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. 

Today’s New York Post is reporting that Dede Scozzafava, the Republican candidate for the House of Representatives in New York’s 23rd District has suspended her campaign.   Mrs. Scozzafava was challenged on the left by a Democrat Party candidate, Bill Owens, and on the right by a Conservative Party candidate, Doug Hoffman. 

According to the article:

“A Siena Poll released this morning showed Owens picking up 36 percent of the vote, Hoffman with 35 percent, and Scozzafava taking only 20 percent.”

This is a poll that is consistent with the grass roots activities that have been taking place around the country since last Spring.  Although Washington does not seem to notice, the American public is beginning to tire of big spending and big taxing. 

It is interesting to note that the article in the New York Post points out that Republican officials backed Doug Hoffman as soon as Mrs. Scozzafava withdrew from the race.  Are these the same tone-deaf officials that chose Mrs. Scozzafava (behind closed doors) to run for the House of Representatives in this district? 

The fact that Mrs. Scozzafava has dropped out of the race may preserve a Republican seat. However, if the Republican party leadership (and I use that word loosely) intends to win House and Senate seats in the future, they would do well to listen to the mood of the country. 

HR 3962 “Affordable Health Care For America” was introduced in the House of Representatives on Thursday.  On Thursday, Americans For Tax Reform printed a list of the new taxes the bill would create. 

• Employers who do not pay 72.5 percent of a single employees’ health care premium or 65 percent of a family employee must pay an excise tax.  The percentage of the tax increases according to the amount of the payroll of the company.   (Page 275)
• If a person fails to obtain acceptable private healthcare coverage, he must pay a tax of 2.5 percent of modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) or the average premium.  (Page 296)
• Health savings accounts (HSAs), flexible spending accounts (FSAs), or health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs) could no longer be used to cover non-prescription medications (with the exception of insulin).  That means that over-the-counter allergy medicine or cough drops, etc. would no long be included.  (Page 324)
• There would be an annual cap on FSAs of $2500 (currently uncapped).  (Page 325)
• Non-qualified distributions from HSAs would face an additional tax of 20 percent (current law is 10 percent).  This disadvantages HSAs relative to other tax-free accounts (e.g. IRAs, 401(k)s, 529 plans, etc.).  (Page 326)
• No tax deduction for employer health plans coordinating with Medicare Part D.  (Page 327)
• Surtax on individuals and small businesses that would raise the top marginal tax rate in 2011 from 39.6 percent under current law to 45 percent–a new effective top rate.  (Page 336)
• Excise tax on medical device manufacturers equal to 2.5 percent of the wholesale price.  (Page 339)
• Requires that 1099-MISC forms be issued to corporations as well as persons for trade or business payments.  Current law limits to just persons for small business compliance complexity reasons.  Also expands reporting to exchanges of property. (Page 344)
• Delays for nine years the worldwide allocation of interest, a corporate tax relief provision from the American Jobs Creation Act.  (Page 345)
• Increases taxes on U.S. employers with overseas operations looking to avoid double taxation of earnings.  (Page 346)
• Empowers the IRS to disallow a perfectly legal tax deduction or other tax relief merely because the IRS deems that the motive of the taxpayer was not primarily business-related.  (Page 349)
• Publicly-traded partnerships and corporations with annual gross receipts in excess of $100 million have raised standards on penalties.  If there is a tax underpayment by these taxpayers, they must be able to prove that the estimated tax paid would have more likely than not been sufficient to cover final tax liability.  (Page 357)

I apologize for the length of this list, but actually I think Congress should apologize for the length of this list.  This is a disgusting government money and power grab that needs to be stopped in its tracks.  It took about twenty pages to create the American government, if Congress can’t reform healthcare in less than fifty pages, they shouldn’t call it reform.

According to the Yahoo News Honduras has accepted a deal which will allow for the return of  President Manuel Zelaya as President until January of 2010.  The article refers to the “military coup” that deposed Zelaya in June.  There was no military coup.  President Zelaya had put in motion an unconstitutional scheme that would allow him to become “President for Life”in the manner of Hugo Chavez.  In June, the Honduran court and legislature ruled that his planned ballot initiative that would allow him to continue his term as President was unconstitutional.  The ballots were supplied by Hugo Chavez!

The agreement to return Zelaya to power until January was reached with extreme pressure applied by the United States State Department.  I am really sorry to hear this–we used to stand up for democracy.  President Zelaya is strongly supported by such freedom loving people as Fidel Castro and his brother and Hugh Chavez.  Theirs in the side the United States has chosen in this situation.

