Water Cooler Weekly

AN OPEN LETTER TO CONGRESS

2010-05-18T11:05:00.002-05:00

Dear Senator or Congressman,

We have an Attorney General, a Secretary of Homeland Security and C.J. Crowley, a State Department Spokesman all out in the public denouncing the Arizona illegal immigrant law who all admit, they have not read the law.

It is far past time for those who really care, to stand up and be loud and strong to publicly beat these people and this administration back into submission. You may be part of the minority in the House or Senate, but to be honest, it is the far left minority that is wagging the dog here. Get some, as we say in Texas, "huevos" and stir up a stink. They, this administration, are cutting back security funding the New York City, verbally campaigning and challenging a law they have not read, and a myriad of other actions against our will and country. You and your colleagues are far to compliant. It must stop now. You as a group must take action to save our country and republic.

Enough is enough. We the people are mad as hell and are not going to take it any more. Start a long, hard and VERY LOUD public campaign to point out and challenge the actions of these socialists. You seem to be taking the easy way out by letting one media network do all the work. You guys know what is going on and being said. Step up and speak up as a group. Not just within the "chambers" of your elected position, but in the news media. Raise enough hell and the liberal press can be forced to cover your actions. Make some noise!

I'm From The Government And I'm Here To Help

2010-01-26T08:00:00.002-06:00

The title of this post made up the nine most terrifying words in the English language, according to President Ronald Reagan. Evidently President Obama hasn't learned that lesson. The White House has stated that one of the major points in the upcoming State of the Union address will be the "struggling middle class". Obama plans to outline several steps that he feels will bolster middle class families and provide more financial stability.

His five point plan includes:

1) Nearly Doubling the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit for middle class families making less than $85,000 a year.

2) Limiting a student’s federal loan payments to 10 percent of his or her income above a basic living allowance.

3) Creating a system of automatic workplace IRAs, requiring all employers to give the option for employees to enroll in a direct-deposit IRA.

4) Expanding tax credits to match retirement savings and enacting new safeguards to protect retirement savings, making it easier for families to plan for retirement.

5) Expanding support for families balancing work with caring for elderly relatives, helping them manage their multiple responsibilities and allowing seniors to live in the community for as long as possible.

It's interesting that the President suddenly cares so much about the middle class of America. After spending his first year cramming detrimental legislation down the country's throat and seeing his popularity, thus political capital, go down the drain, he is now pandering for support the same way he did with labor unions, pharmaceuticals and other special interest groups.

What Obama and most Democrats never understand is that our economy and financial security thrive best with less, not more, government interference. It is impossible to legislate or dictate that private companies generate more jobs and pay better salaries. Companies generally offer the best benefits to their employees that they can afford while maintaining a standard of profitability, and to constantly decry executives and CEO's as greedy villains is disingenuous and even detrimental to the marketplace.

The middle class doesn't want Obama's saviour plan for generating jobs and saving money, what they want is less taxes, less penalties and less regulation so that their companies can grow and generate more money for everyone. In the history of the world, government has never been a beacon of efficiency and profitability. Government has never been able to create a single sustainable job because only a free market can create continued demand for service.

This November make sure you vote for less taxes, a drastic reduction in federal spending, a commitment to cutting the deficit and freedom for all Americans, regardless of class.

REMEMBERING MORE - IN TWENTY-TEN

2010-01-08T15:32:00.014-06:00

More from the internet, but again, we must remember and honor what those who have gone before us have done for our country.

Look carefully at the B-17 and note how shot up it is - one engine dead, tail, horizontal stabilizer and nose shot up.. It was ready to fall out of the sky. (This is a painting done by an artist from the description of both pilots many years later.) Then realize that there is a German ME-109 fighter flying next to it. Now read the story below. I think you'll be surprised ...

Charlie Brown was a B-17 Flying Fortress pilot with the 379th Bomber Group at Kimbolton, England . His B-17 was called 'Ye Old Pub' and was in a terrible state, having been hit by flak and fighters. The compass was damaged and they were flying deeper over enemy territory instead of heading home to Kimbolton.

After flying the B-17 over an enemy airfield, a German pilot named Franz Stigler was ordered to take off and shoot down the B-17. When he got near the B-17, he could not believe his eyes. In his words, he 'had never seen a plane in such a bad state'. The tail and rear section was severely damaged, and the tail gunner wounded. The top gunner was all over the top of the fuselage. The nose was smashed and there were holes everywhere.

Despite having ammunition, Franz flew to the side of the B-17 and looked at Charlie Brown, the pilot. Brown was scared and struggling to control his damaged and blood-stained plane.

BF-109 pilot Franz Stigler____B-17 pilot Charlie Brown

Aware that they had no idea where they were going, Franz waved at Charlie to turn 180 degrees. Franz escorted and guided the stricken plane to, and slightly over, the North Sea towards England . He then saluted Charlie Brown and turned away, back to Europe . When Franz landed he told the CO that the plane had been shot down over the sea, and never told the truth to anybody. Charlie Brown and the remains of his crew told all at their briefing, but were ordered never to talk about it.

More than 40 years later, Charlie Brown wanted to find the Luftwaffe pilot who saved the crew. After years of research, Franz was found. He had never talked about the incident, not even at post-war reunions.

They met in the USA at a 379th Bomber Group reunion, together with 25 people who are alive now - all because Franz never fired his guns that day.

(L-R) German Ace Franz Stigler, artist Ernie Boyett, and B-17 pilot Charlie Brown.

When asked why he didn't shoot them down, Stigler later said, “I didn't have the heart to finish those brave men. I flew beside them for a long time. They were trying desperately to get home and I was going to let them do that. I could not have shot at them. It would have been the same as shooting at a man in a parachute.”

Both men died in 2008.

THIS WAS BACK IN THE DAYS WHEN THERE WAS HONOR IN BEING A WARRIOR ... THEY PROUDLY WORE UNIFORMS, AND THEY DIDN'T HIDE IN AMBUSH INSIDE A MOSQUE, OR BEHIND WOMEN AND CHILDREN, NOR DID THEY USE MENTALLY RETARDED WOMEN AS SUICIDE BOMBERS TO TARGET AND KILL INNOCENT CIVILIANS ... HOW TIMES HAVE CHANGED ....

REMEMBERING WHEN - IN TWENTY-TEN

2010-01-07T17:16:00.004-06:00

The beat goes on. We must never forget. If we fail to learn form history, we are doomed to fail. How much of a reminder and awakening do we need?

Although the following has been around on the internet, I believe it drives home the point as clearly as can possibly be done. Remember, it is We the People who can let things happen, or make them stop. The choice is ours.

A lot of Americans have become so insulated from reality…
Absolutely No Profiling! Pause a moment, reflect back, and take the following multiple choice test.

These events are actual events from history.. They really happened! Do you remember?

HERE'S THE TEST

1. 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by:

a.. Superman
b. Jay Leno
c. Harry Potter
d. A Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40

2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by :

a. Olga Corbett
b. Sitting Bull
c. Arnold Schwarzenegger
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

3. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by:

a. Lost Norwegians
b. Elvis
c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
d . Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

4. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:

a. John Dillinger
b. The King of Sweden
c. The Boy Scouts
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

5. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:

a. A pizza delivery boy
b. Pee Wee Herman
c.. Geraldo Rivera
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:

a. The Smurfs
b. Davey Jones
c. The Little Mermaid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens , and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by:

a. Captain Kidd
b. Charles Lindberg
c. Mother Teresa
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

8. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:

a. Scooby Doo
b. The Tooth Fairy
c. The Sundance Kid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

9. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:

a. Richard Simmons
b. Grandma Moses
c. Michael Jordan
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

10. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:

a. Mr. Rogers
b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Wild Bill's women problems
c. The World Wrestling Federation
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

11. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers.

Thousands of people were killed by:

a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd
b. The Supreme Court of Florida
c. Mr Bean
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

12. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:

a. Enron
b. The Lutheran Church
c. The NFL
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

13. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:

a. Bonnie and Clyde
b. Captain Kangaroo
c. Billy Graham
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

A new foot note: Fort Hood Texas ......another Muslim, 39 years old, killed 13 people and wounded 30 some odd others... Does this fit the profile!

NOW OUR COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF IS TELLING EVERYONE THAT THE YOUNG MUSLIM THAT ATTEMPTED TO BLOW UP A NORTHWEST/DELTA JET AS IT APPROACHED DETROIT ON CHRISTMAS DAY WAS (QUOTE) "AN ISOLATED INCIDENT".

Terrorists Are Not Criminals

2010-01-07T14:42:00.002-06:00

One of the big issues these days is whether terrorists should classified as criminals, thereby receiving all of the benefits of American citizenship including due process in our civil court system, or classified as enemy combatants, whereby they would be held in a military prison and tried by a military tribunal which would provide better security and help ensure intelligence gathering measures are kept secret.

President Obama and his staff are dedicated to the former, they feel that everyone, no matter who you are or what you’ve done, deserve habeas corpus and Miranda rights despite the fact that terrorists don’t even qualify for Geneva Convention protections according to Convention III. Part 4.A., (2) a – d states that protections apply to:
(a) prisoners who are being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Failure to understand the seriousness of the threats facing our country led to a nearly catastrophic attack on Christmas day. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab boarded a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Detroit and attempted to detonate a bomb hidden in his underwear before the plane landed. If he had succeeded, nearly 300 people on the flight would have been killed and possibly hundreds more would have died on the ground below in the large city of Detroit.

The incident underscores a huge shift the intelligence and counter terrorism community that has developed since Obama has taken office. With the administration seeking to prosecute anyone who has offended or made a muslim uncomfortable during the war on terrorism, many professionals fear that sticking their neck out too far could get it cut off.

To further illustrate Obama’s total lack of a grasp on reality, in November he nominated Erroll Southers to head the Transportation Security Administration. While this nomination seems to make sense at first due to his background with the FBI and his current employment as an Assistant Chief for Homeland Security and Intelligence at the Los Angeles International Airport, once you look into his past and his organizational views you begin to see a picture of someone who could turn a bad situation into a terrible situation.

Senate Republicans have blocked Southers’ confirmation to the TSA post due to concerns that he would allow employee unions to collectively bargain with the government. The TSA has previously avoided collective bargaining for good reason: Collective bargaining would reduce its effectiveness and the TSA needs the maximum flexibility to respond to potential threats. It needs the ability to rush screeners to high-risk locations and modify screening procedures at a moment's notice.

Other countries that allow collective bargaining over security procedures have found that it harms national security. A 2006 labor dispute in Toronto caused many pieces of luggage to go unscreened and allowed 250,000 passengers to board their planes with minimal or no security screening.

An incident during Mr. Southers’ employment with the FBI also causes concern for Senators seeking to place a hold on his confirmation. In 1987 and 1988 Southers used his position at the FBI to inappropriately gain access to a database in order to retrieve private information about his estranged wife’s new boyfriend. When recently questioned about the matter during the Senate confirmation process, Southers’s account of the event conflicted with official records taken at the time it occurred. Later Southers sent an apology letter to Senators claiming that his recollection had faded in the 20 years since the incident happened.

