The Times Online is reporting the arrest of a 32-year old man and his 25-year old brother on charges of providing a list of terrorist targets to North African Islamic radicals.  The 32-year old is said to have worked for the European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN) in Geneva, Switzerland.  He was arrested by French secret service agents.

According to the article:

“Agents were said to have intercepted messages in which the physicist, a Frenchman of Algerian origin, had suggested targets in France.

“He is believed to have been in contact with members of al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, an Algerian-based terror organisation that joined Osama bin Laden’s network in 2007.”

We are being very naive if we believe the activities of this man are an incident rather than an indication of a pattern.  For whatever reason, there is a group of people in the world who believe that killing people in order to set up a world-wide caliphate is a worthwhile pursuit.  Now is not the time to go wobbly on the war on terror.

This article is from a news source I am not familiar with.  I am linking it because I think it is important as an illustration of what happens when no one is willing to take a stand against evil.  Y Net News reported yesterday that in an interview given by former Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh to the Sunday Times, Mr. Sneh stated that if Iran were not further sanctioned by this Christmas Israel would attack the country.  I am not necessarily convinced that sanctions will work, but I at least it would be some action against a country whose leader has consistently threatened to annihilate Israel.

The article states:

“Iran’s ambassador to the UN, Mohammad Khazaee, sent a letter of protest to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moonin which he wrote that “there is no explanation for Israel’s continuing threats against Tehran”.”  

Knowing the UN, they will probably sanction Israel.  It’s easier.  Israel right now has fewer friends in the world to defend it, fewer people who fear it, and no oil to use as a weapon.

This is what happens when there is no ‘policeman’ in the world and the United States is seen as weak.  President Obama’s dream of a world without nuclear weapons is a wonderful ideal, but if you think about it, even before we had nuclear weapons, we had wars.  The problem is not the weapons, the problem is us–men (and women).  There will always be bullies among us, and there will always be a need to deal with them.  There will always be those who want to take away the freedom of others and be in control of everything.  I believe that the UN was originally set up to be a force for freedom and a deterrent to war.  I also believe they have strayed so far from that intention, that they should be dissolved immediately.

I do not believe the United States will defend Israel if it tries to defend itself against Iranian nukes.  They will let Israel fight alone.  That is how we are treating our allies under this administration.

In reply to Iran’s claims of continuing threats against it by Israel, I offer the following quotes:

“Israel must be wiped off the map.”–Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, October 26, 2005,  Cited in “Ahmadinejad:  The Secret History of Iran’s Radical Leader” by Kasta Naji, page 31. 

“”Ahmadinejad Says Israel Will Soon Disappear,” Agence-France-Presse, June 2, 2008.

“God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism”–Ahmadinejad, October 26, 2005,  Cited in “The Iran Threat:  President Ahmadinejad and the Coming Nuclear Crisis” by Alireza Jafarzadeh. page 25.

You get the picture.  There is a pattern here, and it is not Israel threatening Iran.  It is against the UN Charter for one member nation to threaten another, and Iran has been doing that without consequences.  Until someone stands up and stops this bully, the world will be less safe for everyone.

Today’s Washington Times is reporting that some of the top Democrat leaders support the idea of increased troops in Afghanistan.  I hope they decide soon, since reinforcements tend to be of less value as time passes.  The troops are needed now.  Delay costs us American lives every day.

According to the article:

“House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, Missouri Democrat,
who attended the White House meeting, also strongly advocates for Gen.
McChrystal’s plan. He sent a six-page letter to Mr. Obama earlier this
month that he said implored the president to “give the general what he
needs.”

“Others, including House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman
Howard L. Berman, say they are exploring a range of options but not
taking Gen. McChrystal’s recommendation off the table.” 

The thing to remember here is that this is now President Obama’s war.  It became his war when he chose his own general.  To ignore the advice of his own hand-picked general is to risk failure of the military operation in that country.  To float the idea of making a deal with the Taliban is folly.  Does anyone remember what Afghanistan was like under the Taliban? 

