Power Line posted an article yesterday on what has been happening in Iraq as we begin to focus on Afghanistan.  Remember how the Democrats squawked about how we took our eye off of Afghanistan and went to Iraq.  They are doing that in reverse now.  We had pretty much won in Iraq by January of this year, and now things are going downhill rapidly.  No one believes we are serious about supporting freedom in that country.  April of this year was the worse month for Iraqi deaths since July of 2008, when that number was rapidly dropping.  The number of deaths in April numbered twice what the January and February number was.  The article reports:

“Moreover, the Washington Post reports that the al Qaeda pipeline from Syria is “back in business” after a “lull.”

“None of this is surprising. With the U.S. disengaging militarily, Iraqi militias, insurgents, etc. have every reason to become emboldened and to begin jockeying for an enhanced military position. And with President Obama taking a soft line on Syria (and, indeed, exploring a “dialogue” with that terror supporting state), the Syrians no longer have much reason to fear paying a price for promoting instability in Iraq.”

Nancy Pelosi has promised that we will pay an intense political role as we diminish our military presence.  This is the same sort of thinking that Democrats used when they cut the funding to South Vietnam and the country fell (after they had essentially won their freedom).  There is a book out by the commander of the North Vietnam forces that tells the story of how the Vietnam War was won by America, then given away to North Vietnam.  The killing fields followed.  If President Obama does not begin to realize who America’s friends are and who America’s enemies are, we will have another killing field in Iraq.  We will also have an exposion of terrorism in this country and around the world.

According to yesterday’s Washington Post, the John P. Murtha-Johnstown airport (in Johnstown, Pennsylvania) will receive $800,000 in stimulus funds to repave the airport’s alternate runway.  According to the article:

“The Washington Post reported last month on more than $150 million in federal funds that Murtha directed to the airport, which has six arriving and departing flights per day. Among the improvements, Murtha directed the Pentagon to give the airport a new, $8 million, state-of-the-art radar tower that has not been used since it was built in 2004, and $30 million for a new runway and tarmac so the airport could handle large military planes and become an emergency military base in case of crisis.”

If we ever want to have an accountable government in Washington, we need term limits.  This is ridiculous.  To spend this kind of money on an airport that has six flights a day is insane.  If they need to repave the alternate runway, they need to find the money to do it themselves!

I am not a big fan of Donald Trump, but I am impressed with the way he handled this one.  According to Politico.com, this is the comment he made on her answer to the question regarding gay marriage:

“It’s the same answer that the president of the United States gave,” Trump said. “She gave an honorable answer. She gave an answer from her heart.”

I am impressed.  That is the wisdom of Solomon.  If you condemn her, you have to condemn the President, whom the press loves.  However, (there’s always a however) I want to take another look at the whole dust-up.

Miss California was a contestant in a beauty pageant–this was not a political talk show.  She answered graciously and gently that her personal view of marriage was the traditional one.  The majority of Americans agree with her.  Her state just passed a law stating that belief.  She has been treated very badly on the blog of the judge who asked the question.  She has been accused of all manor of things, and generally, has not been treated kindly by the press.  An innocent, honest comment has put her in a spotlight she was not seeking.  This incident shows how people with unpopular (unpopular in the press) beliefs are currently being treated by the press.  It is a subtle intimidation.  We are walking down a road that is in danger of being patrolled by thought police.

Thank you, Donald Trump, for standing up for free speech, because that is what I believe you did today!

The Washington Times has a story this morning about a letter from the U.S. government to Great Britain stating:

“If it is determined that [her majesty’s government] is unable to protect information we provide to it, even if that inability is caused by your judicial system, we will necessarily have to review with the greatest care the sensitivity of information we can provide in the future.”

