This Seems Rather Ironic To Me

Last Tuesday the International Business Times posted an article reporting that the College Board has announced that all students taking the SAT and ACT tests will be required to provide their photo ID’s on their applications.

The new rule was triggered by a cheating scandal on Long Island which involved about twenty students who paid people $500 to $3,600 to take the SAT or ACT for them.

The article reports the plan for increasing security at the test sites:

For the photo IDs, students that wish to take the tests will be required to upload or mail in a photo of themselves upon registering for either test. In return, the student will receive an admission ticket into the testing site with a copy of their scanned photo, which won’t be printed directly on the admission ticket, but on the test site roster, so it can be checked against the photo ID that the student provides at the test center itself. The same photo will be attached to the students’ scores.

That is a really good idea. When are we going to get smart and apply the picture ID standard to voting in America? How many voter fraud cases will be needed to convince people that identification is needed for voters?

Enhanced by Zemanta

About This Surcharge Thing…

There are so many twists and turns written into Obamacare that it is hard to follow all of them. Somehow I suspect it was designed that way. Based on what I have seen in the past month or so, it seems that Congress passed a skeleton of a law (if 2700 pages can be considered a skeleton) and then asked Kathleen Sibelius (Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS)) to write the law for them. I will admit that I don’t much care for her writing.

David French posted an article at the website of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) recently that puts some of the recent debate on contraception and abortion in focus. Mr. French cites three basic aspects of Obamacare and how those aspects impact federal funding of abortion.

1. Under Obamacare everyone is required to purchase healthcare insurance.

2. Under Obamacare the government will determine exactly which insurance coverage is acceptable and exactly what health issues will be covered.

3. HHS is proposing a $1 abortion surcharge for people purchasing certain insurance policies if they want those policies to cover abortion.

The article at the ACLJ reports:

According to early reports, individuals enrolled in those plans would not be able to opt out of the surcharge alone and would only be informed of its existence during enrollment. If you opt out of the surcharge, you would have to opt out of your plan entirely and may not be able to find a suitable replacement.

We have lost the freedom to decide on our own healthcare coverage. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will strike down Obamacare, but there are no guarantees that it will. If Obamacare stands, the right of free exercise of religion and the free exercise of religious beliefs will be taken away from those Americans who believe abortion is wrong and goes against the teachings of their religion.



Enhanced by Zemanta

What Makes A Contract A Contract ?

The legal definition of a contract is an agreement that two parties enter into voluntarily. Helen Whalen Cohen posted an article at asking if Obamacare violates this basic concept. Ms. Cohen also points out how bad things can get when a government enters into contracts with the governed without the consent of the governed.

Jim Powell at the Cato Institute cited a few examples of government forced contracts that did not turn out well in a recent article he wrote for Forbes Magazine.

Mr. Powell points out:

…For example, on April 5, 1933, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt issued Executive Order 6102 that mandated Americans to surrender their gold coins, gold bullion and gold certificates to the government by May 1, 1933.

…On February 19, 1942, amidst war hysteria, FDR issued Executive Order 9066 mandating that some 110,000 peaceful Japanese Americans be hustled away from the Pacific Coast and into places like the urine-soaked Santa Anita racetrack stables until these people could be moved to Spartan “War Relocation Camps.”

…On August 15, 1971, President Richard Nixon issued Executive Order 11615, mandating price controls, rent controls, wage and salary controls. By forcing people to do their business at below-market prices, Nixon’s controls encouraged consumers to buy more, while encouraging producers to supply less. Consequently, the controls caused shortages that led to rationing and daily inconvenience.

…In ancient Egypt, the pharaohs’ most hated tax was the corvée — forced labor that had to be provided on demand for, among other things, quarrying stone and building pyramids.

…After the U.S. Civil War, many blacks didn’t want to work for former masters who had tormented them. But The Union army, occupying the South, pressured former slaves to sign annual contracts with plantation owners, and blacks were forbidden to leave plantations without the owners’ permission — the same policy as under slavery.

…During the 1930s, Nazis began barring Jews from professions and ordering Germans not to do business with Jews. By December 1938, there were substantial numbers of unemployed Jews, and the regime issued a decree that ordered these people to register for forced labor.