There is a scene in the move The Kite Runner that is very graphic and I will not describe it here, but if you watch the director’s notes on the DVD of the movie, it is explained.  When America left Afghanistan after the Russians were defeated, the people of the country felt as if they had been abandoned.  The Taliban came into power and set up a regime that totally demoralized the people of Afghanistan.  For us to scale back our operations in that country in any way would only convince the Afghanis that we could not be depended upon.  Our recent actions regarding Israel, Poland, and the Czeck Republic have seriously damaged our credibility as an ally.  We don’t need to do that in Afghanistan.

Obviously, the big new of today is that President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize.  This award is evidently given in anticipation of President Obama’s accomplishments in the direction of world peace.  The nomination process for the award closes February 1st.  President Obama was nominated less than a month after he took office.  This is sad.

The Wall Street Journal posted a story about the award this morning.  The Peace Prize Committee explained that in awarding President Obama the Peace Prize the prize they were encouraging him rather than rewarding him for his achievements.  Somehow I don’t think that was what Alfred Nobel had in mind.

President Obama now joins the group of Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, and Yasser Arafat as Nobel Peace Prize winners.  I think that says it all.  George Bush liberated 50 million muslims from tyranny and he is looked upon as a war monger.  President Obama is in the process of enabling Iran to go nuclear and he is looked upon as promoting peace.  When the Middle East explodes because of the anti-Israel stands of this administration, will the Nobel Peace Prize Committee ask for a recount?

Yesterday, the Foundry at the Heritage Foundation published the plan Congress is planning to use to pass healthcare before Thanksgiving despite the fact that a majority of Americans oppose the proposal. 

The article lists the steps Harry Reid will take to attach the healthcare bill to another bill in order to pass it.  The article deals with Congressional procedures, and I am not going to try to capsulize it here.  Please read the article and understand that this is not what America expects from its Congress.

The article sums it up:

“The San Francisco Examiner published an editorial today that exposed the fact that the American people can’t see the bill. “When then-Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama promised not to sign major legislation until it had been posted on the Internet for public reading at least five days, trusting voters took him at his word. Now they know better. Not only is the actual language of what is likely to become the main legislative vehicle for Obama’s signature health care reform not available on the Internet, it hasn’t been given to members of the key Senate committees or the Congressional Budget Office.” The procedure being used, in addition to the exclusion of the American people from the process, should be of grave concern to all who want to participate in democracy and have a say in Congress’ health care reforms that will touch 1/6th of the American economy.”

Unless the current Congress understands that passing this bill will result in their unemployment at the first available opportunity, there is no hope to keep America’s healthcare system as one of the best in the world.  Please call your Congressman and tell him that you do not support healthcare reform.

That was Ronald Reagan’s comment every time he heard that the Democrats in power were preparing to raise taxes.  Well, there they go again.

According to today’s Wall Street Journal, Nancy Pelosi is thinking about a Value Added Tax (VAT) as a way to fund the spending proposals of the present Congress.  John Podesta (an adviser to President Obama and president of the very liberal Center for American Progress)made a similar suggestion in September. 

The article points out that nearly every European country that has national healthcare has eventually imposed a VAT to help pay for it.  According to the article, a VAT applies to every level of production or service, rakes in piles of money, and is largely hidden from those who ultimately pay it–namely, consumers.  It is essentially a hidden tax that can add as much as 10 percent to the eventual cost of all goods.

Remember President Obama’s pledge not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year?  This is a way to raise taxes on everyone and theoretically not have anyone notice.  We’ll see how that goes.

Today’s New York Post posted an article about the investigation into the financial activities of Representative Charlie Rangel.  Mr. Rangel has been charged with failing to report income, failing to pay income taxes on some income, and lying on his Congressional disclosure forms.  The charges involve rent-controlled apartments, car storage, and other items which do call into question the man’s moral compass.  He is the head of the committee that writes and oversees tax codes (which evidently he does not fully understand).