All in all, the Obama approach to national security is teetering precariously on the achievements made during President Bush’s tenure in the Oval Office. Given enough time however, even the most successful programs can be unraveled and America will once again be more worried about political correctness than protecting the lives of innocent citizens.

REMEMBER WHEN - IN TWENTY-TEN

2010-01-02T10:49:00.003-06:00

My motto for this year is “Remember when – in twenty-ten”

I remember when the Boeing 747 first went into service. I drove 35 miles to the nearest airport where one could be found. I walked freely into the terminal, down the wing to the gate, and right onto the plane while the cleaning crew was preparing it between flights. We walked all over, up into the “lounge” and even into the cockpit. No one cared, and the cleaning crew even was so polite they apologized for getting in the way. This was not that long ago, in the early 1970’s. In less than 40 years this wonderful world and society as we knew and wanted it has been destroyed. In reality, I sincerely believe we will never see those days again. Kids out playing all day long without every contacting home by a cell phone! Using the street lights coming on as a signal to go home during the summer. These and many other things can never come back again. Progress is good and necessary.

When are we going to wake up? We are so wrapped up in political correctness and protection of personal rights that we have forgot how to protect ourselves as a country. Heaven forbid we should use full body scanners at the airports that might “invade” someone’s privacy and disclose that they have an artificial hip, or even worse, breast implants or butt implants. Rather, we protect these things and allow a bomber to get on a plane. Does this really make sense? Is this really what we want? Is it really what we expect of our government?

It is time for the “nanny state” government to get out of the business of protecting individuals and begin protecting the entire country and society. I’m sure there are a few that may object to what they see as an invasion of their privacy. The easy answer is that they can take other forms of transportation. Yet this would take too long, or be less convenient. So to accommodate them, we put an entire airplane of people at jeopardy for the sake of the convenience of a few? We must prepare ourselves and be able to defend against the far too many radicals that now seem to control our world by way of fear tactics and suicide bombing.

Our nation has willingly and gladly accepted immigrants from most any country in the world. These folks arrived, typically moved into neighborhoods of folks of their own culture and proceeded to learn our language and to assimilate into our culture, while still maintaining their own. Pride of ethnic and cultural background is important and should be not only maintained, but respected. What is the difference between the past and now? Those folks maintained their culture within their home and neighborhood, but at the same time were glad and proud enough to now be in America that they worked very hard to learn our language, laws, and ways. They became part of us. They wanted to be part of us. Now, far too many immigrants, especially of different cultural and ethnic backgrounds come here to live, do not want to become part of our culture and do all they can to change our culture over to their beliefs and desires. And what have our representatives and government done about this? Either directly or indirectly they have supported these new immigrants at the expense of our country and society. Suddenly we are expected to change our lives, beliefs and lifestyles to accommodate these people.

We should be proud of the various cultural neighborhoods that exist within our country. These give those cultures the opportunity to continue with the traditions they may have had for centuries. These neighborhoods have existed for years in many of our cities without fault or problem. In fact and reality they have contributed to the enjoyment of many other cultures having the opportunity to experience how other people live and think without having to travel half way around the world.

Now come those who refuse to become part of our culture and society. For whatever reasons they may have, they refuse to learn our language, laws, or societal ways. Instead they fight our system, demand they be given rights to do things ‘their” way rather than trying to blend with us and become part of us. They come here, in many instances, because their own countries are poor, downtrodden, corrupt, and offer far less than we have. Yet they fail to understand and appreciate that the reason our country is better is because we do not allow our country to run the way theirs is. They use our legal system and courts to undo all the good that created our country, and ultimately allowed them to come here. They perpetuate “war” under the guise of religious beliefs to which we do not adhere or believe. They blame us for the fact that they create and distribute drugs from their country into ours. They defend their religion by saying the “radicals” are only a very small part of the total who follow that religion. Yes, this is true, but one percent (1%) of over 100 million is still one million, that is 1,000,000 people. That is far too many dissenters to be considered inconsequential.

It is time that We The People take back our nation. It is time we put politicians who are more interested in our nation and culture into office. To keep them from becoming too imbedded and secure in their positions, we should institute term limits. Two (2) terms for any position, period. If we can’t get our governmental bodies to pass the necessary laws to force term limits, We The People, still have the power. We just vote them out at the end of 2 terms. Yes, I know, we will lose some who have done, and may still do great things for our country, state or community, but the chain must be broken. If they are elected knowing they have only 2 terms at the most, to accomplish some good, they will work hard to accomplish those things. Political office should be a "Service" not a "Carrier".

So, as we begin this new year, let us “remember when”. Remember when We The People really ran our country. Remember when you could leave your doors unlocked. Remember when you just walked onto a plane without having to be searched. Remember when religion did not occupy so much of our time, but was something we each did and respected the other guy for whatever his beliefs might be. Remember when cultural differences did not mean cultural wars, either within our cities, or around the world. Remember the past was not perfect. Wars have always happened for as long as history exists. Remember that in past wars it was relatively easy to identify the enemy by his dress or uniform, unlike today. Most of all remember when our nation was first stated it was started by and for We The People. It is our nation and our land and it is time the We The People take our nation back under our control and out of the hands of 536 out of control narcissists in Washington as well as our state houses.

The Environment Attacks … Again

2009-12-09T08:00:00.000-06:00

As President Obama heads off to Copenhagen to meet with other world leaders and scientists at the global warming convention, serious concerns and doubts are growing around the science behind climate change. The EPA formally declared that CO2 is a danger to the public’s health and scientists have been caught doctoring the data to make global warming seem more dangerous than it really is.

Last month the email system of a leading global-warming advocacy center in the UK was hacked and the data was published on line. The director of the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit confirmed that the more than three thousand e-mails are genuine, proving that none of the files were fabricated.

The emails and files show that scientists from the U.K. and the U.S. have been deleting or replacing data that didn’t support global warming with numbers they made up for over ten years. A letter from a scientist in Colorado admitted that they can’t account for the lack of global warming.

“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.” the letter stated.

Earlier this week the Environmental Protection Agency formally declared that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and a danger to public health. This move is widely expected to clear the way for the agency to regulate a wide range of CO2-emitting industries under provisions of the Clean Air Act. Emissions legislation has been stalled in the Senate for some time now and many view this announcement as a vehicle for Obama to bypass congress and micromanage just about every aspect of the economy.

Any serious restrictions placed on businesses to restrict emissions would be devastating to our economy and could prolong or exacerbate the recession. Since 85 percent of the U.S. economy runs on fossil fuels that emit carbon dioxide, imposing a cost on CO2 is equivalent to placing an economy-wide tax on energy use.

The kind of industrial-strength EPA red tape that the agency could enforce in the name of global warming would result in millions of dollars in compliance costs. These are unnecessary costs that businesses will inevitably pass on to the American consumer, slow economic growth and kill jobs. Although the crafted rules say only facilities that emit 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year or more will be affected, businesses fear the exemption may not hold up in court and could now be imposed on many smaller commercial buildings, farms, restaurants, churches and small businesses.

Despite the growing mountain of evidence disputing the science of global warming, President Obama was desperate for a prize to deliver to Copenhagen this month. The EPA delivered his prize and how we all get to wait and see what regulations the agency will come up with.

A Time Limit For Success

2009-12-03T08:00:00.000-06:00

President Obama announced yesterday that he will boost the number of troops in Afghanistan by 30,000 and that some of those troops will deploy soon. To be fair, this number is very close to what General McChrystal asked for earlier in the year and most people expect our European allies to make up the difference. The caveat to this otherwise positive story is that Obama also announced that there would be a timeline for our troops to withdraw.

The President is giving our troops until July 2011 to wrap up the job in that part of the world which has never known anything besides fighting and war. There have been setbacks since we invaded in 2002, more recently the Taliban has made a resurgence and the elected government of Afghanistan is saturated with corruption.

But for Americans to leave before Afghanis are able to fight and defend themselves would be to toss aside everything our soldiers have fought and bled and died for. It seems so easy to forget that eight years ago al Qaeda, with the blessing and cooperation of the Taliban, used Afghanistan as a launching pad for the 9/11 attacks. Under no circumstances should either of those organizations be allowed to return to the country that we kicked their butts out of.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that the "surge" troops could remain in Afghanistan longer if the U.S. and its allies failed to reverse the Taliban's recent gains. "If circumstances dictate in December, I think the President always has the freedom to adjust his decisions," he told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Obama said in announcing the timeline Tuesday night that the withdrawal would be based on conditions on the ground. But Sen. John McCain pressed Secretary Gates on Wednesday on Capitol Hill, calling the scenario "logically incoherent" and saying the national security team needs to choose which is more important: sticking to the timeline or providing security.

In Pakistan, a key ally in the fight against al Qaeda, officials said the timeline raises fears that the U.S. would only drive insurgents across the border into their country, and then withdraw.

The Islamabad government also has come under conflicting political pressures. While the United States wants the Pakistanis to eliminate al-Qaeda sanctuaries on their side of the border, security officials are focused on a military campaign against the Pakistani Taliban forces that are carrying out attacks within Pakistan.

Despite the recent domestic attacks, many Pakistanis disagree with Obama's assessment that Pakistan and Afghanistan have "a common enemy." Instead, they blame the United States for the Afghanistan conflict and are reluctant to be drawn into it.

While President Obama’s decision to boost troops is laudable, publicly announcing a date for withdraw sends the wrong message to our enemies, and our friends. By setting a timeline we are announcing that if the Taliban just out lasts us then they will be able to over run the country once again, undoing the years of sacrifice that so many have made.

Military Prefers Terrorists Over Soldiers

2009-11-25T08:00:00.000-06:00

Three Navy Seals have been arrested following their successful capture of a terrorist mastermind in Iraq. Ahmed Hashim Abed was responsible for orchestrating the killing and mutilation of four Blackwater security contractors in 2004. The contractors were transporting supplies for a catering company when they were ambushed and killed by gunfire and grenades. Insurgents burned the bodies and dragged them through the city. They hanged two of the bodies on a bridge over the Euphrates River for the world press to photograph.

The terrorist managed to avoid capture until September of this year, when the Navy Seals were able to capture him. Ahmed, whom the military code-named "Objective Amber," told investigators he was punched by his captors, and he had the bloody lip to prove it. Now, instead of being lauded for bringing to justice a high-value target, three of the SEAL commandos, all enlisted, face assault charges and have retained lawyers.

Matthew McCabe, a Special Operations Petty Officer Second Class (SO-2), is facing three charges: dereliction of performance of duty for willfully failing to safeguard a detainee, making a false official statement, and assault.

Petty Officer Jonathan Keefe, SO-2, is facing charges of dereliction of performance of duty and making a false official statement.

Petty Officer Julio Huertas, SO-1, faces those same charges and an additional charge of impediment of an investigation.

Lt. Col. Holly Silkman, spokeswoman for the special operations component of U.S. Central Command, confirmed Tuesday to FoxNews.com that three SEALs have been charged in connection with the capture of a detainee. She said their court martial is scheduled for January.