Etc., etc., etc. The point here is that a forced contract is simply not a good idea.

Mr. Powell concludes:

Four thoughts:

1. Most of the cases I mentioned took place during a war, a financial crisis or other emergency leading people to accept extreme measures that are unthinkable in easier times.

2. Nobody can predict when the next emergency will occur.

3. There isn’t any reliable way of keeping bad or incompetent people out of power.

4. Once government gains additional power, it’s exceedingly difficult to roll back.

These are major reasons why we should uphold our Constitution with limited and enumerated powers.

I hope the Supreme Court Justices take these ideas into consideration.




Enhanced by Zemanta

Just For The Record

Social Security and Medicare are not entitlement programs! Those of us who are retirement age or rapidly approaching retirement age have been paying into Social Security since we first began working and Medicare since it was enacted. How much money has the average welfare recipient paid into welfare? What has the government done with the money we have paid into those programs over the years?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Picking Winners And Losers With The Tax Code

One of the things that would be really good about passing Paul Ryan’s budget plan (it won’t happen–but it would be really good) would be that the government would lose its power to pick winners and losers in the American economy. That’s one of the reasons Paul Ryan’s budget will never pass–Congress and the President do not want to give up the power to control people through the tax code. However, every now and then, someone in the Senate actually does something smart in terms of taxes. The Senate (in a 51-47 vote)  has nixed the President’s plan to raise taxes on oil companies (which of course would raise the price of gasoline at the pump).

The New American posted a few thoughts on the Senate vote today:

“This bill is pretty simple: we end wasteful subsidies to the big five oil companies and we use those proceeds to invest in clean energy, in creating jobs, and reducing the deficit,” Menendez said Monday when introducing the bill. “I think the American people are sick and tired of paying ridiculously high gasoline prices at the pump and then paying big oil again with … taxpayer subsidies.”

However, as Bob Adelman asserted last May in The New American, there is a grave difference between tax breaks and what Obama and Menendez characterize as “subsidies.” “The echo chamber of the mainstream media and liberal Democrats merely confirms their attempt to confuse the issue to promote their agenda,” Adelman affirmed. “Subsidies and tax breaks are different entities entirely, and getting the terms wrong means getting it all wrong.”

As stated above–these are not subsidies–subsidies are what we are paying to alternative energy companies that keep going broke or shipping their business to China. Not only are these not subsidies–they are tax breaks that all companies routinely get.

The article concludes:

But Menendez goes a step further, and calls the oil tax breaks “wasteful subsidies.” Is this contrary to the clean-energy industry’s un-wasteful subsidies? Obama’s Energy Department has dished out billions of dollars in “green” subsidies, to companies like SpectraWatt, Eastern Energy, Beacon Power, Evergreen Solar, and the controversial Solyndra — which all ended up in bankruptcy. These five companies, along with seven others, are now in financial disarray, after collectively reaping more than $6.5 billion in taxpayer-backed government assistance.

In effect, one might suggest that Obama and Menendez are pointing their fingers in the wrong direction.

The Obama Administration has never actually had a successful energy policy. It is unrealistic to think that they will develop one at this point.



Enhanced by Zemanta

Will We Have Any Friends Left In The World After Four Years Of Barack Obama ?

I am sure many countries in Eastern Europe cringed at President Obama’s open mike moment with Russian President Medvedev. The idea of President Obama becoming more flexible in his policies of missile defense is much scarier to those countries than it is to most Americans. They must be wondering how valuable friendship with America is. Now the Israelis must be wondering the same thing.

Fox News is reporting that John Bolton has accused the Obama Administration of leaking secret information about Israel in order to prevent Israel from attacking Iran this spring. Ambassador Bolton was responding to an article in Foreign Policy magazine that quoted government sources claiming Israel had been granted access to airfields in Azerbaijan — along Iran’s northern border. Azerbaijan would make strategic sense as a base for any Israeli operation against Iran.

Fox News reports:

The Foreign Policy article quoted what were identified as “high-level sources … inside the U.S. government.” It specifically mentioned “four senior diplomats and military intelligence officers.” 