According to the article:

“In a convoluted parliamentary charade, Democrats voted in nearly lockstep to thwart a resolution to remove Rangel from the powerful chairmanship of the House Ways and Means Committee, where he sits as the nation’s top tax-writer — at least until his numerous ethical and legal woes have been resolved.”

Nancy Pelosi had promised that the investigation of Charlie Rangel would be completed by now, but somehow that has not been accomplished.

As President Obama holds his meetings on Afghanistan, our troops are dying there.  When a military leader asks for reinforcements, generally they are needed in a timely manner in order to be effective.  The constant meetings are costing American lives.  Congress does not know how to run a war–the military does–there is nothing to be gained by all these meetings.  The Generals involved have already given us the strategy and told us what was needed.

Fred Barnes posted an article at the Weekly Standard blog yesterday on the war in Afghanistan and the lack of action from the White House.  He refers to a book by Lewis Sorley entitled A Better War: The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America’s Last Years in Vietnam and another book entitled Lessons in Disaster by Gordon Goldstein.

Mr. Barnes points out:

“Sorley’s book is relevant because it points out what actually happened in Vietnam: by employing what we now call a counter-insurgency strategy, American forces had actually won the war by 1970, only to toss it away later by abandoning the South Vietnamese government. That strategy, similar to what has been pursued successfully in Iraq with the “surge,” replaced the failed search-and-destroy effort of General William Westmoreland. Despite this history, search-and-destroy, which had failed in Iraq, is what Vice President Biden and other Democrats are urging in Afghanistan. They refer to it today as counter-terrorism.”

Mr. Barnes concludes:

“So let’s review the bidding in the current debate on Afghanistan. Biden and many Democrats, reportedly including White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, want the president to adopt a strategy that failed twice and, so far as I know, has never led to success. Gen. McChrystal and Republicans, along with Senator Joe Lieberman and a few other Democrats, are in favor of a strategy that has twice proven to be successful.”

I agree.  It’s time to let the military run the war and keep the politicians out of it.  The lives of our troops depend on it!  

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article yesterday about energy independence–you remember, the issue that disappeared after the price of gasoline went down.  Well, it may come back with a vengance.  On Tuesday, the British paper, The Independent published a story stating that secret talks were going on between the Russians, the Chinese, and some Arab states about no long paying for oil in American dollars.  The report was promptly denied, but actually, it needs a second look.

In order to prevent a depression after 911, the Bush administration lowered interest rates to a point that undermined the value of the dollar overseas.  This was partially responsible for the drastic increases in gasoline and oil prices we saw in the last year of the Bush administration.  The fiscal policies of the current administration in Washington have also seriously impacted the value of the dollar.  The out-of-control spending will eventually lead to inflation, making the dollars held by other countries worth less than their current value.  This will create a reluctance to buy into US bonds and securities. 

Sarah Palin referred to these events on her Facebook message on Tuesday.  She points out that:

“In his book Architects of Ruin, Peter Schweizer points out that the Obama administration is focusing primarily on “green energy,” while ignoring our need to develop our domestic conventional energy resources.[5] We’re ignoring the looming crisis caused by our dependence on foreign oil. Because we’re dependent on foreign nations for our oil, we’re also at their mercy if they decide to dump the dollar as their trade currency. We can’t allow ourselves to be so vulnerable to the whims of foreign nations. That’s why we must develop our own domestic supplies of oil and gas.”

No one in our current government is paying attention to this danger–they are too busy advancing their own interests–not ours.  It is time to take a serious look at the people making our national decisions and consider if replacing all of them might be the best thing for our country.

I don’t have a problem with murderers sentenced to death as long as the evidence against them is beyond a reasonable doubt and a murder was involved. I do, however, wonder why some states are unwilling to support the death penalty in those circumstances.

Boston.com posted an article today saying that the killing of Kimberly Cates in her isolated home in Mont Vernon and the violent attack on her daughter did not meet the criteria set in the state of New Hampshire for the death penalty.   The state is obviously required to follow the law as it sentences the four youths charged in this murder, but I question the message these criteria send to our society.