There is no evidence to show who actually gave Ahmed the bloody lip, but records show that he was briefly in Iraqi custody before being held by Americans in the Green Zone. It is also well known from al Qaeda documents that jihadists are taught to claim to be abused while being held by Americans because they have learned how to twist our justice system.

The charges being levied at the Navy Seals are another example of the danger that the Obama administration is subjecting Americans to. The soft stance against terrorism that led to the Fort Hood shooting is being enforced to the greatest measure against those who risk their lives to protect the rest of us. Our military leadership should be ashamed of themselves and do whatever possible to protect their soldiers from abuse, especially politically motivated abuse.

Healthcare Moves Against The People

2009-11-23T08:00:00.000-06:00

This weekend the U.S. Senate passed a procedural vote which allows healthcare reform to begin formal debate. The vote came down strictly along party lines, but the bill has yet to be completed and faces several hurdles before it can move to the Senate floor for final debate.

Recent months and weeks have seen the legislation, and subsequently the President, loose support. A Rasmussen Reports poll shows that just 38% of voters now favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the lowest level of support measured for the plan in nearly two dozen tracking polls conducted since June.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% now oppose the plan. Intensity remains stronger among those who oppose the push to change the nation’s health care system: 21% Strongly Favor the plan while 43% are Strongly Opposed.

"This is a vote about whether or not you want to fundamentally change the way health care is delivered in this country in a way which massively expands the size of government, the role of government and significantly increases the tax burden, especially for small businesses, and cuts Medicare by a dramatic amount of money," Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., told Fox News before Saturday's session began.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called the bill "monstrous" and, citing the Congressional Budget Office, said it would not bring down costs.

Most Americans would be required to purchase insurance under Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's legislation, and billions in new taxes would be levied on insurers and high-income and middle class Americans to help extend coverage to 31 million uninsured. Insurance companies would no longer be allowed to deny coverage to people with medical conditions or drop coverage when someone gets sick, although the bill contains no mention of tort reform and does not allow individuals to shop for insurance across state lines.

"This 2,000-page bill will drive up the cost of health care insurance and medical care, not down," Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, said in the address. "This is not true health care reform, and it is not what the American people want. This bill will result in higher premiums and higher health care costs for Americans - period."

Among the differences and similarities between the Senate and House versions of healthcare reform is Medicare, which both bills cut by $400 billion.

Although the economy emerges as the top concern for voters in poll after poll, the White House and Congressional Democrats continue to focus on healthcare reform, and people across the country are beginning to understand that the effort will add trillions of dollars to the already overburdened national debt.

Government intervention in healthcare is an economy killer, the result will be lower quality of service, extremely long wait times, higher premiums and higher taxes. The history of government bureaucracies has proven that public service does not equal efficiency, and that estimated cost does not equal true cost.

Our healthcare system does need change, but not one that includes government involvement or any form of government control. Good ideas that would reap a real benefit are being tossed by the wayside in lieu of political favors and pork spending. We all need to keep up the pressure on our elected representatives, especially Senators, and let them know that their career is over if they vote for healthcare reform as it is currently being debated.

AARP Sells Out Seniors

2009-11-18T08:00:00.000-06:00

Since its inception the AARP has proclaimed itself as an advocate for seniors by offering discounts on things such as hotels, airfare, auto insurance, health insurance and more. But most members don’t realize where the organization gets most of its revenue - insurance endorsements.

Even though AARP does not directly sell insurance, the group and its subsidiaries collected more than $650 million in royalties and other fees last year from the sale of insurance policies, credit cards and other products that carry the AARP name, accounting for the majority of its $1.14 billion in revenue, according to federal tax records.

One of the organizations largest money making items is Medi-gap Insurance policies, which provide supplemental coverage for standard Medicare plans available to the elderly. Demand for the plans is expected to make a huge jump if Democratic attempts at healthcare reform are passed into law. Included in the legislation will be dramatic cuts to Medicare Advantage plans which will nearly eliminate competition with AARP’s more expensive Medi-gap Insurance.

Republican lawmakers have questioned the integrity of an organization that claims to be non-biased but also stands to make hundreds of millions by endorsing a healthcare plan despite its effects on the elderly. Questions have also been raised about the high salaries and other perks given to some top AARP executives, who would not be subject to limits on insurance executives' pay. Former AARP chief executive William Novelli received more than $1 million in compensation last year.

As evidence of the growing controversy CBS News reported that up to 60,000 people have cancelled their AARP memberships since July 1, angered over the group's position on health care. Many are switching to the American Seniors Association, a group that calls itself the conservative alternative.

Elaine Guardiani has been with AARP for 14 years, and said, "I'm extremely disappointed in AARP."

Retired nurse Dale Anderson has 12 years with AARP and said, "I don't wanna be connected with AARP."

The American Seniors Association is flat-out against the new healthcare bill that was recently passed by the House of Representatives and endorsed by AARP. House Republicans sent a letter to AARP, asking them to revoke their support of the healthcare overhaul in light of new numbers that show deeper cuts to Medicare than previously known.

The report lays out cuts to Medicare, to the tune of $571 billion, a 64 percent drop in Medicare Advantage and an increase in health expenditures by $289 billion.

But no matter what the numbers show, it seems that the profits to be made by the AARP outweigh the needs of its members. In its relatively short history, the organization has gone from seeking to help make life easier for retired people, to only helping if those policies also create a profit for the organization.

Seniors need to become informed and understand that the AARP no longer has their best interests at heart, other organizations such as The American Seniors Association may be a great alternative.

Will we Survive????

2009-11-13T10:28:00.004-06:00

Let me see if I have this right. If you are in the military and kill some of your fellow soldiers in what appears to be an act of Jihad and terror, you will be tried in a military court under the terms of the UCMJ.

However, if you and a number of your co-conspirators, plan and carry out an act of Jihad and terror against the civilian population of the United States, you and your co-conspirators will be tried, not as war prisoners or military personnel, but simply as if you were citizens of the United States with the same Rights and benefits of American Citizens.

Jihad is an act of war. This is the goal of far too many radical followers of Islam. Part of their process of Jihad is to bring terror to the hearts and souls of their perceived enemy. Terror is one of the major tools they use to weaken their foe. Acts of Terror by followers of Islam are acts of war. War against our nation! War against our citizens! War against all non-Muslims! Your drawing arbitrary lines between who did what to whom, and where it was done, to determine whether it is a civilian offense or an act of war is an affront to all of us who believe in our nation and its proper defense.

We have gone so far wrong in your blind efforts to be “politically correct” that we have lost sight of right and wrong. The ACLU, the far left liberals and the rest of the nuts in Washington are selling our country out faster then We the People can understand or find a way to stop them.

This man-child (Obama) has been in office and power less than 11 months and has put our nation so far in jeopardy that I fear we will not survive the remaining 37 months of his term. At the rate he is going our economy will collapse within a year and the Chinese will OWN us. Our troops in Afghanistan are falling further and further behind while he and his band of idiots dither and throw out ALL plans, suggestions and recommendations given to them by those whose job it is to know what to do. This person has done nothing but hold meetings by various names to hear what everyone has to offer, only to dismiss what they say and say that HE will do what HE believes to be the correct thing. Then he does nothing.

First Mr. President, and I use that title out of respect for the position as I have less than zero respect for the person who currently is decimating that position, since you can’t make a decision, BRING OUR MEN AND WOMEN HOME!!!! Your indecisiveness is killing innocent people who voluntarily offered up those lives in the belief they would be working for and with people who know what to do and when to do it, not someone who sends the signal that until he knows how we will get out of this, he will do nothing and just let those brave men and women be killed so he can go stand and watch them come off an airplane. Based on your actions, or should I say inaction, you are guilty of murder and should be tried for same.

Now he and his band of neighborhood organizing thugs have decided that the killers, by way of Jihad, of over 3,000 people will be tried in a civil court where the ACLU and other liberal lawyers can play and manipulate the court to get these men off based on some liberalthink of the law, without care, or concern for the horrible act they committed and the souls killed and families ruined.

I know this is a useless plea, but I must make it.

Mr. President, step down from your office. Let our people go! Let those who care and know how to run our country without ruining our economy, stature and status in the world, or the foundation on which our nation is built take over and correct the damage you have already done before it becomes irreparable. You and your followers are denying and desecrating every document used to create our nation. Mr. President, trust and believe that We the People do see what you are doing and as elections take place will show you that We the People have the power to replace you and your followers.

A Salute To Our Veterans

2009-11-11T08:00:00.000-06:00

Today is Veterans Day, an occasion which calls for reflection and appreciation for those who have served and fought to secure and protect our freedom. Since enlisting, I have gained a new appreciation for the sacrifices soldiers make every day in order to protect our country.

Some people enlist for the benefits, college tuition, sign on bonus and more, yet others sign up purely for patriotic reasons, however all do their duty when called. It has been remarkable to me to see those were seeking benefits transform into true soldiers and stand up next to their brothers in arms.

The traditions of the military go back hundreds of years but the basic tenants remain the same. The Army does a good job of instilling basic soldier principals into new recruits, Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity and Personal Courage. When going through training and especially on the battlefield you learn that the person on your left and right are there to help you succeed and any prejudices or opinions are checked at the door.

I would like to express my gratitude to those who have served before me, from my father who was a paratrooper, to World War II veterans, and from World War I, to those who secured our independence from England. Without their leadership and example the military and our country would not be the beacon of hope around the world that it remains today.

Without the service of the strong men and women of the United States, tyrants and despots all over the globe would not have been stopped and atrocities would have known no boundaries. Sometimes violence has to be stopped by violence, as Edmund Burke said, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

Most recently the brave men and women of the armed forces have been deployed to combat terrorism and fight the spread of radical Islam. We have paid a high price for that goal and many soldiers have made the ultimate sacrifice, they deserve to be remembered along side of those who were laid to rest in France, German, Japan, Korea and Vietnam.

An often forgotten sacrifice is made by the families of those who serve. It is extremely difficult for the wives, husbands and children to see their loved ones deploy and not be seen again for 12 to 15 months. The heartache is really indescribable and can only be understood by those who have shared the experience.

In summary, I would like to salute all of those who have served and are serving in the United States Military. Your leadership has been an inspiration to me and I hope that I can live up to the standard you have set as I walk the soldier path before me. May God bless our Veterans and May God bless the United States of America!

House Becomes A Beacon For Entitlement

2009-11-09T08:00:00.000-06:00

On Saturday night the House of Representatives narrowly passed a healthcare bill which is set to create a government run health insurance option to compete with private insurers. Despite enjoying a large majority in the House, Democrats won passage by only five votes, with 39 fellow Democrats voting against the bill and one surprising Republican voting for it.

In a last minute maneuver to garner needed support, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi allowed an amendment which bars participating insurance policies from using funds to pay for abortions.

Now the legislation moves to the Senate where debate can be much trickier, Senators are keenly aware of how controversial the measure is and are cautious about endangering their careers. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has already stated that a vote on the bill may not come before the end of the year, and some Democrats are already voicing opposition.