One intelligence officer, who was unnamed, told the magazine that the U.S. was “watching” the activity and was “not happy about it.” 

The Foreign Policy article did not specify whether any of the information came from the White House, and there is no direct evidence that this was a coordinated leak.

“Clearly, this is an administration-orchestrated leak,” Bolton told “This is not a rogue CIA guy saying I think I’ll leak this out.” 

“It’s just unprecedented to reveal this kind of information about one of your own allies,” Bolton said. 

Would you  be friends with America after your secret information had been leaked?



Enhanced by Zemanta

Choosing Leaders For A Club

Does an organization have the right to set standards for its leadership? For example, if a school starts a ‘scholarship club’ to encourage students to get better grades, should it require its leaders to be honor roll students? Would it be ok for a “D” student to lead a scholarship club? Would that be the example or the image the club would want to put forward? Does every organization have the right to have standards for its leadership?

That is the question now under discussion at Vanderbilt University. Fox News reported yesterday that the University has a policy that states groups cannot have faith or belief-based requirements for leadership. The logical outcome of this policy is that an atheist could run for president of a Christian group, a Jew for president of a Muslim group, or a non-Catholic for president of a Catholic group. Obviously, this would create more problems than it would solve.

The article reports:

All student groups must register next month. As part of the registration, they must sign a statement of affirmation that they will abide by the nondiscrimination policy.

Vandy Catholic — a student group with some 500 members — has decided it cannot agree to the policy and will be leaving campus in the fall. PJ Jedlovec, the president of Vandy Catholic, says it was a difficult decision, one made after much prayer and discussion. 

“We are first and foremost a Catholic organization,” says Jedlovec. “We do, in fact, have qualifications – faith-based qualifications for leadership. We require that our leaders be practicing Catholics. And the university’s nondiscrimination policy — they have made it clear that there is no room in it for an organization that has these faith-based qualifications.”

The article also mentions that these requirements do not apply to fraternities and sororities on campus.

The article concludes:

As a private university, Vanderbilt is allowed to make rules that might not pass muster at a public institution. In fact, Tennessee lawmakers are working on legislation that would specifically prohibit state universities from extending nondiscrimination policies to student religious groups. 

In another attempt to change the school administration’s mind, other religious groups on campus plan to sign the statement of affirmation, then submit charters that clearly outline a faith-based criteria for leadership.

That will likely provoke another confrontation with Vanderbilt leadership — one that may see more religious student groups leave.

Religious freedom is one of the cornerstones of our country. If it is not taught and modeled in our colleges, we will lose it within a generation.




Enhanced by Zemanta

Obamacare Is Already Costing Americans A Lot Of Money

This is a chart from the Washington Free Beacon showing the financial impact of Obamacare even before it is completely put into effect:

Obamacare's $17 trillion surprise

The article reports:

Staff at the Senate Budget Committee, which calculated the figure using methods based on those used by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), found that total unfunded obligations for federal health care programs have jumped from $65 trillion in 2009 to $82 trillion in 2011.

Added to the government’s existing obligation for entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, the total now comes to almost $100 trillion.

That is almost seven times the United States’ annual gross domestic product (GDP).

It seems to me that it is becoming very obvious that Obamacare will not save Americans any money. There are much better ways to do healthcare reform–tort reform, portability, risk pools for people with pre-existing conditions. All of these can be done without federal control. It’s time to remind the government that they govern at the consent of the governed–we are citizens–not subjects.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Some Things To Consider In The Budget Debate And The Obamacare Debate

This video at YouTube shows exactly what Obamacare will do to Senior Citizens:


Remember, Obamacare will take $500 billion out of Medicare over the next ten years and put it in Medicaid. That is being done as the baby boomers reach the age where they will join Medicare. Medicare as it is will not exist in five years–it is going bankrupt. Don’t fall for the scare tactics being used against Republican budget plans that they will kill Medicare–they are not the ones who already took $500 billion away from it!

Enhanced by Zemanta

Some Thoughts On The Supreme Court Debate On The Affordable Care Act This Week

Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post posted an article yesterday summing up her feelings about the Supreme Court debate this week.

