Today’s Washington Examiner posted an article by Mark Tapscott on the proposed healthcare bill and the debate as to whether or not it covers illegal aliens.  Well, according to the Congressional Research Service, it does.  The article points out:

“Under H.R. 3200, a ‘Health Insurance Exchange’ would begin operation in 2013 and would offer private plans alongside a public option…H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens–whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently–participating in the Exchange.”

 

CRS also notes that the bill has no provision for requiring those seeking coverage or services to provided proof of citizenship. So, absent some major amendments to the legislation and a credible, concrete enforcement effort in action, looks like the myth on this issue is the one being spread by Obama, Reid, Pelosi, et. al.” 

 

Senator Edward M. Kennedy died last night at his home in Hyannis Port, Massachusetts.  Senator Kennedy had been in the Senate since 1962.  My sympathies go out to his family. 

In looking at Senator Kennedy’s record in the Senate, there are a few things that should be mentioned.  Senator Kennedy was a powerful member of the Senate and worked tirelessly to enact programs that agreed with his vision of America.  He also personified the politics of personal destruction used against Republican Supreme Court nominees.  He was the driving force in the 1987 defeat of Robert Bork’s nomination to the Supreme Court.  Senator Kennedy made a speech forty-five minutes after Robert Bork’s nomination declaring:

“Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is — and is often the only — protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy… President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice”

The charges were totally unfounded, but the speech worked, and America lost a truly great Supreme Court Justice.  This was the beginning of the politicalization of the nomination process.  The campaigns of personal destruction were attempted again with Clarence Thomas and others, but failed.

Ted Kennedy spent his life working for what he believed would be a better America, that is to his credit, but he also played a very strong role in the loss of civility of American politics.

Yesterday’s Hot Air posted an article by Doctor Zero on the necessity for democracies to be ferocious.  In speaking of the defense of democracy needed by America, he states:

“To suggest that enduring six months of Obama has made the CIA more hesitant to conduct effective intelligence operations is an understatement. Democrat political double-dealing is a crime that strikes at the heart of our venerated belief in civilian command of the military. We respect this arrangement, in part, because we believe it is proper for the civilian government to exhaust all peaceful, diplomatic avenues before we commit to war. You don’t send Marine recon units to conduct subtle diplomacy. The Bush Administration did its duty in this regard – for all the liberal caterwauling about “Bush’s rush to war,” it took a hell of a lot longer than Barack Obama’s rush to nationalize the health insurance industry and triple the deficit.”

We need to seriously consider the consequences of Eric Holder’s appointment of a Special Prosecutor to investigate the CIA.  This is an action more befitting of a banana republic than a democracy.   The actions of the CIA saved American lives–now they are being investigated for their heroism.  There were a few instances that we not within the guidelines, but they have been dealt with.  Why are we investigating something that has already been sorted out? 

Doctor Zero ends his article by pointing out:

“A few weeks ago, Eric Holder saw nothing wrong with Black Panthers using billy clubs to intimidate voters. Today, he thinks intimidating terrorists with cigars is a crime. Holder is the one who should be answering tough questions under oath.”

There is something seriously wrong with this picture.

Yesterday’s Washington Times is reporting that at the same time the House of Representatives was protesting bonuses given to corporate executives, they were quietly making arrangements to have their staff’s college loans repaid with taxpayer money.   According to the article:

“The change, which took effect in May, means House employees earning up to $168,411, or the top level, are now eligible for government-funded subsidies to help pay down their student loans.

“House officials defend the change as a job-related benefit necessary to keep the government competitive in the hiring market – the same argument corporate chieftains used to defend their own pay scales.”

Let’s go back to the time when government did not feel entitled to tell people how much they could earn.  If Congress wants to complain about bonuses paid in businesses, they should clean their own house first!

Please follow this link to the Daily Mail and look at the pictures.  I have never seen anything like this!