Independent Senator Joe Lieberman stated his disagreement with the bill, if a government plan is part of the deal, "as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote." Lieberman said he opposes the public plan because it could become a huge and costly entitlement program.

And Republican Senator Lindsay Graham declared, "The House bill is dead on arrival in the Senate."

The main point of contention in the Senate is the idea of private insurance companies having to compete with the federal government and that a “public option” will create yet another colossal government entitlement program.

Entitlement programs already account for over 50% of the national budget and unfunded entitlement obligations over the next ten years comes to 60 trillion dollars. According to The National Entitlement Commission, headed by Sens. Bob Kerry and John Danforth (now retired), entitlements are destroying our economy.

If no changes are made, then just 15 years from now, only five federal programs will consume all federal revenues. The five are Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, interest on the national debt and federal employee retirement. No money would be left for any other federal activity, whether national defense, welfare, federal law enforcement, aid to education, or any other. All of these programs would have to be financed by deficit spending.

Now Democrats want to create the largest entitlement yet, a nationalized healthcare system, which will accelerate our bankruptcy and make no attempt to control spending or costs. We all must put pressure on our elected Representatives and Senators to stand against this expansion of government and oppose those who put our country at risk for political gain.

WE MUST RESOLVE TO SUCCEED

2009-11-08T11:30:00.006-06:00

Throughout history, and most importantly beginning with our war for independence, wars have been fought between people or nations with known boundaries and whose warriors or solders wore uniforms. From our war for independence through our own Civil War, in WWI, WWII, and the Korean War the lines were generally clear and defined. Yes, there were “spies” and “the underground” during these times, but the vast and overwhelming majority was identifiable.

Beginning with the Vietnam War the lines began to get more clouded. The enemy hid in villages and among the villagers in unidentifiable dress. We continued to fight in uniform but were enticed into shootings and bombings that were then called attacks on civilians. Our men still suffer with the mental anguish of knowing, or not knowing, whether they shot and killed innocent civilians or were they actually the cowardly enemy dressed in disguise. We ended up leaving in disgrace, having lost many of our own as well as the South Vietnamese not only loosing many of their own, but their country as well. Part, if not all of this was due to our lack of will and dedication to complete the goal we had set out to accomplish.

Now we have Iraq and Afghanistan. Both have been extremely difficult and the final outcome is yet to be known. The circumstances of an unidentifiable enemy continue in both. Until they fire upon us, we have no way of knowing who the enemy is. These cowardly “warriors” have money for weapons and bullets, but intentionally choose to hide behind civilian garb, to blend with their civilian population, and when it serves their purpose will even use their schools, mosques, hospitals or any other building as either a hiding place, or a protective area from which they may fire upon, or hide from their enemy. When some are killed or injured by either ground or air fire, because of their dress, all are called “civilians” and we are accused or ostracized for killing “civilians.”

Our scientists and inventors have done a superior job of inventing military apparatus that can be strictly controlled and limited in their effect. Our personnel protection, although not perfect and none will ever be, has risen to levels never seen before. Every life lost is a horrible thing, but the actual number lost in fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan is minuscule. Look at the losses in WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. They were horrendous compared to our current losses in trying to help these two nations.

The major difficulty we face today is that we are unable to identify either the enemy or his territorial boundaries. We are fighting the “Nation” of Islam, which has no boundaries. This religion is spread around the world in every nation and on every continent. Depending on what source you check there are between 1.2 and 1.7 Billion Muslims in the world. Again, depending on the source, there are as few as 1%, which would be 1.2 to 1.7 MILLION, to as many as 36.6% or 439 MILLION radical Muslims At least 1,200,000 at a minimum! Don’t let anyone fool you by using the minor percentage of 1%. 1.2 million is larger than the population of most cities in our country.

The enemy is within! Unidentifiable and possibly Unidentified! Wearing our uniforms! They are in our military. They have shown by their words and actions that they have no moral scruples or limits when it comes to lying to meet their purpose and goals. They value life less than we and believe that killing themselves in the name of Allah is to their benefit, so long as they take infidels’ or their enemy with them. They kill their own children and wives because they “break the laws of their religion.” They call these murders “honor killing.”

There are many more peaceful Muslims than there are radical ones, but the number and actions of the few have made it so that we have no way of knowing who is who, or for that matter, protecting ourselves from the underhanded actions of these vast “few”. This is a war of terror. Terror by one, terror by an organized group, is still TERROR. We now want to split hairs whether it is an act of terror if done only by one, or if there is a planned, group action. Even by one, it is still the actions of the Muslim Radical belief and it puts TERROR in the hearts and minds of our brave men and women in the military as well as our general population.

Is this a war America can and will win? Only if and when we wake up and acknowledge and accept that the enemy is now WITHIN. Our own President, after 13 people were killed and 38 injured by one follower of Islam said on Friday the entire nation is grieving for those slain at Fort Hood, and he urged people not to jump to conclusions while law enforcement officers investigate the shootings. When will this idiocy stop?

We The People of these United States must step up and take control of our congress and country. They work for us, not the other way around. Stand up, stand up and take charge. Vote out of office all politicians. Show them that WE THE PEOPLE have the power, not they. Break the political ties, bonds and surreptitious connections of the Senators and Congressman. By electing someone to take their place we will show who is in power. It really doesn’t matter who gets elected. Once we show we have the power, we can vote “out” the next one if he fails to do our bidding. But first, we must show these fools in Washington who the real boss is. We must elect people who are willing to do what is necessary to protect and defend our Soldiers, People, Nation and Constitution. If we commit to a military goal, we need to go to it as we did WWI and WWII. No thought of loss or failure. In this case, the war is radical Islam attacking us. We must take any and all protective and proactive action to win this war lest within the foreseeable future we shall lose our wonderful nation and become as antiquated as our enemy. The lives of our children and grandchildren will be the benefactors of our actions or lack thereof.

Tragedy At Fort Hood

2009-11-06T08:00:00.000-06:00

As a soldier myself, this event shocked and touched me deeply. The shooting occurred at the Soldier Readiness Center at Fort Hood which is where soldiers prepare to be deployed or are returning from a deployment. For those who are preparing to be deployed, most are already nervous and anxious about their uncertain future, and for those who are returning, they survived deployment in a battle zone only to be shot at where they should be most safe.

The shooter was Major Nidal Malik Hasan, an army psychiatrist who had expressed deep concerns about his impending deployment to Iraq. Maj. Hasan had even made it onto a law enforcement watch list because of comments he made on the internet equating suicide bombers to a soldier who throws himself on a grenade to protect other soldiers. Friends and colleagues have also reported hearing Maj. Hasan say that Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan should stand up and fight the occupiers or oppressors, evidently referring to U.S. troops.

Authorities claim that the incident is not a terrorist act but many question why the FBI Anti-terrorism Taskforce is investigating the scene. According to “The Washington Times” Major Hasan shouted "Allahu Akbar!" before opening fire at the Army base. Lieutenant General Robert Cone told NBC's "Today" show on Friday that the shooter made the comment, which is Arabic for "God is great!" before the rampage Thursday that left 13 people dead and 30 wounded.

The shooting spree ended when civilian police officer Kimberly Munley shot Maj. Hasan four times, officer Munley was also shot in the exchange. Both were thought to be dead in the aftermath of the incident but were later reported to both be alive.

Federal law-enforcement agents ordered an evacuation of the apartment complex where Hasan lived in Killeen, Texas, and conducted a search of his home, said Hilary Shine, director of public information for the city. She didn't say what was found during the search. Officials said earlier that federal search warrants were being drawn up to authorize the seizure of his computer.

Before Thursday's shooting, Hasan reportedly gave away all of his furniture along with copies of the Koran to neighbors, KXXV-TV reported.

Authorities have not ruled out that Hasan was acting on behalf of some unidentified radical group, a senior U.S. official in Washington said. He would not say whether any evidence had come to light to support that theory.

Please keep the families of those who were slain and those who are still in the hospital in your prayers. Please also continue to pray for those who live at Fort Hood, that healing would cover that base and that peace would prevail over chaos and pain.

Republican Rebound

2009-11-04T08:00:00.000-06:00

Ever since Democrats won the majority in Congress and Barak Obama won the Presidential election in 2008, pundits have proclaimed the demise of the Republican party. Commentators constantly claim that the GOP is leaderless, lacking clear direction and unwilling to include moderate views. But last night’s elections prove that voters are fed up with progressive policies that are bankrupting the economy, nationalizing private businesses and saddling generations with catastrophic debt.

Despite campaign support from the White House, including a personal visit from President Obama on Sunday, New Jersey voters elected Republican Chris Christie as their new Governor. Under incumbent Democratic Governor Jon Corzine, New Jersey has seen the highest unemployment in 55 years and property taxes that are the highest in the country, along with rampant corruption across the state.

In Virginia, Republicans claimed landslide victories for all three statewide elections leading may experts to note the level of mismanagement on the part of Democrat leaders in that state. In addition to Republican Bob McDonnell winning the Governors race, Republican Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling easily won reelection and Ken Cuccinelli, the GOP’s nominee for attorney general, handily beat Democrat Steve Shannon. Bolling won by the narrowest spread of the three, with a 13 percentage point victory, a large majority which shows how overwhelming the conservative turnout was.

In a less publicized but equally impressive vote, Maine residents voted yesterday to reject a recent state law that would have legalized gay marriage. The North-Eastern state was thought to be one of the most supportive states of same sex marriage and the measure’s defeat was surprising and deeply disappointing to gay marriage activists.

"The institution of marriage has been preserved in Maine and across the nation," declared Frank Schubert, chief organizer for the winning side.

"We're in this for the long haul," said Jesse Connolly, manager of the pro-gay marriage campaign. "For next week, and next month, and next year - until all Maine families are treated equally. Because in the end, this has always been about love and family and that will always be something worth fighting for."

Gay marriage has now lost in every single state, 31 in all, in which it has been put to a popular vote. Five other states have legalized gay marriage, starting with Massachusetts in 2004, and followed by Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Iowa, but all did so through legislation or court rulings, not by popular vote. In contrast, constitutional amendments banning gay marriage have been approved in all 30 states where they have been on the ballot.

The outcome Tuesday marked the first time voters had rejected a gay-marriage law enacted by a legislature. When Californians put a stop to same-sex marriage a year ago, it was in response to a court ruling, not legislation.

Tuesday’s elections are a clear sign that America is tired of the big-government policies that are getting our country into deep trouble. In 2008 voters were promised “hope and change” but were duped by the high minded rhetoric of a politician that contained nothing more than platitudes and campaign slogans.

We must foster and grow the momentum that was created in the last few weeks and carry it forward to the 2010 and 2012 elections. We need to champion candidates that advocate true fiscal responsibility and social conservatism, and who are willing to make sacrifices and do hard work to put our country back on the right path. We must not sit back on our laurels and relish these small but significant gains, instead we must plunge ahead and dive into the work that is necessary to move America forward.