According to the article:

“The United States, the European Union
and Latin American leaders had all insisted Zelaya be allowed to finish
his term and they threatened not to recognize the winner of the
November election unless democracy was first restored.

“A U.S. team led by Assistant Secretary of State Tom Shannon and Dan Restrepo, Washington’s special assistant for Western Hemisphere affairs, sat in on talks earlier in the day and warned that time was running out to reach a deal.

“The coffee-producing Central American country has been diplomatically
isolated since Zelaya was rousted at dawn by soldiers on June 28 and
flown to exile on a military plane.

“Zelaya had angered many in Honduras by becoming an ally of socialist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Critics also alleged he was seeking backing to extend presidential term limits, a claim he denies.”

In the past, one of the ways to rate an American president was to evaluate the role he played in the spread of democracy around the world.  President Obama has not done very well in that respect.

Today’s Washington Examiner has a staff editorial posted on the effect of the current Cap and Trade proposal on the environment.  The current Cap and Trade bill is very invasive and expensive and would have a very detrimental effect on the American economy–but it would also have a very detrimental effect on the environment!  

Princeton University’s Tim Searchinger and his colleagues have discovered that “carbon reduction laws encourage widespread deforestation as trees and other vegetation are harvested to produce energy from biomass to replace oil and gas. The problem is that in long run, this process actually increases greenhouse gas emissions, which cap-and-trade is meant to reduce.”

According to the article:

“”By using a worldwide agricultural model to estimate emissions from land-use change, we found that corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20% savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gases for 167 years,” the Princeton authors say. “Biofuels from switchgrass, if grown on U.S. corn lands, increase emissions by 50%.” Neither the Kyoto Protocol, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, nor existing European cap-and-trade programs have taken into account widespread deforestation as farmers worldwide respond to the new economic incentives, Searchinger added.”

We saw a minor version of this disruption in farming when the US government subsidized ethanol–the price of corn jumped and groceries became more expensive.  We also have learned that without government money, ethanol is not practical.

Without the introduction of standardized nuclear plants (as in France), we will not be able to substantially cut our carbon emissions.  The demands of modern life give us two choices–build nuclear power plants or give up our standard of living.  I am willing to see our country build nuclear plants, I think France has shown that they can be operated safely, but I am unwilling to give drop my house temperature below 68 degrees in the winter or give up driving a car that is safe for me and my grandchildren. 

Newsbusters posted an article yesterday posing the questions the media had not asked regarding the video tapes made of ACORN employees offering to help a couple buy a house to set up a brothel with underage girls brought into the country from Central and South America.

Hannah Giles, the actress in the videos posted her set of questions the media has not asked.  Here is that list: 

• Baltimore-Why no mention of the toddlers that were in the room while James and I were being counseled on how to manage our underage prostitution ring?
• San Bernardino-The content of this video was largely ignored except for the part where Tresa Kaelke mentions she shot her husband. What about when she told us not to educate our sex-slaves because they won’t want to work for us? Or when we talked about making more money off clients who are permitted to physically abuse the girls? What about the whole transport-the-girls-in-a-school-bus-to-avoid-suspicion discussion?…
• San Bernardino: What happened to the list of politicians that Ms. Kaelke rattled off when she spoke of her ACORN office’s community involvement and influence? Has anyone set out to uncover just how close these politicians relationships are with the San Bernardino ACORN? Does anyone even remember the names?
• San Diego: Has anyone questioned why Juan Carlos would want to help smuggle girls across the Mexican border right after an ACORN-sponsored immigration parade???

Ms. Giles has written an article for Big Government asking these questions and a few others that most of the media has not been curious enough to ask.  The article asks some very good questions.

Today’s New York Post posted an editorial by Scott Gottlieb, a physician and American Enterprise Institute resident fellow, who was a senior official at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and is partner to a firm that invests in health-care companies, on the effects of the healthcare bill produced by the Senate Finance Committee which is currently being modified in committee.

As it is currently crafted, the parts of the bill that insure more people and reduce insurance costs don’t begin until years after the bill begins imposing large costs on consumers. 

According to the article:

“Starting in 2010, the bill would impose annual fees of $2.3 billion on brand-name drugs and $4 billion on medical devices, plus $6.7 billion on certain insurance providers — and more than $100 billion in cuts to what Medicare pays to health-care providers. These costs will immediately shift onto consumers, in the form of higher prices on medical products and rising premiums.

“Meanwhile, the promised subsidies to help pay for insurance don’t fully kick in until 2014. (And those subsidies only go to people earning below 300 percent of the poverty line, or about $66,000 for a family of four.)”

Evidently this was the only way to keep the first-10-years’ cost under $900 billion.