According to New Hampshire law, in order to warrant the death penalty a murder must meet six conditions including a paid assassination, a killing that involves kidnapping, and a homicide that entails sexual assault.  Since none of these conditions were met, the death penalty does not apply.  Wow.  These four teenages are accused of planning to rob Kimberly Cates and then murdering her and attacking her young daughter in the process.  Is the message we are sending here that killing this woman was not a crime worthy of the death penalty?  Does Kimberly Cates’ life have value?

Obviously every state has the right to its own laws, but it seems to me that killing someone is murder (particularly when it is part of another crime being committed) and deserves the death penalty.  To say otherwise is to say that the life of the criminal is worth more than the life of the victim.

Today’s New York Daily News posted an article by their editorial staff on the subject of whether or not terrorists should be eligible for the death penalty.  The discussion is centered around the case against Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, a former Guantanamo detainee being tried in New York in a civilian court. 

According to the article:

“Now, Attorney General Eric Holder has broken further ground in Ghailani’s case by barring the Manhattan U.S. attorney from seeking the death penalty – never mind that Ghailani allegedly helped buy a truck and load it with the TNT that leveled the U.S. Embassy in Tanzania in 1998.”

There are some problems in trying him in a civilian court.  Much of the evidence would be classified–does the jury need security clearances? 

What is the argument for not subjecting terrorists to the dealth penalty?  I firmly believe that terrorists deserve to be executed, but my husband pointed out a small fact that I have overlooked.  Martrydom is a positive thing for most terrorists–not a negative.  If we execute terrorists, do we make them heroes in the terrorists movement?  Is that what we really want to do?

I pose the question.  I do not claim to have the answer.  It is an interesting problem though.

According to a Sealttle newspaper via Associated Press, some Somali pirates had a rude awakening early Wednesday.  They innocently fired on what they thought was a commercial ship, but it turned out to be a French naval vessel.  The ship they fired on was La Somme, a 3,800-ton refueling ship.  The pirates were just innocently working off the coast.  They had no idea this was a military ship.

The article states

“France is a key member of the EU’s naval mission, Operation Atalanta, fighting Somali pirates in the Gulf of Aden. It has aggressively tracked and caught suspected pirates and handed over at least 22 to Kenya. An additional 15 suspects were brought to France for prosecution after allegedly seizing boats belonging to French nationals.”

Catching the pirates is a great thing, but I think we need to go back to the laws of old that hanged people for piracy.  Let’s hope these pirates do not spend the rest of their days in a place with three square meals, big screen television sets, and gyms that would amaze all of us.

Today’s Wall Street Journal posted an op-ed piece explaining one of the ways the government plans to cut the cost of healthcare in its proposed reform.  Understandably, Congress is attempting to create a system that is cheaper so that they can provide healthcare for everyone.  However, sometimes there is a serious cost in doing something cheaper. 

In order to cut costs, Medicare would rank doctors among their peers according to the amount of money they cost the program.  Begining in 2015, any doctor who ranks in the top ten percent of costs would have his Medicare reimbursement cut 5 per cent.  Medicare currently pays 83 cents on the dollar when compared to private insurance.  In practice, this rule will only apply to specialists.  It gets worse.  According to the article:

“In Medicare, meanwhile, the Administration is using regulation to change how doctors are paid to benefit general practitioners, internists and family physicians. In next year’s fee schedule, they’ll see higher payments on the order of 6% to 8%. The loose consensus is that the U.S. does have too few primary care doctors–less than 5% of medical students are entering the field–in part because they’re underpaid.

“Fair enough. But this boost for GPs comes at the expense of certain specialties. The 2010 rules, which will be finalized next month, visit an 11% overall cut on cardiology and 19% on radiation oncology. They’re targets only because of cost: Two-thirds of morbidity or mortality among Medicare patients owes to cancer or heart disease.”

Please read the entire article for the details.  This is truly the ‘kill granny’ bill. 