The U. S. government is upset with the British because they are preparing to release a summary of the treatment of Binyam Mohamed at Guantanamo (a prisoner who was released in February).  Some things we need to remember–part of terrorist training is to say that you have been (or are being) abused as soon as you can get to the press, the Red Cross and the Department of Defense both determined that prisoners at Guantanamo were treated fairly.  Mr. Mohamed says he was tortured while in U.S., Pakistani and Moroccan custody.

This is the can of worms President Obama opened when he released the ‘torture memos’.  He has still refused to release the memos that show the plots that were prevented because of ‘enhanced interrogation’.  Mr. Mohamed and others have filed a civil lawsuit against Jeppesen Dataplan, which is accused of supplying the equipment and personnel used to transport prisoners among nations.  It should come as no surprise to anyone that the ACLU is representing Mr. Mohamed in this case.

I would also like to point out that with the Obama Administration in place, our enemies are being treated better than our friends.  Israel is being thrown under the bus in favor of Iran, and Britain has not been treated well from the beginning.  Promises made to allies to help with missle defense are being broken.  Right now it does not pay to be a friend of America.

I apologize in advance to people who are reading this who don’t do numbers, but that is the easiest way to explain what is about to be attempted in regard to American healthcare.  My statistics come from an article at National Review written by John C. Goodman.

The article begins by discussing the cost of healthcare in America.  The author points out that raw statistics on the dollar amount spend are misleading.  For example, some other countries use to government to limit the income of doctors, nurses, and hospital personnel–that makes the cost of healthcare in their country look smaller–people are paying less–but actually, part of the reason for the lower cost is the people who are paid less because of government intervention.

The results of American healthcare are more positive than where healthcare is run by the government.  According to the article:

“The largest international study to date found that the five-year survival rate for all types of cancer among both men and women was higher in the U.S. than in Europe.”

In discussing accessibility of healthcare in America, the article points out:

“Britain has only one-fourth as many CT scanners per capita as the U.S., and one-third as many MRI scanners. The rate at which the British provide coronary-bypass surgery or angioplasty to heart patients is only one-fourth the U.S. rate, and hip replacements are only two-thirds the U.S. rate. The rate for treating kidney failure (dialysis or transplant) is five times higher in the U.S. for patients between the ages of 45 and 84, and nine times higher for patients 85 years or older…Studies show that only 5 percent of Americans wait more than four months for surgery, compared with 23 percent of Australians, 26 percent of New Zealanders, 27 percent of Canadians, and 36 percent of Britons.”

In the area of preventive care, Americans also fare better than government programs in other countries.  For example, in Canada proportion of middle-aged who have never had a mammogram is twice that of the U.S., and three times as many Canadian women as American women have never had a Pap smear.  The article further states:

“…the mortality rate in Canada is 25 percent higher for breast cancer, 18 percent higher for prostate cancer, and 13 percent higher for colorectal cancer. In addition, while half of all diabetics have high blood pressure, it is controlled in 36 percent of U.S. cases, compared with only 9 percent of cases in Canada.”

The article has further statistics on access to healthcare in America and the role of wealth in healthcare in America and in other countries. 

The bottom line is simple.  We have very good healthcare in this country that is generally available to all citizens.  There is room for improvement, but a government-controlled system is not improvement.  I know it is being said that private healthcare will remain, but that is a myth.  As soon as the government begins to pressure healthcare providers to charge less under its system, private insurance will be forced to raise its prices to make up for the difference in cost and will be driven from the marketplace.  I would also like to remind everyone reading this about the history of the cost of government programs.  None of them ever decrease in cost.  I live in Massachusetts, the last estimate I heard on the cost of the ‘big dig’ (the new traffic routing system in Boston) was that it would eventually cost about $22 billion dollars.  When it was started, we were told it would cost $2.8 billion.  I have one final question.  “What has the government ever done really well?

