CBS News reported yesterday on worries about President Obama’s safety.  They are concerned that objections to the healthcare bill are fomenting racial hatred and danger for the President.  I’m not disputing the fact that there are people in this country that are ‘over the line,’ but those people have always been with us.  That is why we have people in charge of protecting the President.  But the change in tone in the press over the past few years is interesting.

In 2006 the film DEATH OF A PRESIDENT premiered at the 2006 Toronto International Film Festival on September 10.  It dealt with the assassination of George W. Bush, who was President at the time.

According to Wikipedia:

“Of the critics who liked Death of a President, in the New York Observer, Rex Reed
identified the film as “Clever, thoughtful, and totally believable.
This is a film without a political agenda that everyone should see”.^[14] In the Toronto Star newspaper, Peter Howell said, “The film’s deeper intentions … elevate it into the company of such landmark works of historical argument as Peter Watkins‘s The War Game, Costa-Gavras‘s Z and, closer to home, Michel Brault‘s Les Ordres. Every thinking person should see Death of a President “.^[15] I”

We as Americans should always be concerned about our President’s safety–it should not only be a concern when the President is someone the press supports.

I will admit to being a political junkie.  I follow political campaigns and listen to what is said.  Sometimes I think there are some really good ideas put out, but I am more than a little cynical about ever seeing any campaign promise actually kept.  Well, here’s another one.

The Hill is reporting that pork barrel (earmark) spending has increased in 2009.  According to the article:

“Earmarks, which are inserted in appropriations bills by members in
order to fund specific projects, added up to $19.9 billion in 2009,
according to an analysis by the Taxpayers for Common Sense and Center
for Responsive Politics. Earmarks in 2008 spending bills were worth
$18.3 billion.”

According to the article:

“The member of Congress to win the most earmark money was Cochran, whose
earmarks added up to $1.22 billion. They included funds for repairs to
hurricane damage at an Army ammunition plant and for construction at
the University of Mississippi School of Pharmacy.

“The House
member with the most earmark money was Rep. Dave Loebsack (D-Iowa),
whose earmarks totaled $217 million. Many of Loebsack’s earmarks were
also requested by Iowa’s two senators, Tom Harkin (D) and Chuck
Grassley (R).”

Term limits, anyone?

Charles Krauthammer has a post at RealClearPolitics about the healthcare debate and the idea that better preventative medicine will cut costs.  Charles Krauthammer has a stong medical background and is very well informed on healthcare in America.  He points out that the original justification for totally redesigning American healthcare was the fact that healthcare costs were bankrupting our economy.  When the Congressional Budget Office released a report stating that President Obama’s healthcare plans would add $ 1.6 trillion dollars to the federal budget–not reduce costs, that claim became obsolete.  So they changed the rationale to the fact the better preventative care provided for in the bill would save us money.  Mr. Krauthammer points out:

“Reform proponents repeat this like a mantra. Because it seems so
intuitive, it has become conventional wisdom. But like most
conventional wisdom, it is wrong. Overall, preventive care increases medical costs.

“This inconvenient truth comes, once again, from the CBO. In an Aug.
7 letter to Rep. Nathan Deal, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf writes:
“Researchers who have examined the effects of preventive care generally
find that the added costs of widespread use of preventive services tend
to exceed the savings from averted illness.””

Again, the justification for this bill turns out to be false, as are most of the claims put out by supporters of  the bill.  Yahoo News is reporting that the end-of-life counseling program has been dropped from the bill by the Senate Finance Committee.  At the same time, the President is claiming that provision was never there.  This is not a bill to rush through Congress–this is a bill that needs to be carefully examined and changed drastically.

Just for the record, the three main causes of the increases in American medical expenses are:

1.  Medicare has negotiated agreements with hospitals to obtain services at a fraction of the hospital cost.  The hospital then charges private insurance more to make up the difference.  The healthcare bill will not change this–it will only make it worse, eventually causing hospitals to close or limit their services.

2.  Preventative medicine is practiced to the extreme as a defense against lawsuits.  One lawsuit can bankrupt a practice.

3.  The cost of medical malpractice insurance has gone totally out of control.  This could be addressed by tort reform, which is not in the current healthcare bill.

