Monthly Archives: May 2013

When Reality Gets In The Way Of Promises

Posted on by

Remember the promise that ObamaCare would eventually make health care cheaper for everyone because universal coverage would make us all healthier? Well, it seems as if we tend to be as healthy as we want to be regardless of whether or not we have universal coverage.

On Friday the Daily Beast reported that a study on Oregon’s Medicaid expansion showed that the people who were now eligible for medical treatment had no improvement in their health (as measured by basic health indicators such as like blood pressure or cholesterol).

The article reports:

…health insurance doesn’t actually improve access to necessary treatment that much.  If someone else covers the cost, it can help with the financial burden of health care.  But uninsured people will mostly find a way for the most important treatments, the ones we know improve health, from stitches to control bleeding, to antibiotics, to blood pressure medication.  It’s the expensive stuff on the frontier–the stuff that’s as likely to be useless, or harmful, as it is to help–that the uninsured mostly forego. 

When you consider the fact that hospitals are not permitted to turn away patients because of their inability to pay, this makes sense.

The article concludes:

…But I think it’s instructive that the political campaign for Obamacare leaned so heavily on claims about death and untreated suffering.  Whether or not we should provide that sort of insurance, I don’t think that Obamacare would have passed if its backers had said “The best study available shows that we’ll probably get a nice reduction in depression and catastrophic expenses, but no statistically significant improvement in diabetes, mortality, or cardiovascular health.”

That should give us pause.  We passed a big, complicated piece of legislation on the assumption that Medicaid expansions like Oregon would make us healthier–so much helathier that we’d obviously be able to measure it.  It just made gut sense, after all.  And that shouldn’t just make us pause and think about Obamacare. What other policies are we pulling out of our intestinal loops?

Frankly, I think the best thing the government could do for the health of Americans would be to get out of healthcare. Repeal ObamaCare, and set up a system that subsidizes low income people who need insurance and let the free market run healthcare. There would have to be some basic guidelines set up for pre-existing conditions, but the healthcare industry knows much more about healthcare than the government does. Let’s let them take care of America.

Enhanced by Zemanta

There Are No Good Guys In The Syrian Civil War

Posted on by

Reuters reported today that Israel notified the United States after it carried out two air strikes in Syria–not before.

The article reports:

Israeli jets bombed Syria on Sunday for the second time in 48 hours. Israel does not confirm such missions explicitly – a policy it says is intended to avoid provoking reprisals. But an Israeli official acknowledged that the strikes were carried out by its forces.

“It would not be unusual for them to take aggressive steps when there was some chance that some sophisticated weapons system would fall into the hands of people like Hezbollah,” the U.S. intelligence official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Israel is much closer to the war in Syria than America and has a much more vital interest. Bashar al-Assad is aligned with Hezbollah, a terrorist organization sponsored by Iran which frequently fires rockets at Israel from various locations. It is suspected that the rockets Israel stopped might eventually wind up in Lebanon aimed at Israel.

The article further reports:

Rather than an attempt to tip the scales against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Israel’s action is seen more as part of its own conflict with Iran, which it fears is sending missiles to Hezbollah in Lebanon through Syria. Those missiles might hit Tel Aviv if Israel makes good on threats to attack Tehran’s nuclear program.

Another Western intelligence source told Reuters the latest attack, like the previous one, was directed against stores of Fateh-110 missiles in transit from Iran to Hezbollah.

Israel has made it clear that it will take action to prevent Iran from going nuclear. It is in the interest of Israel to make sure that if it attacks Iran the allies of Iran that surround Israel have a few rockets as possible.