New York Race Shows The Power Of Values

2009-11-02T08:00:00.000-06:00

The highly publicized congressional race in up state New York has taken an odd turn, Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava has decided to drop out. She stated that she came to her decision after seeing in a recent poll that she was the least popular candidate, with only 20% of the vote. The next day Ms. Scozzafava released a letter supporting her former Democratic opponent Bill Owens, and urged her followers to vote for him also.

The announcement came as no surprise to conservatives who had already opted to support Doug Hoffman instead of Scozzafava, as the candidate who harbored truly conservative values. Mr. Hoffman stands against abortion, gay marriage, bank bailouts, trillion dollar deficits, high taxes and run away government spending; whereas Scozzafava openly supports abortion rights, gay marriage and the labor union empowering policy of card check.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who had spoken out in the last few weeks in support of Scozzafava, now had to swallow his pride and switch his endorsement to Hoffman. Gingrich had argued against other conservative leaders who had backed Hoffman, saying that Scozzafava was the only real option to defeat the Democratic candidate, but new polls show otherwise.

Doug Hoffman now leads Democrat Bill Owens in a two-way match-up 54 percent to 38 percent with 8 percent undecided, according to a Public Policy Polling survey conducted Oct. 31-Nov. 1. Hoffman is seen favorably by a 50 percent to 37 percent margin with 13 percent undecided. Owens is seen unfavorably by a 45 percent to 35 percent ratio with 20 percent undecided. Scozzafava was seen unfavorably by a 52 percent to 31 percent margin with 17 percent undecided.

The turn of events also shows how conservative voters are beginning to break with the Republican Party establishment. Scozzafava was nominated as the GOP candidate by local party leaders, rather than a primary election, and now that her candidacy is over and polls show her profound lack of support, conservatives feel emboldened to reclaim the Republican Party.

Old school Republicans such as Newt Gingrich and Michael Steel are seeing a backlash for their support of a candidate who was viewed as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Commenters on Gingrich’s own website say that he has become irrelevant to the party and should step aside. Critics on just about every blog are posting comments decrying Republican leadership’s support of Scozzafava and noting that it is time for the party to return to more conservative roots.

Republican leaders would do well to acknowledge that they can not force a candidate on conservatives who make up the base of their party. More and more people are saying no to “moderate” Republican candidates and are voting for those with more conservative views. We are repulsed by those who seek to be some form of Democrat-lite, but are inspired by those who are guided by Godly principals, not just in economics but in foreign policy and domestic issues also. Hopefully GOP leaders will see and understand this change in time to make a difference in elections that are just around the corner.

ACORN’s Financial Authority

2009-10-29T07:00:00.000-05:00

In a stunning move, Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA) introduced an amendment to a bill in the House Financial Services Committee that would give community organizations such as ACORN regulatory oversight of the financial industry.

During debate over H.R.3126, which would create a Consumer Financial Protection Agency, Reps. Maxine Waters, Barney Frank, and other Democrats voted to add to the CFPA Oversight Board five representatives from the fields of “consumer protection, fair lending and civil rights. The amendment would also add representatives from depository institutions that primarily serve underserved communities, or representatives of communities that have been significantly impacted by higher-priced mortgages.

So along side of actual financial experts and federal regulators, this bill will add people with a vested interest in special treatment to a board that will regulate financial institutions.

It goes without saying that this will create an enormous government sanctioned conflict of interest. ACORN-type organizations will have an advisory role to regulating the very financial institutions from which they receive millions of dollars annually in direct corporate contributions and benefit from other financial partnerships and arrangements.

The bill does not explicitly name ACORN as an organization that will have a seat on the CFPA board, but it does not include language to exclude them either, and they are considered by Democrats to be a “consumer protection, fair lending and civil rights” organization.

In case anyone has forgotten the extent to which ACORN’s corruption was exposed, please refer to the story here.

It is astonishing that anyone would trust an organization such as ACORN to regulate anything when they so clearly can’t even regulate themselves. But Democrats, including President Obama, owe the organization a huge debt for drumming up support, stimulating votes and campaign contributions. Democratic politicians rely on these organizations because they can influence candidate popularity in urban and low income areas.

We must make a stand and let our elected leaders know that we will not tolerate the federal government subsidizing and elevating corrupt organizations. Furthermore, rather than create a whole new host of regulations and guidelines for the financial industry, which would hinder economic growth, a better plan would be to honestly enforce rules already on the books.

Reid Gets Pushy

2009-10-28T08:00:00.001-05:00

It seems like the closer that the healthcare reform bill is to being completed, the farther it is from getting passed. On Monday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced that healthcare reform would push ahead with a robust public option, surprising colleagues and analysts. But this move, while satisfying to liberals, is driving moderates and conservatives further away from a bill they were already leery of.

Evidently, even a number of Democrats understand that the public option is toxic, as evidenced by the lack of votes in the Senate and the House. In the Senate, Joe Lieberman has decided to side with Republicans in opposing the bill and has stated that he is willing to participate in a filibuster if necessary to prevent its passage. Also, Democratic moderates including Senators Evan Bayh (D-Ind), Ben Nelson (D-Neb), and Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark) have expressed apprehension about the public plan and are unsure how they will vote.

Lieberman commented, “I can’t see a way in which I could vote for cloture on any bill that contained a creation of a government-operated-run insurance company,” he added. “It’s just asking for trouble – in the end, the taxpayers are going to pay and probably all people will have health insurance are going to see their premiums go up because there’s going to be cost shifting as there has been for Medicare and Medicaid.”

In the House, efforts to create a bill that will gain a majority vote have been stalled for two weeks, one of the main obstacles seems to be rates that are paid to doctors, hospitals and other providers to patients who would be insured under the public plan. Leadership members were told at a meeting that they do not have the votes to pass the robust public option, according to a House progressive familiar with the meeting.

The document shows that 47 House Democrats are committed No votes, and eight are Leaning No, for a total of 56. That means out of 256 House Democrats only 200 remain, and a dozen of those are listed as undecided. The bill needs 218 votes for passage.

Liberals are putting heavy pressure on Democrats to pass legislation that includes a government run health insurance option because they feel that profits made by insurance companies are exorbitant and immoral. But accounting records reveal the truth, and the truth is that the profit margins collected by these companies are quite small and any cuts forced by a government plan would generally push them out of business.

According to a recent AP article, average profits at the major insurers barely exceeded 2% of revenues in the latest annual measure. Compare that to Google whose profit margin was 20.6% or Microsoft with a 24.9% margin, and you begin to understand how lackluster health insurance profit margins are. In fact, credit ratings of some of the largest insurers were downgraded to negative from stable heading into this year, as investors were warned of a stagnant if not shrinking market for private plans.

In an interview, Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) said what he thinks is the long term goal of healthcare reform that includes a government option, "Ultimately I think the goal is to drive private insurers out of business by undercutting them, encouraging employers to drop the employees off of the employer-provided coverage, so that ultimately you end up with a single-payer government-run health care system for all Americans. I think that is the goal."

Despite assertions by Democrats that the Americans support a public option, a Rasmussen Report posted on Monday shows that only 23% strongly support the plan while 40% strongly oppose the plan. And 57% of voters nationwide believe it will raise the cost of health care, and 53% believe the quality of care will get worse. That’s part of the reason that just 45% support the plan and 51% oppose it.

Democrats have been listening to their liberal base for too long and need to extend an olive branch to a somewhat moderate position that more Americans can relate to. They rode the wave of “hope and change” that people were seeking but instead have delivered bully tactics and back room deals that are disenfranchising people with politics in general.

Politicians on the left would do well to remember that the year 2010 is a mid-term election year and is just around the corner. I think a lot of people are tired of higher taxes, larger government and exploding national debt, which is why I believe the GOP will see a resurgence in the next election.

Another Shameful Judicial Selection

2009-10-27T08:00:00.000-05:00

One of the greatest perks of being the President is getting to select judges for the federal court system, including the Supreme Court. It is the responsibility of the President to select judges who will not be partial or use their particular views to interpret the law, after all, justice is supposed to be equal to all, without regard for race, gender, background, etc.

But the appointments made by President Obama have been less than impartial, beginning with Justice Sonia Sotomayor. During a speech at the University of California at Berkeley, Sotomayor said, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

In a case that came before Judge Sotomayor earlier this year, she and two other judges ruled that a group of white firefighters could not receive the promotions they had earned because no black firefighters had passed the standardized exams. The promotion exams were closely focused on firefighting methods, knowledge and skills. The first part had 200 multiple-choice questions and counted for 60 percent of the final score. Candidates returned another day to take an oral exam in which they described responses to various scenarios, which counted for 40 percent.

The case was appealed to the Supreme Court where Sotomayor’s ruling was overturned and the City of New Haven was required to promote the firefighters.

Now President Obama has nominated Edward Chen to sit on the bench at the Northern California Federal District Court. Mr. Chen promises to rule in line with the far left’s version of a quality judge and has already proven to use race and “life experiences” rather than law to dispense justice.

Chen worked for the ACLU as an activist lawyer between 1979 and 2001, during which he opposed English-only policies and for pushing discriminatory affirmative action ideals, even coming to the aid of gang members during a particular case.

Mr. Chen has a self described lack of American patriotism and has repeatedly stated that he finds racism and discrimination almost everywhere he looks.

Upon hearing “America the Beautiful” at a funeral, Chen commented, "feelings of ambivalence and cynicism when confronted with appeals to patriotism — sometimes I cannot help but feel that there are too much [sic] injustice and too many inequalities that prevent far too many Americans from enjoying the beauty extolled in that anthem."

When the attacks of 9/11 happened, Chen’s first thoughts were not of concern for the victims or a sense of anger over the attacks, instead only ten days after the attacks Chen remarked that he imagined that America would revert to the "irresistible forces of racism, nativism and scapegoating" of the past and begin systematic oppression of American Muslims.

When asked about the role of judges he said, "Simply put, a judge's life experiences affect the willingness to credit testimony or understand the human impact of legal rules upon which the judge must decide. These determinations require a judge to draw upon something that is not found in the case reports that line the walls of our chambers. Rather judges draw upon the breadth and depth of their own life experience.... Inevitably, one's ethnic and racial background contributes to those life experiences."

In effect, he parallels what Justice Sotomayor believes, that judges must include more than law to reach their decisions.

These beliefs will inevitably create unequal justice in our society and place so many at an unjustified disadvantage. If laws are not applied blindly, without regard for race, gender, ethnicity or background, then the result can not be called justice, but rather a travesty.

President Obama once again exposes his naiveté by selecting judges who have displayed bias while on the bench and who are not qualified to sit in judgment of others.

The Internet Emperor

2009-10-26T08:00:00.001-05:00

Earlier this year Senator John “Jay” Rockefeller (D-W.V.) introduced legislation that would give the President unprecedented power over the internet. The bill would allow the President to basically turn the internet off if he deemed it a matter of national security.

The law would give the Secretary of Commerce access to all privately owned information networks deemed to be critical to the nation's infrastructure “without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy restricting such access." The bill would also create a new Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor, reportable directly to the president. This office would be responsible for creating a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," wherein, private companies with certain computer systems and networks would be required to hire those people who have been awarded the certification to manage their network security.