The videos of the White House Correspondents’ Dinner are all over the internet.  If you choose to watch a video, it won’t be hard to find.  I am not going to link to one–I find the comments made not deserving of repetition.  One of the shortest and to-the-point comments on the dinner can be found at The Corner at National Review.  It is a simple review of the evening by Jonah Goldberg.  The only thing I would add is that President Obama promised to bring civility back to politics in Washington, D. C.  The comments made at this dinner were a definite step in the opposite direction.  There should be an apology issued from the White House–wishing your political opponents a slow, painful death is neither civil or funny.  It is sad that the Democrat party will not call out its supporters when they cross the line of civilized behavior.

Today’s New York Post has posted a commentary by John Bolton about the possible prosecution of members of the George Bush administration by the Spanish government.  The lawyers in the Bush Administration are being charged with torture for using ‘harsh interrogation techniques’ on terrorists.  President Obama has done nothing to stop this and has made no negative comments that I am aware of about what is happening here.  According to the article: 

“Despite uncertainties here, developments overseas proceed apace. Spanish Magistrate Baltasar Garzon recently opened a formal probe of six Bush administration lawyers for their roles in advising on interrogation techniques. Garzon did so over the objections of Spain’s attorney general. Under Spain’s inquisitorial judicial system, Garzon is essentially unaccountable, whatever the views of the elected government.”

There is a danger here to American sovereignty.  Do we want governments of other countries second-guessing our President’s decisions?  The aim of this investigation is to intimidate American leaders into not making the hard decisions that need to be made to keep our country safe.  Remember, the Spanish people are not heroes in the war on terror.  As soon as they suffered a horrific terror attack in March of 2004, they withdrew their troops from Afghanistan and essentially withdrew from the war on terror.  All of us in the western world need to be aware that the only way we will defeat terrorism is to act in unity.  The goal of the rather small percentage of Muslims who are terrorists is to bring the entire world under Muslim control (Sharia law).  That impacts all western countries–not just us.

What President Obama needs to remember is that the same Spanish court that is going after President Bush will come after him in four or eight years.  America, and only America has the right to make decisions on how to protect our country from terrorism.

Yesterday’s New York Times ran an op-ed piece by Vaclav Havel was the president of the Czech Republic from 1993 to 2003.  Today the United Nations General Assembly will vote to fill the vacancies on the 47-member Human Rights Council.   According to the article:

“Only 20 countries are running for 18 open seats. The seats are divided among the world’s five geographic regions and three of the five regions have presented the same number of candidates as there are seats, thus ensuring there is no opportunity to choose the best proponents of human rights each region has to offer.”

Three years ago, the UN made a commitment to create an organization able to protect victims and confront human rights abuses wherever they occur.  The original United Nations Commission on Human Rights was ended in 2006 because it had allowed countries who committed human rights violations to block any action on them.  This new Council was supposed to take human rights records into account when voting for members.  However, the new Council includes Cuba, China, and Saudi Arabia.  I guess they didn’t reach their goal.

I admire the good will of the writer toward the UN, but considering the UN track record on human rights, I see no reason to expect things to change.  Unfortunately, the UN no longer stands for freedom and does not uphold democracy and human rights.  I think it is time to ask the UN to give its building back to the people of New York City and move elsewhere.

Paul Mirengoff at Power Line has an interesting article on the fact that the Obama Administration (like the Bush Administration) is not willing to take action to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons.  That’s where the resemblance ends.

This week Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoelle asked Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.  It is suspected that Israel has had nuclear weapons for some time, and the idea here is to say that because Israel has nuclear weapons it is ok for Iran to have them.  Nice idea, but it doesn’t line up with the facts.  Israel has never questioned Iran’s right to exist and has never threatened to blow Iran off the face of the earth.  Ahmadinejad of Iran does both frequently.

President Obama has stated that until the Palestinians have their state, he is not willing to tackle the problem of Iranian nuclear weapons.  Evidently he feels that with a new terrorist state in place right beside Israel, the nuclear weapons issue will solve itself.  Sure.  A two-state solution for Israel and Palestine would be a good idea if the Palestinians were willing to form a functioning state with a functioning government.  So far they have destroyed infrastructure that would have generated income rather than increase it.  They have used the money they have received in foreign aid to buy weapons and they have chosen not to function as a state.  Why do we think giving them more land and calling them a state is going to change that?  Future behavior can be predicted based on past behavior.   Anyone who has raised children knows that.