Ms. Rubin wrote that Obamcare suffered a severability trainwreck at the Supreme Court. The argument for striking down the entire law if the individual mandate is found unconstitutional is that without the individual mandate to herd customers to insurance companies and provide financial support for the other provisions of the law, the goal of universal access would be thwarted. The individual mandate is the only way that Obamacare can provide insurance coverage for everyone. Because Obamacare goes against basic business principles (as well as the U. S. Constitution), it will not work.

The article reports:

It was that kind of day for the government. The argument today was another instance in which the challengers rolled up their sleeves, got into the text of the statute and made a convincing case. The government never sufficiently spelled out how the mandate could be severed from the rest of the bill without upsetting the intricate system of subsidies and the goal of expanded access. In hiding the ball from the public by virtue of an overly intricate fog of misdirection, and in disguising the essence of the scheme — healthy, young people who might not otherwise want insurance are compelled to buy it to ameliorate the costs of others — Congress sent the Supreme Court a legal knot that will be hard to undo.

Part of the arguments for Obamacare come from people who do not understand how insurance works. There does need to be some protection for people who develop serious medical problems so that their insurance companies cannot abandon them–however, we can use a fly swatter instead of a nuclear weapon to deal with this issue and still get the job done.

If the free market were allowed to operate in health insurance, we would be able to find our way out of any current insurance problems without doing things that will not work and are unconstitutional. A few basic suggestions–tort reform, portability of health insurance from one job to another, tax breaks to help people afford health insurance, selling health insurance across state lines. These ideas are all constitutional and might actually help solve the problem of the high cost of health insurance.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Don’t Mess With Texas

In June 2011 I posted an article ( about the Environmental Protection Agency’s war of Texas.

The article reported:

In January 2010, the EPA decided that the Texas air-permit program was invalid and every facility in the state operating under that permit would have to be re-permitted.  The argument was that Texas was measuring the pollution from the entire facility–the EPA wanted separate measurements from every area of the facility.  Obviously this will be more expensive with very questionable results.  The second aspect of the attack on Texas is the war on coal.  The Texas Public Policy Foundation submitted a report to Congress in March saying that the new EPA regulations will shut down 5700 MW of electrical generating capacity–about one-twelfth of peak demand.  The new regulations also make no allowance for increased energy demands in the State of Texas in the coming years.  The third attack on Texas energy is in the area of natural gas.

That article links to an article at Hot Air that details the entire attack.

Well, the attack has been turned back. Fox News is reporting today that “the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the agency to reconsider the Texas regulations and “limit its review” to ensuring that they meet the “minimal” Clean Air Act requirements that govern state implementation plans.”

 Fox News reports:
“If Texas’s regulations satisfy those basic requirements, the EPA must approve them,” the court said in its 22-page ruling this week.

The EPA rejected Texas’ rules on minor new-source review permits in September 2010, saying they didn’t meet Clean Air Act requirements. The Texas attorney general, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and businesses sued the EPA, challenging the ruling.

This is good news. The EPA under President Obama has consistently attacked America’s domestic sources of energy. They are not an elected body and have assumed too much power. It is good to see the court temper that power.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Yesterday’s House Of Representatives Vote On President Obama’s Budget

Yesterday the Washington Times reported that President Obama’s proposed budget was voted on in the House of Representatives. The vote was 414 to 0. Even the Democrats in the House did not support the proposal.

The article reports:

The vote came as the House worked its way through its own fiscal year 2013 budget proposal, written by Budget Committee Chairman Paul D. Ryan. Republicans wrote an amendment that contained Mr. Obama’s budget and offered it on the floor, daring Democrats to back the plan, which calls for major tax increases and yet still adds trillions of dollars to the deficit over the next decade.

Why is it that no Democrat was willing to go on the record in support of the President’s budget proposal?