The bill would also direct the implementation of a "comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy" in six months, even though its mandatory legal review will take a year to complete. This amounts to the notion that it’s easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission.

The White House, through the national cybersecurity advisor, will have the authority to disconnect "critical infrastructure" networks from the Internet – including private citizens' banks and health records, if they are found to be at risk of cyber attack. The working copy of the bill, however, does not define what constitutes a cybersecurity emergency, and apparently leaves the question to the discretion of the President.

Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco commented, "As soon as you're saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it's going to be a really big issue."

Tien continued, “The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There's no provision for any administrative process or review. That's where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it."

According to Jennifer Granick, civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, granting the Department of Commerce oversight of the "critical" networks, such as banking records, would grant the government access to potentially incriminating information obtained without cause or warrant, a violation of the Constitution's prohibition against unlawful search and seizure.

But most importantly, the new law represents another huge new power grab by the federal government which would parallel a suggestion by “Regulatory Czar” Cass Sunstein, to make online writers, particularly bloggers, legally responsible for falsehoods and rumors that get generated in cyberspace.

Sunstein has called for a 'notice and take down' law that would require bloggers and service providers to take down falsehoods upon notice, even those made by commenters, allowing the White House and others to determine what is considered true or false.

President Obama’s quest for control seems to be unyielding, by waging a war against an unflattering news outlet, controlling General Motors, Chrysler, a variety of financial services companies, the student loan business, seeking control of the healthcare and energy industry, the salaries of business executives and now the internet.

The expansion of government and executive power is frightening, and history has taught those of us who are listening, that greater government power leads to greater tyranny. After all “The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen,” is not merely a nice saying. Doesn’t the government have enough power?

Pandora’s Box Can’t Be Closed

2009-10-23T08:00:00.001-05:00

It all started in October 2008, in response to the housing and credit market implosion, President Bush implored Congress to pass a $700 billion bailout plan to buy bad mortgages from subprime lenders in an effort to keep people in their homes and stimulate lending.

During floor debate over this bill Democrat Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) put it best, "When we buy up this toxic paper, we're in charge …We'll be able to set some standards."

Well now Democrats are in charge, and the financial sector is paying for those standards in spades. Banks and investment companies were so eager to receive loans from the government that they never stopped to ask themselves what they would have to give up in return, but now that Pandora’s Box has been opened the contents can’t be put back in.

Yesterday, Kenneth Feinberg, the Treasury Department's special master for compensation (aka Pay Czar) announced a plan to cut the salaries of top executives at seven major financial institutions by 90%. The seven companies, which have received large amounts of government bailout money, are AIG, Bank of America, Citigroup, General Motors Co., GMAC Inc., Chrysler Group LLC and Chrysler Financial. The total compensation for top earners at these companies is down by 50%, this includes bonuses, stock options and retirement benefits among other things.

The four month effort by Mr. Feinberg to control pay is one of the most obvious ways the government has become intertwined with the private sector since the economy began to sink.

J.W. Verret, a corporate law expert at George Mason University School of Law commented, "There's definitely never been anything like this where a government sets pay for a company that's publicly traded."

Investment firms Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley also received federal bailout dollars but were able to avoid the salary restrictions because they have already paid back the money they borrowed.

Democrats are also on the brink of handing the financial industry another blow, the House Financial Services Committee voted yesterday to approve the creation of a consumer financial protection agency.

President Obama lauded the vote and said, “The Consumer Financial Protection Agency will prevent predatory lending practices and other abuses and will ensure that consumers get clear information they can understand about financial products like credit cards and mortgages.”

If passed, the bill will create an independent watchdog for consumer financial products and slap tough new oversight on lenders. The measure also gives states new power to preempt federal consumer protection laws with their own, often tougher rules.

Despite Democrat’s assurances that all of these actions have been taken for the public good, most people don’t approve. A new poll by the National Constitution Center and Associated Press reveals Americans oppose government intervention in the economy.

The 2009 poll found that Americans strongly oppose allowing the government to take partial ownership of private enterprise, even if it would prevent them from going out of business (71%) or losing jobs (66%), or if the failure of the industry would seriously harm the economy (60%).

But don’t expect the government to change course any time soon. The White House and Democrats in Congress seem determined to prevent the economy from recovering. All of the bailouts and stimulus money restrict growth rather than encourage it by preventing the companies from adjusting to actual market demand.

The government is also restricting growth by imposing more and more policies and regulations, rather than allowing free enterprise to innovate and move ahead. The administration likes to paint corporations and executives as greedy goblins that seek to rob you blind while you sleep, but the truth is that most are hard working employers who understand that their success depends on their company’s success.

Let’s not expand the role of government and leave more power in the hands of those who have already taken over the auto, student loan and banking sectors. Call your Representative and Senators and tell them not so support the creation of a consumer financial protection agency.

Is Obama Deliberately Destroying The Dollar?

2009-10-22T08:00:00.000-05:00

I know the question seems like a whacky, conspiracy theorist diversion, but before you dismiss the idea out of hand, read the article and draw your conclusion at the end.

Consider the following: During the Presidential campaign in 2008 Obama made a trip to Berlin to give a speech in which he referred to himself as a “citizen of the world.”

“People of Berlin, people of the world, this is our moment. This is our time,” he declared, offering himself “not as a candidate for president, but as a citizen, a proud citizen of the United States and a fellow citizen of the world.”

Referring to differences between the United States and Europe, Obama stated, “No doubt, there will be differences in the future. But the burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together,” Obama continued. “A change of leadership in Washington will not lift this burden. In this new century, Americans and Europeans alike will be required to do more, not less.”

President Obama also stated that "the walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand … the walls between … natives and immigrants ... cannot stand. These now are the walls that we must tear down."

The speech by Obama suggests that he holds a world view where no country is better than another and that we are all part of a global community, where borders between nations must be torn down in order to provide for economic equality.

Earlier this year Congress passed Obama’s economic stimulus plan in an effort to pull the country out of a recession, but the plan has had little effect on the economy. The bill, which will cost nearly one trillion dollars, is far too expensive for our already debt laden nation to afford. Another mammoth program that President Obama supports is nationalized healthcare, this too will cost at least a trillion dollars and many more in the coming years if passed.

These programs, combined with existing U.S. debt, have the potential to bankrupt our economy, forcing us to rely on other countries for assistance. Currently, China and Russia are two of our largest debt holders and they, along with France, India and virtually all of the gulf Arab countries, are lobbying to replace the dollar as the global trading and reserve currency with a single common currency.

Another threat to the dollar is inflation, the Federal Reserve said in March that it would print $1.2 trillion out of thin air, a more aggressive step than its counterparts in Europe or Japan have taken -- making the U.S. dollar relatively more vulnerable. Minutes of an April 28-29 meeting released this week indicate the Fed even considered increasing this amount. The prospect of severe inflation could envision a scenario where the dollar would be abandoned by the rest of the world, leading the U.S. to be more inclined to accept a new currency.

President Obama, Treasury Secretary Geithner and Fed Chairman Bernanke all separately expressed support for the dollar earlier this year, and denounced the Chinese-Russian proposal for a new global currency. However, actions certainly speak louder than words, because while publicly denouncing the demise of the dollar and the call for a new global currency, their every policy is creating the very means and justification for its introduction.

Bernanke himself has vehemently supported efforts to create a global regulatory framework that would act as the vehicle for the introduction of a new global currency to replace the dollar. He has echoed the sentiments of other world leaders in calling for a new world economic order and “A strategy that regulates the financial system as a whole, in a holistic way, not just its individual components,” clearly referring to the economy on a global scale.

It seems that no matter where you turn, Obama is seeking to undermine U.S. sovereignty. The United States has been a bulwark of global leadership for generations and the security of our economic and financial system has been the foundation for global prosperity. We rebuilt German and Japan after World War II, and now both of those countries are affluent because of the lessons they learned from us.

Our leadership should work to keep inflation low and protect the value of the dollar. Maybe if they set aside their visions of global grandeur, we can actually bring the country out of the recession.

Can’t We All Just Get Along?

2009-10-21T08:00:00.001-05:00

Lately the Obama administration has indicated that it wants to get along with the Taliban and is going to great lengths to aid terrorists. From exposing secret CIA interrogation techniques to investigating interrogators, and from withholding Army reinforcements in Afghanistan to conceding portions of the country back to the Taliban, President Obama seems to be more interested appeasing our enemies rather than defeating them.

Earlier this year President Obama, through Attorney General Eric Holder, opened an investigation into CIA interrogation techniques and agents who questioned terrorists. Bowing to pressure from liberal Democrats who elected him to office, the President is seeking to not only expose measures that are used to gain vital information and prevent further attacks, but also to bring criminal charges against interrogators who used those methods.

By investigating CIA interrogators, efforts to protect the United States from further attacks are put in jeopardy. Many interrogators will leave the profession all together and others will no longer use methods which have proven to work and have garnered high quality, actionable intelligence from terrorists such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (9/11 mastermind) and other high value targets.

The President also released highly classified documents detailing the interrogation techniques that were used and claimed that their use did not keep Americans safe. This claim was a manifest lie and was exposed as such by the memos Obama made public.

A Justice Department memo from May 30, 2005 notes that "the CIA believes the intelligence acquired from these interrogations has been a key reason why al Qaeda has failed to launch a spectacular attack in the west since 11 September 2001.” It continues, “In particular, the CIA believes that it would have been unable to obtain critical information from numerous detainees, including Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah, without these enhanced techniques."

By publishing CIA interrogation techniques, our enemies are able to train to resist these methods, and by investigating CIA employees, interrogators will be extremely hesitant to continue to perform their duty since in doing so they risk criminal investigation and political destruction.

More recently, President Obama asked for and received an analysis of the war in Afghanistan by the General he put in charge. The report that came back was bleak and stated a desperate need for reinforcements, it also said that without reinforcements the war will be lost within a year. General McChrystal has requested an additional 40,000 troops in order to drive back al Qaeda and the Taliban while maintaining security for towns and villages.

But rather than react to the request of his appointed General, the President has stalled, using Afghan election irregularities as a pretense for indecision. Even though Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai has agreed to hold a runoff election on Nov. 7 it is doubtful that this will prompt President Obama to send more troops.

To be sure, Obama’s liberal constituency is leaning on him to halt the war and withdraw troops, but it is imperative that the President look beyond the activist leanings of a particular group and do what is best for the security of the American people and protect the lives of soldiers who are already deployed.

Another new development has exposed just how far President Obama is willing to go to please the far left of the Democratic Party. A story by the Associated Press reveals that the White House has indicated the President is prepared to allow the Taliban some role in the Afghanistan government or even cede parts of the country to them.

"Bowing to the reality that the Taliban is too ingrained in Afghanistan's culture to be entirely defeated, the administration is prepared, as it has been for some time, to accept some Taliban role in parts of Afghanistan," and administration official said, according to the AP story.

"That could mean paving the way for Taliban members willing to renounce violence to participate in a central government - though there has been little receptiveness to this among the Taliban. It might even mean ceding some regions of the country to the Taliban," the article added.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the Taliban complicit with al Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks? What happened to President Bush’s quote “Any government that supports, protects or harbors terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent and equally guilty of terrorist crimes.”?