Yesterday’s Power Line posted an article about the proposed expansion of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) by the Obama Administration and the Democrats in Congress.  In case you have forgotten, the CRA is the organization that encourages making loans to people who cannot or will not pay them back and offers loans with “flexible underwriting criteria.  It’s very nice to want to help low-income people buy houses, but reality needs to enter into the picture at some point.  Someone making $ 30,000 a year cannot afford to buy a $ 500,000 house with no down payment.  Encouraging that sort of purchase is what led us into the banking crisis to begin with.  Now Congress is poised to do it all over again.

Either these people do not understand wise lending practices or they don’t care.  Either way, this is legislation that needs to be stopped.

Yesterday I posted an article with the following opening paragraph:

“Yesterday China View reported that Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Mohamed ElBaradei said Sunday that “Israel is number one threat to Middle East” with its nuclear arms.  This statement was made at a joint press conference with Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization chief Ali Akbar Salehi in Tehran.” 

That in itself was a little disconcerting, but there is an article in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal that is even more troubling.  The article points out that President Obama has stated his aim to make the world free of nuclear weapons.  He is going to have to start somewhere.  Why not Israel?   Bret Stephens predicts a news article in January of next year regarding a United Nations resolution:

“The resolution calls for a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East. It also demands that Israel sign the 1970 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and submit its nuclear facilities to international inspection. Two similar, albeit nonbinding, resolutions were approved last September by the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna.”

In his prediction, America abstains in the voting, letting the resolution pass, in order to show Iran that we have changed from our ‘unfair’ policies of the past.

Unfortunately, this is a possibility.  With the coziness between the IAEA and Iran, the chances of Iran curbing her nuclear program are almost non-existent.  Considering the UN’s love of sanctioning Israel at every opportunity, the attempt to confront Israel on her nuclear weapons will occur as soon as America gets out of the way.  Unfortunately, the administration of President Obama has already sent signals that it will not stand up for Israel.

Hopefully this prediction is totally off base, but I don’t think it is.

Yesterday, Investor’s Business Daily ran a related story. 

Yesterday China View reported that Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Mohamed ElBaradei said Sunday that “Israel is number one threat to Middle East” with its nuclear arms.  This statement was made at a joint press conference with Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization chief Ali Akbar Salehi in Tehran. 

According to the article:

“”This (possession of nuclear arms) was the cause for some proper measures to gain access to its (Israel’s) power plants … and the U.S. president has done some positive measures for the inspections to happen,” said ElBaradei.”

This is an amazing article–why is Mohamed ElBaradei holding joint press conferences with Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization chief Ali Akbar Salehi in Tehran?

Israel has had nuclear weapons for some time.  It has never threatened the existence of its neighbors.  It has never threatened to use its nuclear weapons unless it was going to be overrun as a country and there are reports saying that is not true.  Israel is not the one supporting terrorism in other countries or firing rockets on innocent civilian populations.

I think the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has totally outlived its usefullness!

Today’s Washington Post has an article by Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal on how to reform healthcare and actually make it work.  He lists ten points:

1.  Voluntary purchasing pools–make it easy for small business and individuals to form groups to purchase healthcare at cheaper prices.

2.  Portability–when you change jobs, your health insurance can go with you.

3.  Lawsuit reform.

4.  Coverage of preexisting conditions.

5.  Transparency and payment reform–let consumers know exactly what they are paying for and be able to determine the quality of the company they choose.

6.  Electronic medical records.

7.  Tax-free Health Savings Accounts.

8.  Reward healthy lifestyle choices.

9.  Cover young adults–this evens out the risk pool and lowers premiums for everyone.

10. Refundable tax credits–this would allow lower income people to purchase health insurance.

As the debate on healthcare plays out, we need to be aware of the options that are not included in the current proposal.  Some of the options listed above would result in immediate savings for consumers without creating a government-controlled healthcare system.

Please read the entire article–there are some good ideas there.

According to yesterday’s Wall Street Journal there is a case currently making its way through the courts that will decide whether you can refuse Medicare coverage (opting for private coverage instead) without losing your Social Security benefits.