Yesterday Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted a story about a computer error at the Veteran’s Administration that resulted in 1200 veterans erroneously being told they were dying of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), better known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, a 100% fatal condition.  Ed Morrissey points out:

“The notifications went out in a letter intending to inform ALS sufferers about the benefits available to them through the VA.  At that time, one of those benefits was end-of-life counseling and access to “Your Life, Your Choices,” the booklet that refers veterans to the Hemlock Society when they feel life is no longer worth living.  I wonder how many of these veterans were given the booklet?”

We have all had some sort of adventure with bureaucracy, whether it be the state registry of motor vehicles, the post office, or (gasp) the IRS.  We need to remember these experiences as we consider whether we should turn our health care over to a large bureaucracy.  The frustrations of dealing with the post office, the registry of motor vehicles, or the IRS are nothing compared to the life-and-death issues healthcare involves.  What would have happened if the coding error that caused the veterans to be told they had a fatal disease had not been found?  What would have happened if a former soldier who thought he was dying decided to seek end-of-life counseling?  There are states in this country where assisted suicide is legal.  This could have been a problem much bigger than waiting in line at the post office or registry of motor vehicles.

There are small steps that can be taken to reform healthcare–making insurance accessible to everyone at a reasonable cost, tort reform, changes regarding pre-existing conditions, and the ability to buy healthcare across state lines.  None of these changes require the 1100 page monstrosity that is currently being proposed.

As people become aware of what is in the healthcare bill, the Obama administration attempts to turn people away from the bill.  Pay attention.  There may be a very quiet attempt to ram this legislation through Congress next month.  Meanwhile, the administration is attempting to distract us from healthcare and from another report that was released yesterday.

The Washington Post is reporting that Eric Holder has hired a special prosecutor to investigate the actions of CIA interrogators.  Just for the record, these actions have already been investigated and the guilty parties reprimanded.  A second investigation is just for show.

In related news, the government has released the CIA documents showing the results of enhanced interrogation.  The Weekly Standard posted its evaluation of the success of the techniques used.  Generally speaking, no one was harmed (only frightened) and American lives were saved.  If frightening terrorists becomes illegal, what in the world do we say about what terrorists do?  What about the frightened people in the World Trade Center?

Yesterday, the Weekly Standard posted Dick Cheney’s statement about the release of the CIA documents on enhanced interrogation and the coming investigation.  This is the statement:

“The documents released Monday clearly demonstrate that the individuals subjected to Enhanced Interrogation Techniques provided the bulk of intelligence we gained about al Qaeda. This intelligence saved lives and prevented terrorist attacks. These detainees also, according to the documents, played a role in nearly every capture of al Qaeda members and associates since 2002. The activities of the CIA in carrying out the policies of the Bush Administration were directly responsible for defeating all efforts by al Qaeda to launch further mass casualty attacks against the United States. The people involved deserve our gratitude. They do not deserve to be the targets of political investigations or prosecutions. President Obama’s decision to allow the Justice Department to investigate and possibly prosecute CIA personnel, and his decision to remove authority for interrogation from the CIA to the White House, serves as a reminder, if any were needed, of why so many Americans have doubts about this Administration’s ability to be responsible for our nation’s security.”

Intelligence gathering is our main weapon in the war on terror–to handicap it is foolish and dangerous.

ABC News is reporting today that CIA Director Leon Panetta is threatening to resign.  According to the article, CIA spokesman George Little stated that the report was “wrong, inaccurate, bogus and false.”   Not so fast.

The article states:

“Panetta was reportedly upset over plans by Attorney General Eric Holder to open a criminal investigation of allegations that CIA officers broke the law in carrying out certain interrogation techniques that President Obama has termed “torture…”

“Another source of contention for Panetta was today’s public release of an investigation by the CIA inspector general on the first two years of the agency’s interrogation and detention program. The report has been delayed by an internal administration debate over how much of the report should be kept secret.”

As I said, I am not a fan of Leon Panetta, but it looks as if he is trying to protect the CIA.  He was not in charge of the organization during the time period that is being investigated, so any findings will not affect him.  Mr. Panetta is simply trying to protect the CIA from partisan politics, and that is in the best interest of American security.