The war in Syria is a civil war, but it is also a war between terrorists. Hezbollah supports Bashar al-Assad, a Shiite, and many of the rebels have ties to Al Qaeda, which tends Sunni (the majority population of Saudi Arabia). The problem with the war is that if America gets involved, both sides will unite and turn against the ‘infidels.’ At the present time the Obama Administration is said to be negotiating with some of the ‘moderate’ rebels, but there are some serious questions as to how much power the moderates have with the rebels. If America chooses to arm the rebels, we could be shipping arms to Syria that will be used against American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan in the very near future. Our best bet is to do anything we can to get innocent civilians out of Syria and let the terrorists fight it out among themselves. Israel has more of a reason to get involved because Hezbollah is already sending rockets against her, and because Israel will be directly involved regardless of who wins. It is in Israel’s best interests to limit the number of rockets going from Iran to Syria so as to limit the number of rockets that will be coming in their direction when both sides stop fighting each other.

This attack on the rockets heading for Syria could be seen as a backdoor attack on Iran or as a warning to Iran. I suspect there will be retaliation against Israel and further action by Israel. By making it public that America was not notified until after the attack, it is quite possible that Hezbollah terrorist cells in America will not be activated in response.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Truly Sad Story

Posted on by

The American military includes some of our best and brightest young men–both officers and enlisted. These men have volunteered to protect the freedoms that all of us hold dear. It is very unfortunate when our government undermines the valuable work these men do.

On April 28, the Washington Times posted a story about one of these valiant young men who help protect us. Lt. Col Matthew Dooley is a West Point graduate and highly-decorated combat veteran.

A website on facebook gives the background of his story:

He taught military students about the situations they would encounter, how to react, about Islamic culture, traditions, and explained the mindset of Islamic extremists. Passing down first hand knowledge and experience, and teaching courses that were suggested (and approved) by the the Joint Forces Staff College. The course “Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism” ,which was suggested and approved by the Joint Forces Staff College, caught the attention of several Islamic Groups, and they wanted to make an example of him.

They collectively wrote a letter expressing their outrage, and the Pro-Islamic Obama Administration was all too happy to assist. The letter was passed to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , Martin Dempsey. Dempsey publicly degraded and reprimanded Dooley, and Dooley received a negative Officer Evaluation Report almost immediately (which he had aced for the past 5 years). He was relieved of teaching duties, and his career has been red-flagged.

“He had a brilliant career ahead of him. Now, he has been flagged.” – Richard Thompson, Thomas More Law Center.

The story continues in the Washington Times:

Last year, Col. Dooley underwent an Army command selection board review after he was transferred from the Joint Forces Staff College in Norfolk, Va., to a weapons integration unit at Fort Eustis, Va.

The review board, comprising three generals and two colonels, voted to keep Col. Dooley as a candidate for battalion commander, his attorney, Richard Thompson, told The Times.

The board, however, was overruled by Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, then the Army’s vice chief and now chief of U.S. Central Command. He ordered Col. Dooley’s name removed from the candidates list, said Mr. Thompson, who added that he had read the “official use only” memo.

…Mr. Thompson, president of the Thomas More Law Center in Michigan, said the blame for Col. Dooley’s treatment ultimately belongs to ArmyGen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Gen. Dempsey publicly condemned Col. Dooley’s teachings and set into motion investigations that resulted in his firing.

This is not only wrong, it is dangerous. As the Boston Marathon bombings illustrated, radical Islam is a threat to America. We have two choices, we can either bury our heads in the sand in the name of political correctness or we can grow up and deal with the problem. Col. Dooley was attempting to deal with the problem when he ran headlong into the chopping blades of political correctness.

The most telling paragraphs in the Washington Times article:

Col. Dooley’s downfall began in October 2011 with a letter sent by 57 American Islamic organizations to John O. Brennan, then President Obama’s counterterrorism adviser and now CIA director.

The groups, which include two tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, which calls for global Islamic law, demanded that the government scrub its teaching on Islam. The White House complied.

I hope America survives long enough to elect a President who understands that we have radical Islamists in America and they desire to harm us. To bend to the demands of groups that call for a global caliphate is national suicide.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Taking Action On ObamaCare

Posted on by

On Thursday the Washington Times posted an article about a law making its way through the South Carolina legislature. The South Carolina House of Representatives passed a law to make President Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) “null and void,” and criminalize its implementation.