According to the article:

“Last week, Washington D.C. District Judge Rosemary Collyer handed a victory to three plaintiffs seeking that right. President Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services had sought to dismiss the suit challenging so-called POMS rules that say seniors who withdraw from Medicare Part A must also surrender their Social Security benefits. (Part A covers hospital and outpatient services.) The judge ruled the plaintiffs have standing to contest their claim on the merits.”

This is amazing.  The Obama Administration had tried to get the case dismissed because it claimed that the people involved had not followed the proper procedures for challenging the rules within the POMS (the manual used by SSA employees to administer Social Security and Supplemental Security Income).

The thing to remember here is that all the people involved want to do is keep their own private medical insurance rather than switch to Medicare.  You would think that, considering the financial troubles Medicare is having, this would be a welcome choice–less people to cover. 

If the government is trying to control the choice of healthcare plans of people before national healthcare is passed, what will happen after the government can legally control your healthcare?  This is an important case and should be watched carefully. 

According to a Rasmussen Reports article posted today, 63 percent of voters nationwide say that guaranteeing that no one is forced to change their health insurance coverage is a higher priority than giving consumers the choice of a “public option” health insurance company.   The latest Rasmussen telephone survey finds that 29 percent of Americans say it’s more important for the government to provide non-profit health insurance.  Fifty-three percent of voters who currently have health insurance say that it is likely that they would have to change their insurance if the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats becomes law. 

The article also points out:

“Most voters under 30 believe the government option would save taxpayers money while their elders disagree. Sixty-two percent (62%) of senior citizens believe it would cost taxpayers money, the highest total of any age group.

“Forty-eight percent (48%) of all voters believe private health insurance companies would provide better service and more choice than a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option. Thirty-seven percent (37%) believe the government-sponsored option would offer better service and more choice.”

Needless to say, as a senior citizen, I am hoping that the current healthcare reform proposal does not pass.  I have yet to see the government handle anything more efficiently and less expensively than private businesses.  Private businesses are there to make a profit–not by overcharging, but by offering services in ways that save money and supply needs.  The government does not care about profit and therefore is not really searching for efficiency.  If they are the only game in town, customer service will not be a priority.  Until Congress agrees to be covered by the healthcare legislation it passes, I am opposed to any more government programs involved in healthcare.

Power Line today posted an article linking to a Clark Hoyt, Public Editor of the New York Times, column that ran today regarding the fact that the New York Times missed the events surrounding the group ACORN in the past two weeks.  In the column Mr. Hoyt cites some of the emails he received on the subject.

One email states:

“I often don’t hear about the latest conflict until I read a Facebook rant from an old high school friend or talk on the phone with my mother (both in conservative Orange County, Calif.). It’s embarrassing not to be able to respond with facts when I hadn’t even heard about the issue.” Michele Cusack of Novato, Calif., said that when someone asked if she had heard the latest about Acorn, “I had to answer ‘no’ because I get all my news from The New York Times.” 

That is one of the many reasons I started this blog.  If you depend on the New York Times to tell you the whole story, you will probably not get the facts you need to be an informed citizen.  Considering the history of the New York Times and its longtime role as ‘the newspaper of record,’ that is a shame.

Today’s New York Post has an article about the upcoming vote on the healthcare reform proposal.  In the article, it states:

“”I don’t expect to actually read the legislative language because . . . the legislative language is among the more confusing things I’ve ever read in my life,” Sen. Thomas Carper (D-Del.) told an online news service.”

Maybe I’m missing something here, but isn’t it the job of Congress to read the bills they pass? 

According to the article, these are the comments of John Cornyn:

“”The conceptual language is not good enough,” committee member Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) told CNSnews.com.

“”We’ve seen that there are side deals that have been cut,” Cornyn said.

“”So we need to know not only the conceptual language, we need to know the detailed legislative language, and we need to know what kind of secret deals have been cut on the side which would have an impact on how much this bill is going to cost and how it will affect health care in America.””