The Senate has already stated that they will not bring a budget proposal to the floor this year–despite the fact that they are required by law to pass a budget. It is truly sad that the Democrats in Congress do not have the backbone to stand up for their convictions. If they believe that higher taxes and increased spending will help the economy, why are they unwilling to vote as they believe? I happen to disagree with that idea, but if the Democrats in Congress believe it, why don’t they act on their belief?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Yesterday At The Supreme Court

Paul Clement was the lawyer arguing at the Supreme Court on behalf of Florida and the other states who are challenging Obamacare.

I have listened to a large part of his argument against the idea that the Commerce Clause allows the government to force people into commerce in order the regulate them rather than to regulate the people who are already engaging in commerce. I believe that Obamacare as it is written is not constitutional, but we shall see what the court decides.

The discussion I have heard is that if Obamacare is found constitutional, the idea that our government is a government of enumerated limited powers is over. If the individual mandate part of Obamacare is found constitutional, be ready to have the government require you to join a gym, eat certain foods, purchase a car, etc.

We will have to wait until June to know what the outcome of this case will be, but hopefully Obamacare will die with the individual mandate.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Pushing The Reset Button On Russia

We have all read President Obama’s supposedly off-the-record comments to Russian President Medvedev. The mainstream media seems to be avoiding saying much about those comments, but conservative commentators (and Republican candidates) have sounded the appropriate alarm.

Hugh Hewitt posted an interview with Mitt Romney on his blog:

MR: Well, it is revealing, it is alarming, it’s troubling, it suggests that the President has a very different agenda with the Russians than he’s willing to tell the American people. And for that reason alone, we ought to vote him out of office. This is a very disconcerting development.

HH: What do you think he has in mind, Governor, when he says I will be flexible? Is it missile defense? It is the number of our warheads? Is it Iran? What is he talking about?

MR: Well, he says missile defense, but we’re talking about one of those two issues, either missile defense or warheads. What he’s done on warheads, of course, with the new START Treaty, he took warheads down to 1,500 on strategic nuclear weapons. Of course, the Russians were already at 1,500. They didn’t have to have any reductions. We were at 2,200. So the only reduction in his missile defense treaty was a reduction at the U.S. level. And of course, he ignored the tactical nuclear weapons, which are of course the same nukes. They’re just on smaller rockets. He ignored that, where Russia has an advantage of five or ten to one over us. So this is a president who continues to try and appease and accommodate, and believes that the best interests of America are to bow to the interests of Russia. And it’s very, very troubling, and I mean, I’m very disturbed by this. I hope the American people understand that what we heard from the President is revealing about his character in terms of what he tells the American people, and revealing about his direction and sentiment with regards to Russian, which is after all our number one geopolitical foe. They don’t represent a military threat to us at the present, but they oppose us at every turn in the United Nations, and oppose us in every one of our efforts, whether in Iraq or Iran, North Korea. They’re on the other side. And for him to be cozying up with them with regards to missile defense is simply unacceptable.

HH: How do you expect this aside from the President will be understood in Poland and the Czech Republic, and Ukraine, and Georgia, and other front line states facing a newly-expansive Russia?

MR: Well, I think our friends around the world have been reevaluating their relationship with the United States, in part because of this president’s treatment of friends relative to the treatment of enemies. I’ve heard from more than one foreign leader that it seems to be preferable to be an American foe than an American friend to this president.

HH: Now Governor Romney, the press will of course attempt to dismiss this as not a big issue. Will this remain a front line issue? And do you think that the President has got to spell out with great detail what he has in mind here?

MR: You know, I don’t think he can recover from it, to tell you the truth. I mean, I think he will try and spin something. But I don’t know how you spin from an open mic, where you’re talking about having more flexibility after the election, which means quite clearly that you don’t want the American people to hear what you’re really planning on doing, and that you’re going to be able to do more when you no longer are accountable to the American people. You know, the mainstream media may try and put this to bed, but we’re going to keep it alive and awake. And we’re going to keep hammering him with it all the way through November.

It seems to me that there are enough serious questions about the President’s off-the-record statement to persuade Americans to vote against him.


Enhanced by Zemanta

An Apology Is Definitely Required

Today’s Daily Caller asks the question:

Has Obama called David and Elaine McClain to make sure they’re holding up ok? They’re the elderly Florida couple whose address Spike Lee tweeted because he thought it was George Zimmerman’s. Presumably because he wanted people to go there and discuss things calmly.