The article reports:

The state’s Freedom of Health Care Protection Act intends to “prohibit certain individuals from enforcing or attempting to enforce such unconstitutional laws; and to establish criminal penalties and civil liability for violating this article.”

Governor Nikki Haley stated:

“To that end, we will not pursue the type of government-run health exchanges being forced on us by Washington. Despite the rose-colored rhetoric coming out of D.C., these exchanges are nothing more than a way to make the state do the federal government’s bidding in spending massive amounts of taxpayer dollars on insurance subsidies that we can’t afford.”

The bill went to the South Carolina Senate on Thursday and has been moved to the Committee on Finance. This could be the making of a states’ rights Supreme Court case or simply a major Constitutional crisis. Any legal challenges to this law would be related to the Tenth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution.

The Tenth Amendment states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Stay tuned, this could get very interesting.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Truth Eventually Comes Out

Posted on by

The upcoming issue of the Weekly Standard includes an article by Stephen Hayes about the evolution of the Obama Administration talking points concerning the attack on Benghazi. It is a rather lengthy article, and I suggest following the link above and reading the entire article. The Obama Administration purposely misled the American people in order to convince us that Al Qaeda was no longer a threat. I don’t know if the results of the 2012 would have been different if voters had known the truth, but I still hate being lied to.

In a nutshell, this is the story:

The changes are not minor changes, nor are they related to security concerns–the changes are political. Secretary of State Clinton was smart enough not to go on television and repeat the drivel that finally emerged as talking points. Had she gone on all of the Sunday talk shows with the final version of the talking points, her political career would have ended as soon as the truth came out. The entire truth is not out yet, but I am hopeful that it will come out in the future.

I don’t care about the talking points as much as I care about why we did not send available aid immediately to those people who were attacked in Benghazi. To me, that is a much more important question.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Numbers Behind The Numbers

Posted on by

The Stock Market climbed and the media rejoiced–the unemployment rate dropped to 7.5% in March–down 0.4 percentage points since January. At least it did not go up.

The New York Times reported yesterday that in spite of the fact that unemployment decreased and the economy added jobs, that since 2010 the number of Americans with jobs has stayed between 58.2 percent and 58.7 percent. Hot Air reported yesterday that the civilian workforce participation rate remained at a 34-year low of 63.3%.

Hot Air also reported:

…the number of people not in the workforce declined slightly in the Household data from March by 31,000. It’s still 632,000 higher than in February. Discouraged workers rose by 32,000 and marginally-attached workers rose by 21,000, both of which are relatively narrow shifts.

The New York Times reported:

Baby boomers are aging into retirement. Even before the recession, the government projected in 2007 that participation would decline to 65.5 percent by 2016, from 66 percent. But the April rate of 63.3 percent means the labor force has lost roughly five million additional workers.

Furthermore, the projections were wrong. Participation has actually risen among people older than 55. The decline is entirely driven by younger dropouts.

It is good that the unemployment number is down to 7.5%; however, we have a long way to go before we actually have a healthy economy. The two biggest challenges to the economy in the coming months will be the implementation of ObamaCare and the increased taxes that go with that implementation. We won’t really understand the financial impact of ObamaCare until late this year when people begin to plan for the tax rates of 2013 and when people begin to see ObamaCare directly affect their health insurance and health insurance premiums.

The article at Hot Air quotes Reuters:

Still, details of the report remained consistent with a slowdown in economic activity. Construction employment fell for the first time since May, while manufacturing payrolls were flat. The average workweek pulled off a nine-month high, but average hourly earnings rose four cents[.]

The New York Times article concludes:

There is always some unemployment. Millions of Americans are out of work at any given moment even in the best of times. But the economy is still roughly 10 million jobs short of returning to normal levels of unemployment and labor force participation. That’s a lot of missing jobs.

Some of those losses may be permanent. The number of Americans receiving disability benefits has increased by 1.8 million since the recession began, and people on disability rarely return to the work force, even if they would have preferred to keep working in the first place.

