaking during their debate was one factor that cost him the election in 2000. President Obama needs to avoid falling into the same trap.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Something To Watch and Think About Before You Vote

Hugh Hewitt is my favorite radio talk show host. I listen to him on the Internet at Townhall.com. He is not on the radio in Massachusetts. He is a practicing lawyer and a law professor at Chapman University. I enjoy his show because of the way he approaches things–with a lawyer’s logical, factual presentation, but in a simple way that I can easily grasp. The following YouTube video was broadcast on his radio show on Monday. It sums up the election for me.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

American Energy 101

Hugh Hewitt has added a new feature to his radio show and his website. It is called “The 5-Minute Energy Blog.” It is a quick primer for those of us who are not scientific types to understand America’s energy problems and energy solutions. The feature is written by Tim Dunn, CEO of CrownQuest Operating, one of the top oil producers in Texas. Tim is also the vice-chair of the Texas Public Policy Institute.

In the first installment of The 5-Minute Energy Blog, Mr. Dunn states that the political choices we make as Americans in the next ten years will determine whether or not America has an energy crisis.

The article states:

If we decide as a country that policy experts in Washington DC should make decisions about energy, then I predict the bureaucracy economy in DC will be very fat and powerful, and the rest of the economy will get very thin and weak.  On the other hand, if we are able to retain our heritage of self-governance, and allow individual Americans to make their own choices in a free marketplace of ideas, businesses and consumer choices, then I think we will have a fit and prosperous economy for the indefinite future.  And, of course, the bureaucrat economy will have to go on a diet.

It’s one or the other.  We can’t have market choices and a centrally planned economy.

That is the choice we face in November. Mr. Dunn points out that whoever controls energy controls the economy. If control is taken away from the free market and given to the central government, energy innovation will come to a standstill. When there is no incentive to innovate, innovation ceases. A profit motive is a strong incentive, when it is removed, innovation stalls.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Two Very Good Articles On ObamaCare On The Internet Today

There are two very good articles on ObamaCare on the Internet today. The first was posted yesterday at Investors.com and the second is in today’s Wall Street Journal. The Supreme Court will begin arguing ObamaCare on Monday.

The Investors.com article points how ObamaCare will increase the cost of medical care and insurance for the people who are insured–not actually lower the cost for anyone.

The article reports:

…By 2019, roughly 16 million people out of the 50 million uninsured will be forced into coverage thanks to the individual mandate. Of those 16 million, some 6 million to 7 million will be covered for the first time by Medicaid and, to a lesser extent, the Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Medicaid, however, provides very low reimbursement rates to participating doctors and hospitals — only 58% of those normally paid by insurance companies. Medicaid often doesn’t pay enough to cover a provider’s costs.

Under the government’s logic, hospitals and doctors will be forced to raise prices for the insured to cover their costs, which will be passed along as higher premiums. The total cost shift under Medicaid is substantially greater than for the uninsured who fail to pay their bills.

Moreover, the increased cost-shifting phenomenon used by the government to justify the individual mandate will only grow worse as Medicaid enrollment expands due to the mandate.

ObamaCare will totally ruin any part of the medical insurance and patient care system that currently works.

The Wall Street Journal article is entitled, “Liberty and ObamaCare.” It deals with the constitutional question of the individual mandate. The article also gives some insight on how the Obama Administration will argue the case:

Consider a White House strategy memo that leaked this month, revealing that senior Administration officials are coordinating with liberal advocacy groups to pressure the Court. “Frame the Supreme Court oral arguments in terms of real people and real benefits that would be lost if the law were overturned,” the memo notes, rather than “the individual responsibility piece of the law and the legal precedence [sic].” Those nonpolitical details are merely what “lawyers will be talking about.”

Does anyone remember the old lawyers’ joke, “If the law is on your side, pound the law; if the evidence is on your side, pound the evidence; if neither is on your side, pound the table.” It sounds as if the Obama Administration plans to pound the table.