What we have here is an accounting gimmick–something Congress is very good at putting forth.  What we need to do is make sure the whole plan is rejected and sent back to the drawing board.  If you really want to cut costs and insure more people, you need tort reform and insurance portability across state lines.  Until Congress puts those two things in a healthcare bill, I will not be convinced that they are actually serious about healthcare reform.

Yesterday’s New York Post announced its endorsement of Doug Hoffman for Congress.  Sounds like your basic news story–a newspaper endorsing a candidate–but there is a lot more going on here behind the obvious. 

Doug Hoffman is running for a Congressional seat in New York’s 23rd Congressional District.  Doug Hoffman is running as a Conservative.  The Republican candidate in that race, Assemblywoman
Dede Scozzafava, was not chosen in a Republican primary election, but in a behind-closed-doors meeting of Republican Party Big Wigs.  She is not only a social liberal, but a tax and spend liberal who supports card check and is supported by the Working Families Party (which is closely aligned with ACORN.  The choice of Assemblywoman Scozzafava was tone deaf in terms of what has been happening around the country for the past six months.  A conservative revolt against the runaway spending of the Obama Administration is not a surprise, but the revolt is beginning to include nonconservatives alarmed by the rapid growth of the federal deficit.

This district has historically been a Republican district, but this election could change that.  The Republican Party needs to decide whether it is willing to listen to its members or continue to act like the Democrats.  To me, there is no difference between Ms. Scozzafava and the Democrat candidate.  If the Republicans lose the seat, that’s too bad, but her voting record would not be any different than the Democrat candidate, so why support her?  Some Republicans have spoken out in support of Doug Hoffman, and I hope more will do so.  Until the Republican Party realizes that many Americans do not support unchecked growth of government, they will not have my support.

Yesterday’s Washington Examiner posted an article showing that the Democrat party has not given up their support of ACORN.  Despite numerous lawsuits involving voter fraud and numerous videos showing ACORN employees aiding people they think are committing illegal acts, the Democrats still love them!

Last week the House Financial Services Committee was preparing to vote on legislation to create a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency when a fight erupted over ACORN.  Democrats offered an amendment that could allow ACORN and groups like it to participate in the new Consumer Financial Protection Agency they were creating.

The bill the Democrats were voting on set up two boards within the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, an Oversight Board and an Advisory Board.  The Republicans, knowing what would logically happen next, prepared an amendment to keep ACORN from being part of the Advisory Board, the less powerful of the two boards, figuring that the Democrats would not try to set up a place for ACORN on the more powerful Oversight Board.  Well, they were wrong.  So the Republicans have had to regroup. 

According to the article:

“(Representative Michelle) Bachmann knows that Democrats managed to open up the Oversight Board to
ACORN and other groups without even being forced to publicly defend the
decision. Now, she hopes they will be forced to vote up or down on a
proposal to bar ACORN from the Oversight Board. “What we’re going to
try to do is offer an amendment when the bill goes to the floor,” says
Bachmann. “That’s the goal — to keep people who are from ACORN from
serving on the Oversight Board.””

The bottom line here is very simple.  The Democrats do not want ACORN to lose either its government support or its power.  ACORN is one of the best sources of money and votes for the Democrat Party.  It will require extreme vigilance on the part of every honest Congressman to keep ACORN from regaining public funds and positions of power in Washington.  Hopefully there are enough people left in Washington who take their responsibilities seriously enough to want to keep our government honest.

Yesterday’s Investor’s Business Daily posted an editorial on the cash settlement paid to the “Flying Imams” by US Airways and Minneapolis airport police.  The case was brought in response to an incident three years ago at Minneapolis airport.

Six Islamic clerics were taken off a Phoenix-bound flight for behaving much like the 9/11 hijackers.  One of the things that raised the suspicions of the airline was that half of them had no luggage and had purchased one-way tickets.

According to the article:

“Some yelled “Allah, Allah, Allah,” and changed their seats while asking for seat belt extensions they never used. Though situated throughout the cabin, the six men appeared to be acting in concert. Witnesses also said they loudly cursed the U.S.”

The article details the Imams search for a court to hear their discrimination suit. 

The article also points out:

“The imams’ attorney — a board member of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which financed the case — says the deal involves an undisclosed amount paid to his clients by airport police. Details are sealed. The airport authority issued a statement saying insurance limits its liability to $50,000.

“The settlement of this case is a clear victory for justice and civil rights,” said CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad.””

We need to remember that the enemies of America study our court system carefully.  CAIR chooses its lawsuits very carefully to move the legal system in their direction.  Unfortunately this case will make the skies of America less safe as people are less willing to act in the face of inappropraite behavior.