It’s time to scrap the current bill and deal with the actual problems!

Just in case you haven’t heard of them, Minnesotans for Global Warming has posted their theme song on YouTube.  Please follow the link for some great pictures and a fun song!  I can totally understand why someone who lives in northern Minnesota would support global warming!!!

Today’s Wall Street Journal ran an interesting article entitled, “Tax Withholding Is Bad For Democracy.”  The article was written by Charles Murray, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Murray points out that withholding taxes does not give Americans the real picture of how much money they actually pay to the government.

He points out that 1% of American families paid 40% of America’s personal taxes.  He further points out that:

“The families in the rest of the top 5% had family incomes of $160,000
to $410,000. They paid another 20% of total personal income taxes. Now
we’re up to three out of every five dollars in personal taxes paid by
just five out of every 100 American families.”

Because the money is withheld, we don’t really get a sense of how much money is involved.  Mr. Murray also has some suggestions for combining payroll and social security taxes into general taxes withheld, since that is how Congress spends them.  This would not add any additional expense and would end the idea that some naive people have that some of their taxes are actually being saved for their retirement.  This idea is far too sensible for Congress to be willing to consider it!

Yesterday Power Line reported on the President’s town hall meeting in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.  They linked to a report of Channel 9 WMUR in New Hampshire.  Evidently, supporters of President Obama’s healthcare plan were bussed in, waited on the bus, and were directed into the facility by a man with a bullhorn.  Opponents waited outside in the rain.  There is nothing wrong with bringing in people of like political ideas in buses; it’s just a good idea not to accuse your opponents of doing it when you in fact are using the buses! 

According to an article in today’s Los Angeles Times:

“It seems that, despite all the media attention lavished on e-mail appeals to
his supporters, not everyone pushing for President Obama’s embattled healthcare reform plan
these warm August days is an idealistic volunteer in it for the sake of helping
move the country forward and gaining medical attention for millions of uninsured
Americans.

“The website’s large-type headline announces: “Work to Pass Obama’s Healthcare
Plan and Get Paid to Do it! $10-15 hr!”

“It’s a web ad on Craigslist: “You can work for change.
Join motivated staff around the country working to make change happen.
You can make great friends and money along the way. Earn $400-$600 a week.””

Being an informed and involved citizen is a great idea.  But as a child of the 1960’s, paying people to protest just goes against my grain.  If you are not protesting because something is important to you and you have taken the time to become informed, please stay home.

On Tuesday, one of the blogs at the Detroit News reported that Senator Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.), recently appointed to the Senate Energy Committee, stated that:

“Climate change is very real,” she confessed as she embraced cap and
trade’s massive tax increase on Michigan industry – at the same time
claiming, against all the evidence, that it would not lead to an
increase in manufacturing costs or energy prices. “Global warming
creates volatility. I feel it when I’m flying. The storms are more
volatile. We are paying the price in more hurricanes and tornadoes.”

We have had hurricanes and tornadoes for a long time.  Ms. Stabenow is a victim of the twenty-four hour news cycle.  Before the internet and cable tv, no one would have heard that remark other than people who read the Detroit News.  It is scary to me that this woman is on the energy committee.  Her knowledge of science and the scientific process seems rather limited.

The Hill posted an article today on the cost of the Cap and Trade Bill.  According to the article:

“The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) released a study Wednesday that found under a high-cost scenario the House global warming bill could reduce economic growth by 2.4 percent and cost 2 million jobs by 2030.”

Even if you believe in the concept of man affecting the earth’s climate, that is a very high price.  The biggest impact of the bill will be in the manufacturing segment of the economy.  Environmentalists have obviously objected to the numbers in the study.  Part of the difference in the cost is the environmentalists assumption that 95 new nuclear plants would be built by 2030.  NAM and ACCF assumed that only 10 to 25 nuclear plants would be built in the next two decades.   Currently, we are in a 30-year period in which very few new nuclear plants were built; since mid-2007, there have been 17 license applications to build 26 new nuclear reactors. 

Analyses by the EIA, Environmental Protection Agency and Congressional Budget Office can be found here, here and here.  