And as the economy improves, it is likely that labor force participation among older workers will finally begin to decline.

But the evidence suggests that the majority of the 10 million are just waiting for a decent chance.

Enhanced by Zemanta

This Really Does Not Look Good

Posted on by

CNS News reported today that when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Libya in 2011, the Department of Defense pre-positioned ‘assets’ off the coast of Libya in order to ensure her safety.

The article reports:

The fact that the assets were pre-positioned for Clinton’s visit was included in the annual report of the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security (BDS).

CNSNews.com asked the Pentagon if it would specify which military assets had been prepositioned off Libya at the time Clinton’s visit. The inquiry was forwarded to U.S. Africa Command, but a spokesman for that command declined to add any details to what had been stated in BDS report.

“One of the most complex security challenges presented to the Secretary’s [Diplomatic Security] Detail was her equally historic and ground-breaking trip to Libya in October [2011], after the fall of the Qaddafi regime,” said the BDS annual report.

So we are left with a variety of questions. Was our intelligence so far off that we had concluded that Benghazi was safe when we decreased the security provided there? Does America routinely abandon its diplomats in unstable areas without adequate protection while going out of its way to protect their superiors? What did the State Department think had changed in the time Secretary Clinton visited Libya and the time Benghazi was attacked.

Just a note. As hearings convene next week on Benghazi, remember one thing–the person who produced the video that was NOT responsible for the attack in Benghazi is still in jail. How is that possible?

Please follow the link above to read the entire story.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Would You Let These People Near Your Household Budget?

Posted on by

Yesterday’s Washington Examiner reported the following:

“In March, Gevo entered into a contract with the Defense Logistics Agency to supply the U.S. Army with 3,650 gallons of renewable jet fuel to be delivered by the second quarter of 2013,” Gevo announced this week in its first quarter financial report. “This initial order may be increased by 12,500 gallons. All shipments will be at a fixed price of $59 per gallon during the initial testing phase. These shipments are in addition to the renewable jet fuel supplied to the U.S. Air Force (USAF) and the U.S. Navy (USN).”

In plain English this means that the Defense Department is paying $59 per gallon for renewable jet fuel when regular jet fuel costs $3.73 a gallon. Note that this is called a ‘testing phase.’ I need someone to explain to me why you would test anything that costs almost 20 times what you are already using. I fully support green energy–but not until it is economically feasible. This is ridiculous.

Enhanced by Zemanta

We Elected These People…

Posted on by

This is not a joke. This story appeared in the Washington Times on Tuesday. I thought I had heard everything when Hank Johnson said to Admiral Robert F. Willard, Commander of U.S. Pacific Command, “My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize“, to which Admiral Willard replied, “We don’t anticipate that.” The discussion was part of a House of Representatives hearing on increasing troop strength on Guam. The Admiral’s composure when asked the question was amazing. I would like to point out that Representative Johnson has been re-elected twice since that 2010 comment and still serves in the U. S. House of Representatives.

On Tuesday the Washington Times reported:

Rep. Barbara Lee, California Democrat, said in The Hill that “food insecure women with limited socioeconomic resources may be vulnerable to situations such as sex work, transactional sex, and early marriage that put them at risk for HIV, STIs, unplanned pregnancy and poor reproductive health.”

Moreover, climate change could turn entire populations into refugees — again, affecting women the most, the resolution suggested, as Newser reported.

So climate change (which isn’t really established as man-made) could result in increased prostitution. I would also like to note that if famine sweeps the world, everyone suffers–not just women.
We are responsible for electing our Representatives. We have only ourselves to blame.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Payback Is Not Always Fun

Posted on by

As you read this, please keep in mind that the Daily Currant is a satirical newspaper–the article may or may not be true. The Daily Currant reported today that the owners of Collegno‘s Pizzeria refused to serve Mayor Bloomberg a second slice of pizza. The owners were protesting Mayor Bloomberg’s proposed soda ban, which would limit the portions of soda sold in the city.