I am in total agreement with the concept that celebrities need a certain amount of privacy, but I also agree that people eating in a restaurant have their basic rights also.

On August 7, Page Six of the New York Post reported that when Mrs. Obama and her two daughters stopped at Spike Mendelsohn‘s Good Stuff Eatery in DC for cheeseburgers, the cell phones were confiscated from patrons at the restaurant in order to avoid anyone taking pictures of the First Lady and her children.  That’s awful.  If the First Lady does not want pictures of her or her children taken by people around them, she should avoid public places.  There are no laws against having a cell phone in a restaurant (although sometimes there should be!).  This oversteps the basic rights of people out innocently eating in a restaurant.  I wonder what would have happened if anyone had refused to turn their cell phone over.

Planet Gore at National Review has a post about the adventures of someone who has driven an electric car.  He points out that once your lithium battery runs down, you have ‘a tiny engine pulling a big car with a dead battery–you’ll be the worst car on the road.’

The friend of the writer recounds his adventures in a Telsa roadster:

“After a few days of motoring around without recharging, I drove to San Francisco to conduct some interviews and suddenly realized that I had only forty miles left on the battery’s original 240-mile charge. So I drove to my sister’s house and plugged the car into a 110-volt outlet in her garage. Two hours later, the car had gained nine miles. On Highway 101 back to Menlo Park, I eyed the gauge the whole way, trying to suss out the optimal energy-conserving speed. . . . When I arrived at my hotel and left the car in its parking lot, which, like almost all the world’s parking lots at the moment, lacks charging equipment, I had nine miles to spare: exactly the amount I’d gained through my sister’s outlet. The next morning, magically, the car’s battery had gained eight more miles. This seemed worrisome, somehow.”

There is an entire infrastructure that we will have to redo in order to move away from the gasoline engine.  Somewhere in the process, we need to realize that electricity is energy too.  Consider the fact that according to Energy Information Administration, in the past two years half of our electricity has come from coal.  With this fact in mind, does an electric car produce any less total pollution that a gasoline-powered car?

Jeff Jacoby in today’s Boston Globe has posted and editorial asking Senator Kennedy to resign.  He points out the Senator’s recent efforts to change the law in Massachusetts so that the Governor will appoint his replacement when he leaves office, rather than leave the state with only one Senator until an election can be held.  It all sounds very noble until you remember that up until 2004 the law stated that the Governor would appoint a Senator if a Senate seat became vacant for some reason.  Senator Kennedy strongly campaigned to change that law in case John Kerry was elected President–he did not want a Republican Governor appointing Senator Kerry’s replacement.  Now we have a Democrat Governor so it’s different.  Do we have to change the law every time the Governorship changes parties?

Anyway, Mr. Jacoby points out that:

“For well over a year, Massachusetts has not had the “two voices . . . and two votes in the Senate” that Kennedy says its voters are entitled to. Sickness has kept him away from Capitol Hill for most of the last 15 months. He has missed all but a handful of the 270 roll-calls taken in the Senate so far this year. Through no fault of his own, he is unable to carry out the job he was reelected to in 2006. As a matter of integrity, he should bow out and allow his constituents to choose a replacement.”

It is somewhat disingenuous to change the law according to which pollitical party holds the governorship.  I really don’t care which way the law is written–both ways of replacing a Senator have problems–look at what Illinois has gone through in the past year!  I do wish, however, that once the law is written, it will stay that way, regardless of who is sitting in the governor’s mansion.

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

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

** This report only dates back to 1999

*** This report only dates back to 2001

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

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

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

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

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

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

What goes around comes around.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article further points out:

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

I agree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Politico is reporting:

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

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

Meanwhile, the American Thinker reports:

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

 

1.  ClassicalIdeals.com

2.  DefendYourHealthcare.us

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to the article:

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

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

Do we trust these people with our healthcare?

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

According to Bloomberg:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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