The current Justice Department seems to be more interested in politics than in doing its job.  Power Line posted an article yesterday with a link to a National Review article by Andrew McCarthy regarding the criminal investigations being launched against CIA interrogators.  Attorney General Eric Holder stated in April that “we’re going to follow the evidence wherever it takes us, follow the law wherever that takes us.”

If this Justice Department is so willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads, why, then, did the Department of Justice drop charges against the Black Panthers in Philadelphia who were intimidating voters?

According to the article in National Review:

“For the Obama/Holder Justice Department, other considerations outweighed following the evidence wherever it led. The Panthers who turned out to be above the law include Jerry Jackson, a credentialed Democratic-party poll-watcher who brays on MySpace about “Killing Crakkkas.” Thanks to Holder’s decision, Jackson is right back in business, having obtained new poll-watcher credentials just days after DOJ dismissed the case.

“The CIA interrogators are having a rougher time with prosecutors than did the Black Panthers. They are retaining counsel and preparing for a lengthy investigation that likely will prove personally and professionally ruinous. The Los Angeles Times reported over the weekend that Holder is close to naming a prosecutor to probe whether the agency and its officers committed criminal misconduct.”

The Attorney General may score a few political points against the George Bush administration by ruining some lives in the intelligence community, but in doing so, he is making us less safe.  The result of this witch hunt will be a timidity in questioning terrorists that will quickly come back to bite us.  Meanwhile, people in America are allowed to intimidate voters to sway elections.  This is not the stuff of which democracy is made.

The information I am citing is from a website called ClassicalIdeals.com.  It is the website of Duke Professor John David Lewis, who studied to bill to find out what it would mean for him and his family.  The following comments are from his website.

A.  pages 284-288, SEC. 1151. REDUCING POTENTIALLY PREVENTABLE HOSPITAL READMISSIONS

1.       This section amends the Social Security Act

2.      The government has the power to determine what constitutes an “applicable [medical] condition.”

3.      The government has the power to determine who is allowed readmission into a hospital.

4.      This determination will be made by statistics: when enough people have been discharged for the same condition, an individual may be readmitted.

5.      This is government rationing, pure, simple, and straight up.

6.      There can be no judicial review of decisions made here. The Secretary is above the courts.

7.      The plan also allows the government to prohibit hospitals from expanding without federal permission: page 317-318.

B.  pages 167-168, section 401, TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE

 

1.      This section amends the Internal Revenue Code.

2.      Anyone caught without acceptable coverage and not in the government plan will pay a special tax.

3.      The IRS will be a major enforcement mechanism for the plan.

 

C.  pages 26-30, SEC. 122, ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE DEFINED

 

1.      The bill defines “acceptable coverage” and leaves no room for choice in this regard.

2.      By setting a minimum 70%  actuarial value of benefits, the bill makes health plans in which individuals pay for routine services, but carry insurance only for catastrophic events, (such as Health Savings Accounts) illegal

This is all I am going to cover here.  Stay tuned for more on what the healthcare legislation being proposed actually says.  There is a lot of misinformation going around about this bill.  We could use some reform in health insurance, but this bill is not it.  There is a bi-partisan bill out there called “The Healthy Americans Act” that is cost neutral and will give us health insurance similar to the way car insurance is handled–portability, etc.  Some of the things in the proposed Democrat healthcare bill are scary and to reveal what is in the bill is not ‘scare tactics’, it is simply telling the truth.  The choice is not between reform and no reform, it is between a good bill and a damaging bill.  

According to a press release by SaratogaMuseum.org, the Juliett 484, a Russian submarine which at one point had been a museum open to the public in Providence, RI, is being taken to the scrap yard to be dismantled and recycled.  The Juliett 484 sank in April of 2007 during a heavy storm.

The press release also states:

“However, Frank Lennon, president of USS Saratoga Museum Foundation, former owners of the sub, has confirmed that the Foundation stands to obtain potentially significant financial benefits from the scrap proceeds.

“This will be a real financial boost to our ongoing efforts to bring the aircraft carrier USS Saratoga to life in Rhode Island as a family attraction, job training center, educational facility and Navy memorial,” said Lennon.”

As the wife of someone who was involved in the Anti-Submarine Warfare of the 1960’s, I look forward to the opening of the Saratoga Museum.     