I have no idea of how we got to the place where Congress votes on an idea and writes the bill later, but it is not a good place to be.  What happened to the idea of posting the bill online for 72 hours so that people could take a look at it?  Even if we don’t understand all the legal jargon, we can get an idea of what is involved.  I don’t trust Congress when it refuses to let America see what it is doing.  It is definitely time for some transparency. 

There are two sources for this article (they are essentially the same thing, but I need to credit both), YouTube and Hot Air.  Please follow one of the links and watch the video.  The person speaking on the video is Tracy Walsh, a young mother who was diagnosed with breast cancer.  She is speaking about her experience in dealing with the cancer while insured by a private insurance agency.   Her story reminds us that America currently has a very good system of healthcare.  It is illegal to deny care to anyone who shows up at an emergency room with a medical problem.  No one in this country is currently being denied healthcare.

There are some things we could fix in the healthcare system without creating more problems than we solve.  Think automobile insurance–portability of health insurance across state lines, a risk pool for those with pre-existing conditions, and tort reform (common sense in legal cases involving medical issues).  None of these changes would drastically increase the role of government in health insurance–that may be why they are not getting the attention they should be getting.  My recommendation in regard to the current healthcare legislation is to scrap the whole thing and start again.  There are charges that people will die if we do not pass the current healthcare legislation; I can guarantee that people will die if we do. 

According to yesterday’s New York Times, the Education Department of New York City issued a three-page memo in June which banned most bake sales as fund raising tools.  Parent groups and Parent-Teacher Groups will be allowed to sell baked items once a month as long as it is after lunch.  They are also allowed to sell sweets after 6 pm on weekdays.

According to the article:

“The new policy also requires that vending machines, which generate millions of dollars for school sports, be supplied with snacks such as reduced-fat Baked Doritos and low-sugar granola bars. A new vending machine contract is expected to be approved on Wednesday by the Panel for Educational Policy, the school oversight board. Student stores will be able to sell only approved snacks bought from the new vendor, rather than obtain the food themselves, as they once did.”

There is nothing wrong with taking measures to improve the health of students, but this is intrusive.  I also have a hard time believing that the biggest problem facing the New York City school system is vending machines and bake sales.  This is government overreach and needs to be stopped. 

Yesterday Power Line had a short article on the International Olympic Committee’s choice of Rio as the location for the 2016 Olympics.  After quoting an athlete who attributes the decision to the possibility that maybe there is some hangover from politics, from the last eight years, the article ends with this conclusion:

“I suppose that will be the explanation when Obama can’t persuade the mullahs to abandon their nukes, either.”

You don’t suppose the loss of the Olympics by Chicago might have been impacted by all the negative things President Obama has said about America in his speeches around the world or by the fact that we are mistreating our allies on a regular basis while embracing dictators who silence their opponents on a regular basis?  At some point in the future, President Obama and his supporters will have to credit the President with the consequences of his actions–not blame the consequences on other people.

Byron York in today’s Washington Examiner reminds us that some parts of the Patriot Act are due to expire in December.  This expiration occurs just as we have uncovered terrorist plots being planned within America.

There are three provisions of the Patriot Act that have to be renewed every four years.  The last time they came up for renewal, the Republicans controlled Congress and they were renewed.  Renewal this time will be more complicated–some of the Democrats have said that they do not want to renew all of the Patriot Act.

According to the article:

“Congress put time limits on three of its most far-reaching provisions: “Roving wiretaps,” which allow investigators to keep up with suspects who use dozens of cell phones to avoid being traced; “business records” authority, which lets investigators ask a special national-security court for access to records of a suspect’s dealings with private businesses; and the “lone wolf” provision, which allows investigators to track individual terror suspects even if they are not a member of a terrorist group, like al Qaeda. Congress renewed those provisions in 2005 and now must give them another four-year renewal, or they will disappear.”

Some Democrats want to change some part of each of these three provisions.  Please see the article for the specifics and the overall impact of any changes.  We have no excuse for not being aware that there are attacks being planned against us and no excuse for not doing everything we can to prevent being attacked.  I hope the Democrats in Congress realize that.