My prediction on this is very simple.  At some point in the near future Iran will have nuclear weapons, and it will use them on Israel (and if they can develop a delivery method, on the US).  Unless Israel takes out their reactors, this will happen.  If Israel takes out their reactors, the civilized world will condemn Isreal while secretly breathing a sigh of relief.  That’s where we are.

Yesterday’s UK Telegraph ran an article with the headline “Barack Obama’s rich supporters fear his tax plans show he’s a class warrior.”  No kidding.  The article goes on to say that wealthy businessmen and investors supported Barack Obama’s presidential campaign and now are surprised by his anti-Wall Street rhetoric.  One hedgefund manager who was a top fundraiser for the Obama campaign commented that the rhetoric was OK on the campaign trail, but now we are in the real world. 

Part of this has to do with the American media, but part of it has to do with the American voters.  President Obama made no secret during his campaign that he wanted to ‘return America’s wealth to its rightful owners’.  That alone should have told businessmen all they needed to know.  There is nothing in that statement about earning wealth or creating businesses that generate it–it is just about transferring wealth.

The article also points out:

“Mr Obama made no secret of his plans to raise taxes on the “working rich” (individuals earning more than $200,000) by imposing a top income tax rate of almost 40 per cent, and there is little surprise that those plans remain on track, even during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

But Democratic opposition is building in Congress to many of the President’s proposals. A plan to reduce tax deductions for charitable gifts by richer people may have to be scrapped, because the charitable sector – which includes hospitals, museums and voluntary service groups – depends heavily on tax-deducted donations.”

The tax hikes were all discussed during the Presidential campaign.  For whatever reason, Americans chose to ignore the fact that historically raising taxes in a recession deepens the recession.  President Obama spent $787 billion on the stimulus package and passed a $3.5 trillion budget through Congress.  He has to find a way to pay for these things.  Corporations are going to bear the brunt of this burden and consumer prices and unemployment will increase as these corporations pay higher taxes.  Meanwhile, he has found jobs for 800 people–they will be working for the IRS to make sure everyone pays his fair share of the tax burden.

I don’t have buyer’s remorse–I didn’t vote for the man, but I suspect it’s going to be a long four years! 

According to a German newspaper, Deutsche Welle, German Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble has stated that Washington has not provided him with enough information for him to act on resettling Guantanamo inmates in Germany.  Washington had asked German to resettle nine Chinese Muslims (Uighurs) held at Guantanamo.  We are not willing to send them back to China for fear that they will be killed or tortured.

Bavarian Interior Minister Joachim Herrmann is opposed to taking in any of the Uighur detainees.  The article goes on to explain:

“…security intelligence showed seven of the nine Uighurs reportedly being considered for resettlement in Germany had been trained in camps of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) and had contacts to militant Islamist organisations.”

These are the terrorists President Obama originally wanted to release in northern Virginia and provide financial aid for their resettlement.  Is it any surprise that the countries of the world are not interested in bringing trained terrorists into their country? 

There are two options in dealing with captured terrorists (men that you are sure are trained terrorists)–you can kill them on the spot or you can ship them to Guantanamo where they cannot do any damage to innocent civilians.  If you close down Guantanamo, you are going to see more terrorists shot in combat situations rather than taken prisoner.  No country with an eye for its own safety and the safety of its civilian population is going to want to take in a person who is known to have terrorist training. 

James C. Capretta & Yuval Levin at The Weekly Standard have published a very detailed explanation of what is in store for us if President Obama’s healthcare program is passed.  The basics of the program seem harmless, but the consequences are not.