Yesterday, The Hill reported on a letter sent to President Obama by 71 senators representing some of the leaders of both parties.  The effort to press Arab states to recommit to peace with Israel is led by Sens. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) and Jim Risch (R-Idaho), and is being promoted and circulated by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. 

According to the article:

“A similar, bipartisan letter was sent by 226 House members last week to Saudi Arabia, calling on that country’s leaders to deepen their commitment to peace with Israel.”

I have been opposed to the way this administration has dealt with Israel, and I am delighted that Congress is adding balance to the situation. 

In an editorial published Sunday in the Dubai-based Khaleej Times, Dr, Ghassan Michel Rubeiz reminds us of the peace plan opposed by the Arab nations in 2002.  This Saudi-backed Arab peace plan asks Israel to retreat to 1967 borders, “attain a just solution” to the issue of Palestinian refugees and relinquish East Jerusalem to become capital of a Palestinian state. In return, Arab states promise to normalize relations with Israel.  

This is not a peace plan.  If the 1967 borders were so wonderful, why did the Arabs attack Israel in 1967?  Dr. Rubeiz objected to the letter which essentially said that Israel is working toward peace and the Arab states are not.  I guess my answer to that would be to ask to see the textbooks being currently used to teach Arab children.  What are the children being taught about Jews and the Jewish state?  I suspect that would answer any questions as to whether or not some Arab countries really want peace with Israel.

International diplomacy is very structured dance.  Certain moves mean certain things and certain actions draw preprogrammed responses.  What we actually see is not always what is actually happening, and when a diplomatic breakthrough is announced, chances are it was achieved long before the person announcing it arrived on the scene.  Sometimes what looks like a really good thing in one aspect has undercurrents that are not positive.  That is what happened with the visit to North Korea by President Clinton.

Today’s New York Post has an article by Gordon Cucullu, author of “Separated at Birth: How North Korea Became the Evil Twin.”   The article deals with the implications of the Clinton visit to North Korea.  Mr. Cucullu points out that:

“It didn’t take long to learn at least the first concession. President Obama has broken with past US policy to agree to bilateral talks with North Korea — a diplomatic plum that Kim Jong Il has sought for years, and a major coup in his attempt to nail down the succession of his 26-year-old son, Kim Jong Un.”

Mr. Cucullu also points out that National Security Adviser James Jones has said that no official messages were delivered and no promises made during President Clinton’s visit–it was a private visit.  Mr. Jones also claimed that the bilateral talks were also coordinated with our allies.  Mr. Cucullu points out:

“In fact, genuine coordination would require considerably more diplomacy than could be mounted in the days since Clinton’s return. So it’s most likely we simply informed those “allies” of a fait accompli — a slap in the face for our actual allies (South Korea, Japan), and cause for triumphal smiles for the Chinese and Russians.”

Why are we throwing our friends under the bus and doing things that make our enemies happy?  Have we reached a point in our nation’s history where we close our eyes to the fact that we have enemies? 

On Friday, the jobless rate dropped to 9.4 percent from 9.5 percent and the media celebrated the coming ‘good times’ thanks to the policies of Congress and the White House.  Wow!  Well, Investor’s Business Daily has a slightly different take.

An article in Fridays IBDeditorials points out:

“The plain fact is, a recovery was baked in the cake as 2009 began. The main reason was the Fed went pedal to the metal on money creation in December, slashing its benchmark fed funds rate to zero.

Since then, the monetary base — the most basic money supply controlled by the Fed — has grown at an average yearly rate of nearly 100%. That’s the biggest sustained rise since the Fed began in 1913.

More to the point, the stock market has had a fairly sustained rally since bottoming on March 9. Since then, share prices have added more than $3.6 trillion to shareholder wealth, a chunk of which will likely be spent in coming months.”

The politicians will, of course, take credit for the improved economy, but unfortunately the amount of debt created in the process of ‘stimulating’ the economy will eventually slow it down considerably.  The federal stimulus has amounted to approximately $12 per person.  Somehow, I don’t think that would be enough to reverse the direction of the economy.

Please follow this link to You Tube to hear some of the comments made by the people claiming to represent you that you are not hearing on your network news.

Yesterday’s Washington Post ran a story on Section 1233 of the proposed healthcare bill.  It is the section dealing with giving Medicare patients end-of-life counseling every five years.  Sounds like a good idea, right? 