That is the danger of stirring up unrest without bothering to find out what the facts are.

Fox News reported:

An elderly Florida couple have been forced to move into a hotel after their home address was wrongly tweeted as belonging to the man who shot teen Trayvon Martin.

The tweets were traced back to a man in California and the address was also reportedly retweeted by director Spike Lee to his almost 250,000 followers.

The couple, aged 70 and 72, have been harassed with hate mail, been hassled by media and had scared neighbors questioning them since the tweet, their son Chip Humble told the Orlando Sentinel.

Fearful for their safety, and hoping to escape the spotlight, the couple have temporarily moved to a hotel.

We need to take a really good look at this event and, as the President said, do some serious soul-searching.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Has Anyone Bothered To Check The Facts ?

The killing of Trayvon Martin has brought all sorts of people with all sorts of political and ideological persuasions out of the woodwork. There are rumors and pictures flying–some accurate and some not so accurate. According to the Los Angeles Times, the New Black Panther Party has offered $10,000 for the citizen’s arrest of George Zimmerman. There have also been death threats against Mr. Zimmerman and charges that he was not arrested due to political connections. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have gotten involved. Have any of the people screaming bothered to check the facts? This is the kind of rhetoric that results in lynchings–it needs to stop.

A local Florida reporter has taken the time to clear up some of the misstatements and misinformation that is out there. Rene Stutzman at the Orlando Sentinal has done some investigating and dispels some of the rumors that have been circulating.

1. There is a rumor that the county Medical Examiner refused to release Trayvon Martin’s body to his family for three days. That is simply not true–the coroner released the body to the funeral home after 39 hours–the funeral home did not pick up the body for another 24 hours.

2. Rumor has it that the Sanford police did not collect George Zimmerman’s clothing as evidence. That is also not true–clothing from both men was collected to be examined as evidence.

3. One story says that George Zimmerman was not arrested because he has a relative on the police force. First of all, he has no relative on the force. Second of all, Florida Statute 776.032 expressly prohibits police from arresting someone who had a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm. Legally, the police could not have arrested him.

It is a tragedy that Trayvon Martin is dead, but we need to be careful not to make him an angel in death when there are some real questions as to what kind of a person he was in life.

ABC News reported yesterday:

Family attorney Benjamin Crump told ABC News that Martin had been slapped with a 10 day school suspension after a bag with suspected marijuana was found in his backpack.

Last year Martin was suspended for spraying graffiti on school grounds. The Miami Herald reported that the school guard who stopped him searched his backpack and found 12 items of women’s jewelry and a flathead screw driver that the guard believed to be a “burglary implement.” But Martin was never charged or specifically disciplined for the incident.

It is a shame that Trayvon Martin is dead, but that death has nothing to do with racism–it seems to have more to do with being in the wrong place at the wrong time and some very bad decisions made very quickly by both parties involved. I am not sure George Zimmerman should be charged with anything. Evidence suggests that he was pretty badly roughed up when police interviewed him. Hopefully, the hysteria will die down soon enough for the truth to come out.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Were The Feudal Lords Driving SUV’s ?

Yesterday the U.K. Daily Mail posted a story that will create some problems for those who believe that global warming is man-made and caused by our use of carbon fuels. Recent evidence shows that global warming occurred in the Middle Ages in many areas of the world.

The article reports:

A team of scientists led by geochemist Zunli Lu from Syracuse University in New York state, has found that contrary to the ‘consensus’, the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ approximately 500 to 1,000 years ago wasn’t just confined to Europe.

In fact, it extended all the way down to Antarctica – which means that the Earth has already experience global warming without the aid of human CO2 emissions.


Professor Lu based his conclusions on a rare mineral called ikaite, which forms in cold waters.

The article explains:

It turns out the water that holds the crystal structure together – called the hydration water – traps information about temperatures present when the crystals formed.

This finding by Lu’s research team establishes, for the first time, ikaite as a reliable way to study past climate conditions

The article further reports:

The scientists were particularly interested in crystals found in layers deposited during the ‘Little Ice Age,’ approximately 300 to 500 years ago, and during the Medieval Warm Period before it.