1.  Employers would be required to provide healthcare for employees of pay a fine.  The money paid as a fine would be used to support the creation of a new government-run insurance option.  They would be setting up the mechanics for people without jobs or the money for private health insurance to obtain it.  So far, so good.  This is for the purpose of transition.  The idea here is to make it cheaper for an employer to pay the fine than to provide health insurance, thus phasing out private coverage.  This creates more people opting for the public plans.  It gives the illusion of choice while quietly making the choice more difficult to fund.

2.  The Obama plan puts the government in charge of deciding what healthcare is appropriate for whom.  This is dangerous.  The statistic you need to look at before deciding on government healthcare is the cancer survival rate in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom.  Those statistics tell us all we need to know.

The summation of the article states:

“Conservatives can make it clear they support reform. But they must make it even clearer that the Democrats’ plan would displace tens of millions of happily insured Americans and exacerbate the worst elements of the current system: gross inefficiency, high costs, and bureaucracy. President Obama and his congressional allies are pursuing a mammoth, complex, hugely expensive, ill-designed reform that is not likely to be popular when understood. Conservatives have a very real chance at stopping it if they highlight its key weaknesses and supply a superior alternative.”

Government healthcare will eventually hurt us all.  We need to oppose it early and often!!

Michael Barone posted an article at Real Clear Politics yesterday about the Chrysler bankruptcy.  He talked about bankruptcy lawyer Tom Lauria, who has gone public about the pressure the White House has put on one of his clients to agree to terms in this backruptcy that were detrimental to that firms investors.  The sticking point is that the agreement that President Obama wants would give the secured creditors of Chrysler about 33 cents on the dollar while giving the unsecured creditors (the United Auto Workers retirees) 50 cents on the dollar. 

One of the basic principles of bankruptcy law is that secured creditors (who loaned money only on the contractual promise that if the debt was unpaid they’d get specific property back)  get paid off in full before unsecured creditors get anything.  Michael Barone states in his article:

“Think carefully about what’s happening here. The White House, presumably car czar Steven Rattner and deputy Ron Bloom, is seeking to transfer the property of one group of people to another group that is politically favored. In the process it is setting aside basic property rights in favor of rewarding the United Auto Workers for the support the union has given the Democratic Party. The only possible limit on the White House’s power is the bankruptcy judge, who might not go along.”

This is illegal.  It is against the law.  The administration has already begun to denouce the bondholders who have not gone along with this proposed illegal agreement.  This is an abuse of Presidential power and needs to be dealt with quickly.  Hopefully the bankruptcy judge will choose to follow the law and the Constitution (which he and the President have sworn to uphold).

Scott Johnson at Power Line has the summation of the Nancy Pelosi denial of knowledge of waterboarding at his website. He references the Washington Post report:

“Intelligence officials released documents this evening saying that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was briefed in September 2002 about the use of harsh interrogation tactics against al-Qaeda prisoners, seemingly contradicting her repeated statements over the past 18 months that she was never told that these techniques were actually being used.”

There is no seeming contradiction–her repeated statements do not line up with the hard facts.  Either the evidence or her explanation is untrue.  This is the link to the photocopies of the meeting’s agenda at Politico.com.

The ruckus about prosecuting the lawyers who advised President Bush is dying down–has anyone other than the blogosphere noticed that President Obama has decided to continue those ‘controversial’ policies.  (See yesterday’s post at rightwinggranny.com).

If you are reading this and not feeling manipulated by the media and the anti-Bush people, you are not paying attention.  Power Line has the summation and updates on the entire sorry situation.  This is not just a normal Congressional lie–this is a bit of political theatre that has been very damaging to our country’s national security.  National security used to be a non-partisan issue, to politicize it is foolish and will eventually hurt all of us.

I have never used this link before and know nothing about it, but the story is intriguing.  According to DEBKAfile, an Iranian air show scheduled for April 18 of this year was cancelled because of a warning to Iran from Russia that Israel might be planning to attack all the aircraft gathered in one place.  This is interesting for a few reasons.