The article reports:

Bloomberg was having an informal working lunch with city comptroller John Liu at the time and was enraged by the embarrassing prohibition. The owners would not relent, however, and the pair were forced to decamp to another restaurant to finish their meal.

Witnesses say the situation unfolded when as the two were looking over budget documents, they realized they needed more food than originally ordered.

“Hey, could I get another pepperoni over here?” Bloomberg asked owner Antonio Benito.

 “I’m sorry sir,” he replied, “we can’t do that. You’ve reached your personal slice limit.”

 

I do have to admit that creating a personal slice limit might actually slow down the incidence of obesity in this county–it might also increase the number of people eating at home.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Duke Raises Its Student Fees–But Not Because Of Educational Expenses

Posted on by

On Tuesday a website called Campus Reform posted an article stating that Duke University has raised its student fees by 0.3 this year. The increase was put in place to cover sexual reassignment surgery for students. There is a limit of $50,000 on the coverage of the surgery.

The article reports:

The official plan is in-line with a Student Government Resolution passed last March that called upon the school to cover sex change operations. The school previously covered mental health care, hormone therapy and breast augmentation and reduction surgery to students who wished to change their gender.

There are 37 universities in America that cover sex change operations, according to TransgenderLaw.org. Emory University is the only other college in the Southeast, besides Duke, to offer sexual reassignment surgery to students.

What in the world is going on in our universities?

Enhanced by Zemanta

It All Sounds So Sensible…

Posted on by

Yesterday the Los Angeles Times reported that California Governor Jerry Brown has signed legislation aimed at taking handguns and assault rifles away from 20,000 Californians who acquired them legally but have since been disqualified from ownership because of a criminal conviction or serious mental illness.

Now on the surface, that sounds like a really good idea, but let’s take it apart for a minute. Who determines the disqualification? Can one person determine the disqualification?

The article reports:

“This bipartisan bill makes our communities safer by giving law enforcement the resources they need to get guns out of the hands of potentially dangerous individuals,” said Evan Westrup, a spokesman for the governor.

This law allows for confiscation of guns from ‘potentially dangerous individuals.’ Gun confiscation is definitely not part of America‘s tradition. I have recently posted a few articles that really make me wonder about what this law would be like down the road.

On April 6, I posted an article (rightwinggranny.com) about a U.S. Army training instructor listing Evangelical Christianity and Catholicism as examples of religious extremism along with Al Qaeda and Hamas during a briefing with an Army Reserve unit based in Pennsylvania, Would Christians have their guns confiscated under the California law because they were seen as ‘potentially dangerous?’

On April 12, I posted an article (rightwinggranny.com) about a New York man who had his guns confiscated because his 10-year-old son talked to some his classmates about bringing a water gun, paintball gun, and BB gun with them to the house of a schoolyard bully. He was told he could get his guns back when his son is eighteen and moves out of his house. Needless to say, there is a lawsuit making its way through the courts.

On March 28, I posted an article (rightwinggranny.com) about attempts to take Second Amendment rights away from America’s veterans.

There is a pattern here. The guns are being confiscated not only from criminals, but from law-abiding citizens deemed dangerous. The thing the lawmakers have forgotten here is that the guns most criminals have are not registered and they are not likely to be confiscated. Therefore, all you have done is to disarm law-abiding citizens because some authority considers them a threat. That is not a really good idea in a free society.Enhanced by Zemanta

Being Court Martialed For Exercising The Rights You Are Supposed To Be Defending?????

Posted on by

Breitbart.com reported today that the Pentagon has released a statement confirming that soldiers may be prosecuted for sharing their faith. What? What happened to “There are no atheists in foxholes“?

The article reports:

The statement, released to Fox News, follows a Breitbart News report on Obama administration Pentagon appointees meeting with anti-Christian extremist Mikey Weinstein to develop court-martial procedures to punish Christians in the military who express or share their faith. 