Both climate events have been documented in Northern Europe, but studies have been inconclusive as to whether the conditions in Northern Europe extended to Antarctica.

Lu’s team found that in fact, they did.

Now that we have a reliable way of studying past climate conditions, we may be able to actually understand the things that do actually impact our global temperatures.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Can The Government Force Me To Buy Broccoli ? Do I Have To Eat It If I Buy It ?

In a nutshell, that is my reaction to Obamacare. I am being forced to buy something simply because I am a live person. The only way I can avoid buying this or paying a fine is to be a dead person. I really don’t like the choice involved.

Yesterday Michael Walsh at The Corner at National Review Online posted a short article that I believe sums up the entire healthcare debate.

Mr. Walsh asks if Obamacare is really about healthcare:

For if it’s about “health care,” aren’t there a myriad of ways in which the system could be improved without a “comprehensive” top-down solution? At a time of extreme economic dislocation, was there a nationwide clamor to make “health care” the top priority of the new administration?

Or is it really about the exercise of raw governmental power, to teach the citizenry an object lesson about the coming brave new world, one that surely will get even worse once Obama is safely past the shoals of his last election? 

Can the government force you to buy something just because you exist (even if it is for the ‘public good’)?

One of the most logical arguments I have heard against Obamacare is that it violates the basic concept of a contract. A contract is an agreement entered into voluntarily by two or more people. If the agreement is not voluntary, it is no longer a contract. Hopefully, the eventual decision of the Supreme Court will recognize the right of Americans to enter into contracts voluntarily. I happen to like broccoli, but I don’t want anyone forcing me to buy it or eat it.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Beware the Open Mike !

Jake Tapper at ABC News posted a story today about some remarks made by President Obama that were not necessarily for public consumption.

The exchange between President Obama and Russian President Medvedev was captured by an open microphone nearby:

President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.

President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…

President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

All I can think of when I read this is that it is the script from a bad gangster movie. I don’t want to think about the plans this President has for us if he wins in November.

If the Republicans do not use this in a campaign ad in the presidential campaign this year, they deserve to lose the election.

Enhanced by Zemanta

April 3rd In Stoughton Massachusetts

“The Middle East, Foreign Policy and the 2012 Elections”
Tuesday, April 3rd @ 7:30 PM
Ahavath Torah Congregation
1179 Central Street
Stoughton, MA 02072
Suggested Donation: $10*
*Or Bring Your Electricity Bill (National Grid, NStar etc.) to waive the fee.
We will show you how to save some money and how to help the Speaker Program at the same time!
Program Overview: Rockets fired into Israel, the Arab Spring, elections in the United States… These events and more are coalescing as we speak. Islamists believe that their battle with us is primarily “information warfare,” as compared to our focus on kinetic war – shootings, bombings, kidnappings and other acts of “terrorism.” The former manifests itself as political warfare, influence over operations, and subversion of our foundational institutions – political, educational, religious, and media. Our failure to understand this and to know the enemy doctrine cripples our ability to engage the enemy where it fights its main battle.
About EJ Kimball: Before joining SEG, while serving as Foreign Policy Counsel to US Congresswoman Sue Myrick (NC) from 2006-2008, EJ created the bipartisan Congressional Anti-Terrorism Caucus, the first organization of its kind dedicated to helping members of Congress understand our enemy in the War on Terror. He organized and implemented bi-weekly threat briefings for Caucus members given by leading experts on terrorism and jihadist ideology. EJ later joined the Investigative Project on Terrorism as Managing Director of the Research Department, where he coordinated investigations into leading Muslim Brotherhood entities and individuals and provided briefings on the same to members of Congress and the United States Department of Justice. His areas of expertise include US Foreign Policy, Strategic Analysis and Communications, and the Muslim Brotherhood.
For information email
Enhanced by Zemanta

This Is Not Good For America In Any Way

America is not a racist country. America is a country that (like all other countries) has citizens who are racists, but America is not a racist country. To assume, because a young black man was killed in Florida, that it was an act of racism is not a reasonable assumption–particularly before we know the facts and before the man who did the shooting has a fair trial. However, that doesn’t stop some people from doing really stupid incendiary things. reported yesterday that the New Black Panthers have offered a $10,000 reward for George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch volunteer who shot Trayvon Martin. At least the poster says they want him alive–not dead or harmed.