1.  Russia wanted to protect the 140 Iranian fighter-bombers from being destroyed.  Why?

2.  It would make sense that before Israel went after Iran’s nuclear sites, they would have to destroy as much of the air force and ground-to-air missles as possible, so it is not unreasonable to assume they may have considered a strike.

3.  Israel used this tactic to wipe out the Egyptian air force early in the 1967 war.

This is one of the things that reminds us that we live in a very unsafe world.

By now we are all tired of hearing about legal briefs and torture, water boarding and torture, American security and torture, etc., but there is one more thing we all need to be aware of before our eyes glaze over.  Andrew McCarthy at National Review Online points out that in addition to politicizing the issue of interrogation of terrorists, the Obama Administration has just approved the same recommendations they condemned the Bush Administration for.

Lately, we have been hearing about the case of John Demjanjuk.  According to the article:

“…John Demjanjuk, a Nazi collaborator who has been fighting his removal from the United States for years. In a last gasp, Demjanjuk now claims, under the CAT, that his extradition would violate U.S. and international torture law. Given his advanced age, failing health, and expectations of abuse, he contends that extradition to Germany for trial and incarceration will cause him severe pain and suffering.”

CAT is the United Nations Convention Against Torture.  The article further states:

“On April 23 of this year, only a day after Holder — taking his lead from the president — promised to investigate Bybee, Yoo, and other government lawyers, the Justice Department filed a brief in a case called Demjanjuk v. Holder in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Ohio. The brief urges the federal courts to consider the same torture analysis over which Holder is targeting the Bush lawyers with such fanfare. You can read the brief here. [A PDF will have to do: After discussing the Justice Department’s hypocrisy on NRO’s Off the Page, I can no longer locate the brief on the site where I first found it on Sunday.]”

Please read the entire National Review article.  It is very technical, but gives good insight into how political even our national security has become.  We are entering a place that is not good for the security and integrity of our country. 

See the Odd Day website for further details.  It’s a day to be awed by the odd!!

Power Line posted a short article by Paul Mirengoff today dealing with the charges that George Bush’s ‘torture’ policies were a drastic departure from the ‘American’ way.  The article links to a previous Power Line article by Paul detailing the use of ‘torture’ since World War II.  There was no difference in policy–the change was that the political party not in power decided to release classified information in order to make the political party in power look bad.  The actual effect of the release of this information was to make America look bad in the eyes of the world. 

The issue of terrorism during the Bush Administration was the first time in the history of America that a party not in power had used national security as a political issue.  Unfortunately, that is still going on and will continue in the future.  It is a shame that our elected officials are too small as people to put the interests of the country above their own personal gain.

Yesterday’s Washington Examiner reports that the Democrats in the Senate have denied the seniority that Senator Specter had understood was his in return for switching parties.  I guess there is something to the old adage “Get It In Writing!”.  It is also interesting to note that on Monday, Real Clear Politics ran an article by Michael Barone on what the passage of ‘card check’ would mean to the businesses in America.  Arlen Specter has repeatedly stated that he was opposed to both major aspects of ‘card check’. 

Card check has two major provisions–the first is to end the secret ballot in elections by employees of a company to determine whether or not to unionize, the second provision of card check would require, after only 120 days of bargaining, a federal arbitrator to step in and impose a new labor agreement on the company with the recently formed union.  This provision means that the union has no reason to negotiate an agreement in good faith–the government will come in and write the agreement.  Since we currently have a government that is not pro-business, the outcome would probably bankrupt the company.  For example, let’s say a non-union auto manufacturing plant is pushed into unionizing by card check.  The government might impose the same sort of labor contract on that company that the auto unions have imposed on the Detriot auto companies.  The consequences of that would be the end of the company.

Anyway, I hope Senator Specter does not change his mind on opposing card check.  It is obvious that the Democrats are playing hardball with him (denying the ‘promised’ seniority), and it will be interesting to see if he caves.