(From our earlier report: Weinstein is the head of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, and says Christians–including chaplains–sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ in the military are guilty of “treason,” and of committing an act of “spiritual rape” as serious a crime as “sexual assault.” He also asserted that Christians sharing their faith in the military are “enemies of the Constitution.”)

Being convicted in a court martial means that a soldier has committed a crime under federal military law. Punishment for a court martial can include imprisonment and being dishonorably discharged from the military.

How in the world did we get to this place? This new regulation also includes military chaplains. Why are they there if they can’t share their faith?

If you are concerned about this violation of our soldiers’ rights, please follow this link to the Family Research Council to sign the petition protesting this new regulation. We need to protect the religious freedom of our troops.

On a historical note, I would like to include this picture which was posted by a friend on facebook:

Somewhere we have gone horribly astray.

UPDATE:  A website called Instant Analysis posted the following today:

UPDATE (May 2, 2013 – 1:30 p.m. Central) – The Pentagon is backing down on a Tuesday statement indicating members of the military could be subject to court-martial for religious proselytizing.

The Department of Defense has issued a new statement, saying that “Service members can share their faith, or evangelize, but must not force unwanted, intrusive attempts to convert others of any faith or no faith to one’s beliefs.”

On Tuesday it was revealed that Lt. Commander Nate Christensen issued a statement on behalf of the Pentagon that court-martials for “proselytizing” would be considered on a case-by-case basis. The statement outraged the Christian community, including current and former members of the armed services.

The question arose as to whether members of the military lose their First Amendment rights at the point at which they enter the military.

– See more at: http://www.instantanalysis.net/latest-headlines-from-american-family-news/2013/05/02/report-court-martials-may-await-soldiers-who-share-their-christian-faith#.UYLPuIWEX-s.facebook

Enhanced by Zemanta

Where Is The Economy?

Posted on by

The economy hasn’t been in the news lately–there seem to have been a few other things going on–but the economy is something we do need to be keeping an eye on.

CNBC posted an article today describing where the country is economically.

The article reports:

GDP growth is in the midst of its longest sub-3 percent annual growth rate since 1929, the beginning of the Great Depression, according to Bespoke Investment Group. The economy hasn’t topped 3 percent since 2005—before Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke took over—and is unlikely to do so this year.

The article points out that in two months the revised economic numbers will show that the United States economy has grown to more than the currently stated $15 trillion. This has nothing to do with economic growth–it has to do with a change in the way that the size of the economy is calculated.

The article points out:

Under the new math, the government will add research and development spending, as well as the capital value of all books, movies, records, television programs and plays produced since 1929.

In jacking up the economy’s size, the revisions also will skew the ratio of debt to GDP, considered important in determining government spending.

Of course, the recent attempt at debunking a critical study of the ratio by Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff also has dimmed the prospects for government debt-cutting. The two economists asserted that a 90 percent debt-to-GDP ratio restrained growth, but the data set they used has been challenged as faulty.

The new GDP calculations, combined with the souring on the Reinhart-Rogoff conclusions, likely will add to the thirst to keep Washington’s debt machine purring.

Meanwhile, the unemployment rate remains high.

The article reports:

Though employment has risen by 1.3 million over the past year, unemployment that counts the discouraged and underemployed, as well as the jobless (often called the “real” unemployment rate) has remained stubbornly high, at 13.8 percent of the workforce, according to the most recent count.

In fact, a state-by-state look at the numbers, released a few days ago and current through the first quarter, shows that just six states have real rates below 10 percent.

There are a lot of reasons for the high unemployment numbers. One of them is the fact that businessmen are reluctant to hire new employees until they understand the impact of Obamacare will have on their business. Uncertainty is creating an environment where hiring is at least temporarily delayed. The other thing to keep in mind is that as the government grows, it takes money away from the private sector. When the private sector isn’t growing, the economy isn’t growing.

There hasn’t been a lot of reporting lately on the economy, but we still need to be aware of what is going on around us economically.