The article reports:

Several dozen supporters of the group known by its acronym NBPP — unrelated to the revolutionary Black Panther Party active in the 1960s-1980s — meanwhile protested for the third time this week at the police headquarters in Sanford, Florida.

“An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” leader Mikhail Muhammad told the Orlando Sentinel. “We don’t hate anyone, we hate injustice.”

Activists had called for the mobilization of 5,000 black men to capture Zimmerman. And Muhammad said the NBPP was receiving donations from black entertainers and athletes, with a goal to collect $1 million by next week.

Why is the assumption here that the killing was racially motivated? What positive contribution do the New Black Panther Party make to the dialogue? I really do think everyone should stop what they are doing and go home and let the law enforcement people who actually know what they are doing handle this. I am beginning to wonder if George Zimmerman is being railroaded by people who have no knowledge or interest in what the actual facts of the case are.



Enhanced by Zemanta

Is It Time To Start Treating People The Way They Treat Us ?

I am not (I don’t think) a mean person, but how many times do you let someone apply rules to you that they break themselves before you simply say, “No, I don’t want to play anymore”?

CNS News reported on Friday that ten days ago the top Saudi Arabian Muslim cleric called for the destruction of all churches on the Arabian Peninsula and no one is paying attention.

The article reports:

On March 12, Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Asheikh was quoted in Arabic media reports as telling a visiting Kuwaiti delegation that it was “necessary to destroy all the churches of the region.”

Lawmakers in Kuwait are mulling a ban on the new construction of any non-Islamic places of worship in the small Gulf state, and the delegation asked Asheikh for his opinion. The grand mufti, a member of the ruling royal family, is the undisputed Sunni spiritual arbiter in Islam’s birthplace.

In his response, Asheikh cited a hadith (a saying or tradition of Mohammed), in which the 7th century founder of Islam was recorded to have said on his deathbed, “There are not to be two religions in the [Arabian] Peninsula.”

Don’t panic–I don’t want to see any Mosques, temples, houses of worship of any religion destroyed in the United States. However, I do wonder why we let Muslims build Mosques here when they don’t let us build churches in their countries. Where is the reciprocity?

The article concludes:

In its annual report released this week, the U.S. Commission for International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), which provides independent advice to the government, expressed concern about the situation, saying that as a result of the indefinite waiver, “the United States has not implemented any policy response to the particularly severe violations of religious freedom” in the kingdom.

“USCIRF has concluded that U.S. policy in Saudi Arabia does not adequately prioritize issues of human rights, including freedom of religion or belief,” the report said.

I think it is time for America to say to all Muslims, “You cannot build a Mosque here until Christians and Jews are allowed to build churches and temples in your country.” It would be interesting to see what would happen next.


Enhanced by Zemanta

More Questions Without Answers

A blog called the Daily Pen posted some information on Friday that may turn out to be important. Please take a look. There are an awful lot of unanswered quesitons about the history of President Obama. Even some in the major media are starting to wonder about his school records, etc. Forbes Magazine has posted an excerpt from a book called, “Hope Is Not A Strategy.”  Normally, a President’s college grades, educational history, etc. are public information. Why is there so much secrecy surrounding President Obama?

NOTE: The Forbes article referred to above has disappeared from the Internet.

Gateway Pundit has the story.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Dick Cheney Received A Heart Transplant Today

Dick Cheney is currently recovering from a heart transplant operation in the intensive care unit of Inova Fairfax Hospital in Falls Church, Virginia. CBS News is reporting that Vice-President Cheney had been on the transplant list for 20 months. In 2010 he had a battery-powered heart pump known as a Left Ventricular Assist Device implanted to keep his heart working – a device that is often used for short periods by patients awaiting a transplant.

My prayers go out to Vice-President Cheney for a quick and total recovery.

Enhanced by Zemanta