According to the Washington Times today, the $787 billion in stimulus money is being tracked and overseen by the taxpayers.  Did you know that?  Out of the ten Congressmen who were scheduled to attend the subcommittee’s second meeting, dramatically titled “Follow the Money Part II”, only three bothered to attend.   Reresentative Brad Miller, chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology’s subcommittee on investigations and oversight, has stated that they are enlisting the entire American citizenry to help oversee the program.

Earl Devaney,an ex-cop who is now chairman of the Recovery Act Accountability and Transparency Board, is charged with tracking the torrent of cash now pouring out of federal coffers.  According to the article, Mr. Devaney:

said his board – made up of 10 IGs – has a dual mission: “First, the board is responsible for establishing and maintaining a Web site.” Oh, and second, it’s supposed to “help minimize fraud, waste or mismanagement.”  

Since only three members of the committee bothered to attend the subcommittee meeting, it will be interesting to see how this goes. 

Representative Paul Broun of Georgia, the subcommittee’s ranking Republican, asked, “How do you plan to verify the actual number of jobs created?”

“Sir, we haven’t really received any information about that on the Web site,” Mr. Devaney said.”

Seeing that more than $700 million dollars of taxpayer money is involved here, shouldn’t someone be paying attention and attending meetings?. 

I’m not enough of a computer geek to know how to put the actual video here, so you’ll have to settle for the link.  Please go to You Tube and watch this video.  It made my day!!!  There’s hope for old people!!

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air has a post this morning about the ongoing negotiations between Chrysler and the government regarding bankruptcy.  It’s a complicated post, but the basic idea is that the pressure the government is putting on the secured creditors is contrary to the 5th Amendment.  According to the article:

“The Supreme Court long ago recognized, however, that a secured creditor’s interest in specific property is protected in bankruptcy under the Fifth Amendment. Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford, 295 U.S. 555, 594 (1935). That case involved a Depression-era statute that was intended to help bankrupt farmers avoid losing their land in mortgage foreclosure. The statute in Radford provided that the bankrupt debtor could achieve a release of the security interests either (i) with the lender’s consent, purchasing the property at its then appraised value by making deferred payments for two to six years at statutorily-set interest rates; or (ii) by seeking from the bankruptcy court a stay of the proceedings for up to five years during which time the debtor could use the property by paying a rent set by the court, which payments would be for the benefit of all creditors, with a purchase option at the end of that period. Id. at 856-57.”

That’s more words than I want to think about, but we need to pay attention to this.  One of the problems with our current government is that there are NO checks and balances on the power of the federal government right now.  The news media is not acting as a check and Congress is not acting as a check.  This is dangerous to us as a country.  According to the article at Hot Air, the purpose of the ruling by the Supreme Court was to prevent the government from paying off politically-connected unsecured creditors ahead of the senior creditors.  That is exactly what President Obama is attempting to do.  Keep in mind the amount of money the Democrats receive from Unions and the discussion of how to handle Chrysler becomes one of political patronage–not of economics. 

Today’s Los Angeles Times has a great op-ed piece by Johah Goldberg looking at the corruption level of the current Congress.  He points out that the Democrat party took back Congress and the White House on claims that they would end the corruption in both places and be ethical and transparent.  Well, it hasn’t really worked out that way.

The list is fairly well-known–a treasury secretary and house member with tax problems, a sweetheart mortgage for a Senator–there’s more, read the article to see specifics.  But that really isn’t the point. 

Jonah Goldberg points to the real source of the problem–corruption is inevitable when people in government have too much discretion in spending our money.  Instead of looking to the public market for its profits, business has to look to Washington (part of the cost of products made in America is the cost any large corporation has to pay for Washington lobbyists to protect their interests).  As the government takes over more of the private sector, the culture of corruption will continue to grow within government.  This is the reason we do not want the government to take over our healthcare or the student loan program.  That will only provide more opportunity for mischief!