Talk radio host Hugh Hewitt (a law professor and practicing lawyer) has promised to highlight the arguments on his radio show (6 pm to 9 pm East Coast Time). I am looking forward to what he has to say.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Consice Summation Of A Really Dumb Story

Hugh Hewitt (my favorite talkshow host – on the internet at Townhall.com) posted an article at the Washington Examiner that I think totally sums up the recent Rush Limbaugh dust-up. The headline of the story is “Nothing shocks when anything goes.”

Mr. Hewitt states:

There is one standard for all commentary, and it ought to apply to Palin and Ms. Fluke, to President Obama and President Bush, to Justice Thomas and to Justice Kagan.

So credit nothing of a condemnation from anyone who has not first articulated his or her standard, preferably backed up with a reference to the rebukes they have handed out to themselves and their own team, and only if that standard condemns all of the profane, the vulgar and the bigoted.

Can we now get back to the real issue of a government forcing an organization to provide services that go against their religious beliefs?

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Experts Talk About New Hampshire

 

Congressman Poe and Governor Mitt Romney

Image via Wikipedia

National Review Online posted an article today by a number of its political pundits on the meaning of the results of the New Hampshire Primary. I will try to summarize, but please follow the link to the article–it is very informative.

Hunter Baker stated that Mitt Romney benefited by the winner in New Hampshire being declared early–more people saw him give his victory speech, and the speech was very effective.

Mona Charen pointed out that both Iowa and New Hampshire chose Romney. She also noted that the attacks on capitalism from Newt Gingrich may have helped shore up Mitt Romney’s conservative credentials. Regardless of how you feel about Mitt Romney, you have to admit that he is a capitalist!

Jim Geraghty points out that after the Romney win in New Hampshire, the only viable opponent to Mitt Romney is Rick Santorum. Mr. Geraghty wonders if Senator Sentorum will be able to overcome the Romney momentum.

Hugh Hewitt also agrees that Santorum is the only other candidate who could possibly beat Mitt Romney. He states that Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich ended their campaigns when they went after Romney and Bain Capital. Mr. Hewitt ends his comments with the question, “So who does Jim DeMint endorse?” Interesting question.

Kathryn Jean Lopez also comments that the attacks by Newt Gingrich helped Mitt Romney from his candidacy as a defense of capitalism. This is the beginning of the narrative Mitt Romney will use in his run against President Obama.

Grover Norquist takes a different approach. He has three suggestions for Mitt Romney–who to choose for a running mate, who to choose for a chief-of-staff, and to convince Ron Paul to speak at the Republican convention. He believes the Romney needs to include Ron Paul in order to insure that Ron Paul does not run as a third-party candidate.

Henry Olsen stated that the strong victory in New Hampshire almost assures that Mitt Romney will be the candidate. He makes an interesting observation though:

Jon Huntsman? He carried only four groups — those who consider themselves Democrats, those who strongly oppose the Tea Party, those who are satisfied with Obama, and those who are dissatisfied with the GOP candidates. ’Nuff said.

Great comment.

John J. Pitney commented on the morphing of Newt Gingrich into Michael Moore. Mr. Pitney states that he hopes Newt will go back to being the Newt we saw early in the campaign–focusing more on attacking President Obama than attacking fellow Republicans.

Cal Thomas notes that Mitt Romney is well on his way to being the Republican nominee for President. Although he is not universally loved, the other candidates will be running out of money and organization soon. Mr. Thomas notes that it is still a long way to the White House.

Now, my comments. I live in Massachusetts. Governor Romney was a good governor. He did not move the state in a conservative direction (it’s Massachusetts, I am not sure that is possible, we are one of two states that voted for George McGovern for President!) He is an honest, hard-working man. If he is elected, I am sure he will do everything in his power to rescue the American economy, and I believe that he has the knowledge and work ethic to do that. He is not my first choice, but I believe that he is a good choice.

Enhanced by Zemanta