First of all, let’s look at this from a purely financial angle.  Statistically, most of a persons medical expenses occur in the last year of their life.  This could be the result of age-related issues in an elderly person, an accident in a person of any age, or a serious disease.  It makes sense to have a living will, medical power of attorney, etc.  But why is the government getting involved in this?  More than that, why is the government giving doctors a financial incentive to do this counseling?

According to the article:

“What’s more, Section 1233 dictates, at some length, the content of the consultation. The doctor “shall” discuss “advanced care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to”; “an explanation of . . . living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses” (even though these are legal, not medical, instruments); and “a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families.” The doctor “shall” explain that Medicare pays for hospice care (hint, hint).

Admittedly, this script is vague and possibly unenforceable. What are “key questions”? Who belongs on “a list” of helpful “resources”? The Roman Catholic Church? Jack Kevorkian?”

I think that those of us who want less government in our lives–not more, need to speak up about the plans Congress has for us.  Until they are willing to give up their current healthcare plan and be covered by the plan they propose for us, I’m not in favor of major changes! 

The American Thinker using the Ottawa Citizen as its source, is reporting today that:

“In both the wider, deep-water northern corridor and the narrower, shallower southern branches of the passage, the Canadian Ice Service says pockets of more extensive winter freezing and concentrations of thicker, older ice at several key “choke points” are complicating ship travel.”

“… the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center is predicting another near-record meltdown by the end of this year’s summer thaw.”

Doesn’t anyone ever confront these people with the facts on the ground (or water in this case)?

The sources of this story are an article in the Weekly Standard by an eyewitness to the event and a story at Power Line.

The Weekly Standard has the eyewitness report on the scuffle in St. Louis on Thursday at a Townhall meeting.  It was initially reported on twitter that several Service Employees International Union (SEIU) members (reported by an SEIU member) had been assualted by some Obamacare critics.  The Weekly Standard investigated further and found that some SEIU members had assaulted a man who was giving out flags with “Don’t Tread On Me” on them at the event.  The Weekly Standard points out:

“On Twitter last night, there was a clear effort from liberals to portray any scuffles from last night’s town halls as the inevitable violent eruption of right-wing mob members, but it is interesting that there was no violence until the night liberal interest group HCAN and Dem members of Congress started calling in union members to “protect” them and host these events. It’s also interesting that the only documented cases of violence thus far seem to be going one way. The Slapper, seen on Drudge and in these pictures (9-17), is local Tampa Democratic operative Karen Miracle.”

Power Line reports:

“Jim Hoft documents the contribution of the friends of Barack Obama to the doings outside the Rep. Russ Carnahan townhall in St. Louis yesterday. The friends of Barack Obama also turned up yesterday at the townhall featuring Rep. Kathy Castor outside Tampa Bay, Florida.

The mainstream media will dutifully report the emergence of Obama’s thugs as representing a lapse in civility on the part of those who are revolting against Obamacare. The truth is that it represents the imposition of “the Chicago way” on the resistance.” 

The union representatives are not at these meetings to protect the politicians–they are there as a scare tactic to anyone opposing Obama’s healthcare legislation.  This is about as far from free speech in a democracy that we as a free country have ever been.  We as a people need to peacefully voice our opinions now at these townhall meetings and next year at the ballot box.

Please follow the link to amaze.fm to hear the song “Grandma Got Run Over By Obamacare.”  It is priceless!!

I finally found a pdf copy of the House of Representatives healthcare bill I could download.  I am not about to print all 1,100 pages, but I am going to copy parts of the bill and post them here.  This is not ‘fishy’ information–it will be taken directly from the bill.

From Page 58:

5 ”(D) enable the real-time (or near real6

time) determination of an individual’s financial

7 responsibility at the point of service and, to the

8 extent possible, prior to service, including

9 whether the individual is eligible for a specific

10 service with a specific physician at a specific fa11

cility, which may include utilization of a ma12

chine-readable health plan beneficiary identi13

fication card;

 

That sounds to me like healthcare rationing.  I don’t want the government determining whether or not I can get a knee replacement!