I miss the days of leadership that stood up to evil, rather than seeking to placate it. I fear that by weakening the CIA’s resolve to investigate terrorists and draw out new information, and by sending the message around the world that we are tired of fighting, that we are inviting another catastrophic attack. Terrorists never grow weary so we must stay vigilant, it is a difficult fight but one that must be fought.

Absolute Control, Absolutely

2009-10-20T08:00:00.000-05:00

More and more we see President Obama seeking to consolidate power and control, leaving many to draw parallels with totalitarian regimes of the past. Many top advisors in the administration openly admit their admiration of communism, and their connection to Obama begs the inference that he agrees. Indeed, White House methods of coercion against those who disagree with their policies is at a minimum Chicago style intimidation, or at worst a not so subtle attempt at absolute control.

White House communications director Anita Dunn has launched a campaign against the Fox News Channel for not towing the administration’s official line regarding healthcare reform, global warming, the economy and a host of other topics. Clearly Ms. Dunn did not conceive that anyone would broadcast a message that she did not approve of, as evidenced by her own words during the 2008 Presidential campaign.

In a video of an event hosted by the Global Foundation for Democracy and Development in the Dominican Republic, Dunn is seen describing in detail the media strategy used by the Obama campaign.

"Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn't absolutely control," Dunn said, admitting that the strategy "did not always make us popular in the press." "So that what the voters heard we determined, as opposed to some editor in a TV station."

President Obama is equally interested in controlling talk radio and silencing commentators such as Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt and others. Although Obama maintains that he has no interest in reviving the Fairness Doctrine which began in the 1940’s, he has advocated for a new form of control termed “Localism”.

“Localism” would force stations to carry more local programming, and require stations to set up permanent community advisory boards that would have to be regularly consulted on "community needs and issues." But it is unclear how board membership would be decided. Would liberals sit on the board of a conservative station broadcasting in an urban area? Or would an Islamic community leader sit on the board of a Christian station? And what kind of power would these FCC-mandated boards wield? The answers to these questions are unclear, but one thing is certain, control of the media is actively being sought by the Obama administration.

The Obama administration also launched an intimidation attack against investment managers during the government takeover of Chrysler. Obama harshly castigated hedge fund managers for being unwilling to take his administration’s bid for their Chrysler bonds. He called them “speculators” who were “refusing to sacrifice like everyone else” and who wanted “to hold out for the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout.”

What the President failed to understand, due to his lack of private enterprise experience, was that the money controlled by hedge fund managers wasn’t theirs to sacrifice, it belonged to investors who paid them to get the best return possible. If the managers had “sacrificed” their investments in Chrysler, to the government, they would have basically stolen the money that was entrusted to them.

White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel is also using intimidation to make the public believe that the stimulus spending is solving the unemployment problem. He orchestrated four letters to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer from four Cabinet secretaries threatening to cut off Arizona's federal funding because of Sen. Jon Kyl's, R-Ariz., criticism of the stimulus.

A letter to Emanuel from Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, described the threat, which Issa called "Chicago-style tactics." Issa wrote, "While this type of scare tactic may work in Chicago, it will not work to intimidate me or other members of the United States Congress."

The list of attempts and assertions by Obama to bully and control people goes on and on, and anyone who disagrees with the administration becomes a target. The White House even set up an email address and encouraged supporters to forward anti-obamacare emails to them, evidently to track the originators.

It is astonishing that so many Americans quietly bow to the Obama political machine and cede their right, and the right of others, to express opinions that oppose what someone else says, even if that someone is the President of the United States. We need to continue to stand and make sure that our Constitutional right to free speech will never be infringed upon.

A Legacy of Crushing Debt

2009-10-19T08:00:00.001-05:00

One of the most profound legacies that the Obama administration will leave to future generations is the monstrous national debt. The U.S. Treasury Department has announced that 2009 deficit spending settled at 1.4 trillion dollars, which is the highest amount since World War II.

The White House contends that the main reason for the debt is spending and tax policies inherited from the Bush administration, rather than the $787 billion stimulus bill Democrats pushed through Congress last winter or the $245 billion in emergency Wall Street bailouts, among other things. Only around $200 billion of the stimulus money has been spent, but the bill has lead to an increase in programs such as unemployment benefits and food stamp.

President Bush left office with a $459 billion deficit which was a record at that time, but President Obama has managed to tripple that amount within one year. The Bush administration was faced with the 9/11 attacks which exposed the need to reform airport security around the country, thereby creating the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and the cost of conducting two wars simultaneously.

A report from the U.S. Treasury stated that government receipts were down 16.6% in 2009, to $2.1 trillion, but government expenditures rose more than 18% to $3.5 trillion, including stimulus outlays. Despite this report, Democrats continue to seek expensive new programs such as national health care, which is expected to cost around $1 trillion dollars.

Speaking about the budget deficit, House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio said "This new CBO data makes it clear that our children and grandchildren will end up buried under a mountain of debt if we continue taxing, spending and borrowing at these dangerous levels," "How many alarm bells have to be set off before Washington Democrats get serious about tackling dangerous budget deficits?"

The Obama administration contends that their health plan would be "paid for" with new revenues and curbs in spending, rather than using those tax increases and spending cuts to bring the overall deficit down. The huge deficits have also raised worries about the willingness of foreign countries to keep purchasing U.S. Treasury debt. Earlier this year Russia and China joined with other countries in seeking to challenge the U.S. dollar’s role as the world’s sole benchmark currency.

One of the ideas floated by the Russians was the creation of a new reserve currency to be issued by international financial institutions rather than the U.S. dollar. The effect would be devastating to the United States as countries around the world sought to dump their dollars for the new currency.

The largest portion of our national debt is owned by two countries, number one is China which owns about $800 billion, 23.35%, and Japan which owns $725 billion, 21.13%. Together, the total from these two countries equals $1.5 trillion that will have to be repaid by our children and several generations thereafter.

A mix of other countries own a combined about near $2 trillion. These amounts, however, do not account for the amount of debt that the federal government owes itself in order to pay for unfunded future entitlement programs. These programs put the actual debt somewhere near $60 trillion over the next ten years.

President Obama and Democrats in Congress continue to spend as if the United States has an unlimited revenue source. The truth is that we have put far too much on the national credit card and pretty soon we won’t be able to afford the payments. Once creditor nations decide that the dollar is too unstable, they will take action and dump the dollar for a more secure currency, and who could blame them?

Our leaders need to do serious work and make hard decisions to protect the future solvency and stability of our economy. We have become the wealthiest and most prosperous nation on earth, but we are not indestructible. Unless entitlement programs are adjusted and new ones are abandoned, and unless government waste is cast aside and businesses are encouraged to grow, our economic worries will continue and the likelihood of disaster will loom.

Politics And Climate Unchange

2009-10-16T08:00:00.000-05:00

For years we have been bombarded with dire predictions of a world wide catastrophe caused by global warming. Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth presented the idea of a near-death earth that can be saved only by drastic and immediate action. The UN global warming conference released a report in 2008 which concluded that climate change was a universal problem and countries worldwide must enact restrictive legislation in order to turn the tide.

But renowned scientists from around the world are beginning to dispute the UN findings and are expressing skepticism about global warming. The U.S. Senate Minority Report of 2008 features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN scientists, who have now turned against the UN.

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

One of the talking points used to support global warming is the melting of the polar and near polar ice caps, especially the Arctic sea ice and Greenland ice cap. Former NASA Senior Research Scientist Leonard Weinstein, ScD uses the melting of Arctic and Greenlandish ice to show how CO2 can not cause catastrophic melting in the future. In fact, both areas are well within the norm of natural variation. It should be noted that the Antarctic is presently cooling (and has been for several years) and sea ice extent is expanding.

The actual cause of the significant melting of summer ice has been shown to not be possible from the top. However, there is considerable summer melting. It is clear from physics that the summer melting has to have been caused by water flowing under the ice. The water flows from lower latitudes, so has a higher temperature than the ice. If the water is warm enough it melts the ice from below.

The result is that solid ice cannot normally melt from solar radiation plus air warming from the top, even at the peak of summer. The rest of the year has even less energy input, so ice is strongly cooled all year long. For much more detailed data from Scientist Leonard Weinstein, click here.

According to data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which regulates emissions of air pollutants, air quality is improving despite increased energy use.

The EPA, which regulates emissions of air pollutants such as SO2 and NOx, stated that nationwide air quality for the six air pollutants (known as “principal pollutants”) for which there are national standards has improved significantly in recent decades.“Since 1980, emissions of the six principal pollutants have declined significantly, with the greatest drop in lead,” the EPA publication Six Principal Pollutants reports.“During that same time period, NOx emissions have dropped by one-third, and VOC [volatile organic compounds], SO2, and CO [carbon monoxide] emissions have been cut by roughly one half. Combined, the emissions of the six principal pollutants dropped 49 percent since 1980,” EPA noted.“All of this progress has occurred while the U.S. economy continued to grow, Americans drove more miles, and population and energy use increased,” EPA explained.

A recent BBC article announced that the world has actually cooled for the last 11 years despite a global increase in carbon dioxide levels. The article raises several theories about global warming, or the lack thereof. One of the major theories for global temperatures is solar activity.

Solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures.

Another theory, which is presented by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University, is that the oceans and global temperatures are correlated. The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically.

Finally, approximately 31,478 American scientists have signed the Global Warming Petition Project, including 9,029 with PhDs. The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” in favor of human-caused global warming is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.

Luckily, fewer and fewer people are concerned with climate change, and huge numbers of world renowned scientists remain skeptical that humans have the capacity to affect global temperatures.

Despite credible dissenting voices, the U.S. government and governments around the world continue to push legislation to put economically restrictive limits on energy production. These bills are nothing more than an effort to levy huge new taxes on businesses vis-à-vis the citizens of these countries. The measures are also a thinly veiled movement to expand political power and control by politicians who believe that people must be controlled by their governments.

Entitlement Programs Bankrupt Nations

2009-10-15T08:00:00.000-05:00

Benjamin Franklin said it best, “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”

Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are the three main entitlement programs of the federal government which, when combined, make up over 50% of the national budget. The financial solvency of these programs is rapidly unraveling and the unfunded obligation of the government to pay them is well into the tens of trillions of dollars.

The Social Security Act was signed into law on August 14, 1935 and was intended to be a safety net to avoid poverty for aging Americans. When the bill was enacted there were about 16 workers paying in for every person taking benefits out, now we are down to about 3.3 people paying in for every person taking out. Americans are living longer thereby drawing out the need for more payments, at the same time we are having smaller families and reducing the workforce to pay into the system.

As of last year, the federal government projected that by 2017, Social Security would begin paying out more in benefits than it generates in revenues. A May 2009 report shifts this date back one year, to 2016. Even more startling is the report's finding that the Social Security trust fund itself will be entirely depleted by 2037. This is four years earlier than the last year's projected depletion date of 2041.