Page 16 of the House Of Representatives Healthcare Bill

(A) IN GENERAL.–Except as provided in

12 this paragraph, the individual health insurance

13 issuer offering such coverage does not enroll

14 any individual in such coverage if the first ef15

fective date of coverage is on or after the first

16 day of Y1.

LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR

22 CONDITIONS.–Subject to paragraph (3) and except

23 as required by law, the issuer does not change any

24 of its terms or conditions, including benefits and

25 cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day be26

fore the first day of Y1.

In English, this means the end of private health insurance coverage.  Your private insurance coverage will be grandfathered in as long as there are no changes.  The minute any change is made, the company will not be allowed to write a new policy.  If a dependent is added, the co-payment is changed, or the premium changes, a new policy cannot be written.  President Obama is lying when he says that we will all be able to keep our private insurance (or else he doesn’t know what is in the bill).  This is not ‘fishy information’–it was taken from a downloaded pdf file of the bill!

Power Line is reporting today on the first conference in 20 years held by the Fatah Party of Palestine.  The article reports:

“Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas cited the widespread use of seat belts by Palestinian drivers as evidence of the advance of the rule of law in the territories.”

I guess you have to start somewhere.  Also, the General Assembly of Fatah unanimously approved a resolution to investigate the cause of death of Yassar Arafat.  The article also pointed out:

“Khaled Abu Toameh reported that “many Fatah operatives, including some of Abbas’s closest allies in Ramallah, have made it known that they would oppose any move to abandon the ‘armed struggle’ option.” Moreover, “Fatah leaders responded with loud applause when two terrorists who committed the worst terror attack in Israel’s history were referred to as heroic martyrs by former PA Prime Minister Abu AlaaIndeed.”” 

Don’t expect peace as long as the Fatah party is in power in Palestine–they are still committed to killing innocent Israeli civilians.  That is not a recipe for peace.

Sonia Sotomayer was confirmed yesterday as a Supreme Court Justice. The Wall Street Journal points out in an article today that she was questioned closely, but treated fairly.  Her confirmation was opposed by nine Republicans, but she was treated respectfully during the process.  Hopefully her confirmation will set the example for future confirmations when the Republicans are in power.  I doubt it, but that would be nice.

There are questions about Ms. Sotomayer’s objectivity as a judge, but since she is a liberal-leaning judge replacing a liberal-leaning judge, I don’t see that as a problem.  I am more concerned about the rumors concerning her temperament in the court.  We shall see in October.

The AARP has come out in favor of President Obama’s healthcare proposal despite the fact that passage of the program may be detrimental to the health of its members.  One thing to remember when dealing with Senior Citizens is that many of them pay close attention to what is going on politically.  They are not tied down with the responsibilities of working, raising a family, and everything that goes with that, and often have the time to pay attention.  The AARP’s endorsement of the currently proposed healthcare reform has not been well received by its members.

The Washington Examiner is reporting today that AARP members are beginning to voice opposition to the position taken by the leadership of the organization.  You Tube has a video of what happened at a recent AARP meeting in Dallas, Texas, when the AARP tried to sell their support of Obamacare.  These are not the Brooks Brothers protesters as charged by some Democrats–they are sincerely interested Senior Citizens voicing their opinions.  The AARP eventually left the meeting because they encountered opposition.  The video is amazing.  Democracy at work!!  Sometimes it isn’t pretty, but it works!!

Townhall.com is reporting today that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, speaking in Kenya, says it is a “great regret” that the United States is not a member of the International Criminal Court.

The purpose of the court is to try people for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity when national courts are unwilling to do so.  The U. S. refused to sign on to the Court in 2002, fearing that soldiers looking for terrorists would be subject to prosecution because of international politics.

In deciding whether or not to join the International Criminal Court, we need to look at what the United Nations has become.  The United Nations began with the idea of peace and justice throughout the world.  It has become a place where brutal dictators head the human rights committee.  If the Court were run by countries with democratic governments, it would probably work, as the trials after World War II worked.  The Allied Forces after World War II were (with the exception of Russia) democratic governments.  They ran fair, non-political trials and dispensed justice.  There are too few powerful democracies in the world today to ensure that would be the case.  Consider that Israel has repeatedly been condemned by the UN, while Islamic suicide bombers are not even criticized!