Medicare is no different, according to the Medicare trustees, Medicare’s reserve will be empty by 2017 and Medicare will have to cut benefits or payment rates by 19% to balance its budget. Since the projected date of Medicare’s bankruptcy has been bumped up many times, it’s likely that the actual date of bankruptcy may be as early as 2015. Medicare is largely funded through a payroll tax of 2.9 percent and through premiums from Supplementary Medical Insurance, or SMI . Payroll revenues are tied to the rate of business growth which has been decidedly slow during the recession.

Medicaid is the joint state-federal health insurance program for low-income Americans.
Spending on this program is projected to grow at a higher rate than spending on Medicare, according to a report by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Spending on Medicaid over the next decade is forecast to amount to $4.9 trillion, the report said. Average Medicaid enrollment is seen increasing 1.8 percent to 50 million people in 2008, and is projected to hit 55.1 million by 2017. Medicaid is forecast to increase as a share of the federal budget from 7 percent in 2007 to 8.4 percent by 2013, according to the report.

Many Americans are now aware that our country has an unprecedented total national debt of about $11 trillion. But you may be shocked to learn that this amount does not reflect what the federal government has promised to pay millions of Americans in entitlement benefits down the road. Those future obligations put our real debt figure at nearly $60 trillion – a staggering sum that is about as large as the total household net worth of the entire United States.

When the Congressional Budget Office was asked by Representative Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), to determine what the tax rates would need to be to cover federal spending at current levels he was given a staggering assessment. “What they told me was really startling,” said Ryan. “They said that the current low rate, the 10-percent bracket for low-income Americans, would have to go up to 25 percent. The middle-income tax rate for middle-income Americans would have to go up to 66 percent, and the top rate, which is what small businesses pay, would have to go to 88 percent.

No nation can spend and spend without eventually paying the consequences, just like an individual who makes $30,000 a year but borrows and spends as if they make $200,000 per year. Within a very short time that person would have more debt than they could even afford the minimum payments on. The U.S. currently pays $500 million just on interest payments every day for the national debt.

Now President Obama and the Democrat controlled Congress want to create another mammoth entitlement program with national healthcare, and this program promises to dwarf all others. It is hard to comprehend the blatant disregard for the dire economic warnings that have been given for several years now.

Consider the Soviet Union collapse, it was not because of an invasion or being conquered militarily, but because their economy collapsed. Their communist economy could not produce enough wealth to sustain industry and support their citizens, therefore they went broke.

Ancient Rome did not cease to exist purely because they were conquered by outside forces, but they also could not continue to pay their armies and feed their citizens due to extravagant lifestyles and excess that they had come to expect.

As a nation we can afford to help those with genuine need but we should also be willing to make painful yet necessary decisions to preserve the integrity of our country and economy for our children. It was President Kennedy who said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” I fear that no one cares to ask themselves that question any more.

A Child In The Oval Office

2009-10-14T08:00:00.004-05:00

I am not referring to one of President Obama’s daughters, I am referring to the President himself. Because Fox News Channel isn’t falling all over itself fawning with adulation for Barak Obama, the White House has declared war on the network.

White House communications director Anita Dunn told CNN's "Reliable Sources" last Sunday, "It really is not a news network at this point."

“What I think is fair to say about Fox, and certainly it's the way we view it, is that it really is more a wing of the Republican Party,” said Dunn. “They take their talking points, put them on the air; take their opposition research, put them on the air. And that's fine. But let's not pretend they're a news network the way CNN is.” Apparently even the captions the network uses to headline its stories are slanted according to Ms. Dunn.

Both conservatives and liberals across the media spectrum have been surprised by the attacks, and nearly all have expressed disagreement with the Administration's actions.

Bill Gergen who worked for Bill Clinton and three Republican Presidents, commented on CNN, "It's a very risky strategy. It's not one that I would advocate." "If you're going to get very personal against the media, you're going to find that the animosities are just going to deepen. And you're going to find that you sort of almost draw viewers and readers to the people you're attacking. You build them up in some ways, you give them stature."

In the last few weeks Administration officials have used the White House blog to launch attacks against what they call “Fox lies.” But it seems that the only people who were lying are part of the White House propaganda machine. One of Anita Dunn’s main complaints with Fox News was what she perceived to be unfair coverage of the 2008 Presidential election.

But once again facts obfuscate the Administration’s story of an unfair and unbalanced news network. A study by the Pew Research Center showed that 40 percent of Fox News stories on Obama in the last six weeks of the campaign were negative. Similarly, 40 percent of Fox News' stories on Obama's Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, were negative.

On CNN, by contrast, there was a 22-point disparity in the percentage of negative stories on Obama (39 percent) and McCain (61 percent). The disparity was even greater at MSNBC, according to Pew, where just 14 percent of Obama stories were negative, compared to a whopping 73 percent of McCain stories -- a spread of 59 points.

Much to the chagrin of Democrats and liberals, Fox News Channel continues to do very well with viewers and poll numbers show that the network trounces the competition year after year.

Nielsen ratings for May 2009 are in, with Fox News once again, leading the cable news race by wide margins. Fox News retained its #1 spot, averaging more total viewers in Monday-Sunday than CNN and MSNBC combined. Also, in the crucial 25-54 age group Fox News took first place, again with more than MSNBC and CNN combined.

The attacks by the White House will only serve to increase the ratings for Fox and turn people away from the message that the Administration is trying to sell. For those who appreciate Fox, our attitude toward the White House is not of anger or animosity but of amusement and humor, and maybe a little sadness to see the Office of the President be denigrated in such a way.

The petty whining coming from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is expected from a two year old child who was told he couldn’t have his way, but is not appropriate from adults, much less from the leader of the most powerful nation on earth!

More Equal Than Others

2009-10-13T08:00:00.000-05:00

Last week the House of Representatives voted to expand hate crimes legislation that was enacted after Martin Luther King, Jr. was murdered. The stated goal of this modification is to make it a federal crime to willfully cause bodily injury (or try to) because of the victim's actual or perceived "race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability."

The bill has been labeled a “Thought Crimes” bill because it seeks to hold people who speak out against homosexuality responsible for someone else’s actions. For instance, if a pastor of a church preaches about the biblical view of homosexuality and a deranged congregant goes out and attacks a gay person, the pastor can be charged with a hate crime under this bill.

There are a number of other constitutional problems with the legislation also. A defendant convicted on the grounds of this bill would be charged with a hate crime in addition to the original crime, and would get extra prison time. However, the extra punishment applies only to these "protected classes." As Denver criminal defense lawyer Robert J Corry Jr. asked, "Isn't every criminal act that harms another person a hate crime?" Then, regarding a Colorado hate crime law, Corry wrote: "When a Colorado gang engaged in an initiation ritual of specifically seeking out a white woman to rape, the Boulder prosecutor declined to pursue hate crime charges." She was not enough of one of its protected classes.

Corey adds that hate crime laws do not apply equally (as the 14th Amendment requires), instead "criminalizing only politically incorrect thoughts directed against politically incorrect victim categories."

Also at odds with this bill is the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution which makes clear: "nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy." (double jeopardy) But the House "thought crime" bill allows defendants found innocent of that offense in a state court to be tried again in federal court if the U.S. Attorney General feels that the case was not prosecuted vigorously enough.

The 14th Amendment requires that no person be denied "the equal protection of the laws," but now Democrats are seeking to use the law to protect certain people more than others.

The measure was deceitfully slipped into a “must pass” defense appropriations bill that the Pentagon needed to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"The inclusion of 'thought crimes' legislation in what is otherwise a bipartisan bill for troop funding is an absolute disgrace," said Rep. Tom Price of Georgia, head of the GOP conservative caucus.

Evidently I was under the mistaken impression that rape is rape, murder is murder and crime is crime. Regardless of who the perpetrator was and regardless of who the victim was, the standards should be the same and the punishments should fit the crimes. By declaring that some people have special protections, we are advocating that those people are better than others, and isn’t that what Martin Luther King, Jr. fought against all those years ago?

The Nobel Pretentious Prize

2009-10-12T08:00:00.002-05:00

I’m special, you’re special, we’re all special … as long as you’re a liberal progressive. This seems to be the statement that the Nobel Prize Committee has been making for the last few years. With President Obama’s award last week, the total comes to three liberal Democrats who have won the prize in the last few years.

Jimmy Carter won the award in 2002 for his efforts to negotiate peace in the Middle East. Despite his lack of progress, the committee felt that his efforts merited the prestigious award. In 2007, Al Gore won the prize for drawing attention to global warming, evidently the panel enjoyed his movie “An Inconvenient Truth”. Now, by giving the award to Barak Obama, the Nobel Prize Committee has exposed an inconvenient truth of their own - conservatives seem to be barred from winning.

Even though Ronald Reagan played a crucial role in bringing down the Berlin wall in 1989, which peacefully lead to freedom for millions of people, he was not awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. And even though George H. W. Bush invaded Iraq and threw Saddam Hussein out of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, thereby saving millions of lives, he was not awarded the prize either. Most recently George W. Bush removed the tyrannical Taliban from Afghanistan, and now the women in that country are treated with dignity rather than like a household pet. He also removed the murderous dictator Saddam Hussein from Iraq, preventing him from sponsoring terrorism or building weapons of mass destruction, so where is his peace prize?

Evidently the Euro-elites who comprise the Nobel Prize Committee prefer President Obama’s ingratiating attitude towards globalism. After all, one of the cornerstone ideals that the President espouses is that the U.S. is no different, and certainly no better, than any other country on earth, and that the world’s nations should work toward common goals.

Some take a different view, choosing instead to believe in American Exceptionalism. We remember that our ancestors fought and died to purchase our freedom from an oppressive monarch, and years later fought and died to abolish slavery. Our grandfathers fought to put an end to two World Wars, the second of which stopped one of the most evil men in human history. Our fathers traveled to remote places to fight the spread of communism and tried to maintain democracy and freedom.

Our soldiers now fight bravely and with courage, placing the safety of civilians above their impulse to shoot when they feel threatened.

The United States has grown to the most powerful and most prosperous nation on earth, which leaves many around the world to be jealous. President Obama has spent much time traveling the world apologizing for American policies and efforts to protect our interests. I may be mistaken, but I thought the point of being a powerful nation was the luxury of protecting what is important to us.

Many in Europe appreciate the President’s abasement of his own country because this lends credence to their opinion that the U.S. is a bully that has accumulated too much power and must be homogenized with the rest of the world.

It is too bad that the Nobel Prize Committee is stripping the prize of its prestige, if they had kept to the founder’s intent of recognizing people for great achievements rather than great intentions, then the award would be something we could all celebrate.

Do What I Say, Not What I Do

2009-10-09T08:00:00.001-05:00

Representative Charlie Rangel (D-NY) has been a Congressman for 40 years and is now the chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee. This committee is the chief tax writing committee of the United States House of Representatives. The Committee has jurisdiction over all taxation, tariffs and other revenue-raising measures, as well as a number of other programs including Social Security, Unemployment benefits, Medicare, and more.

You would think that the chairman of such a committee would be financially inculpable, or at least current on his taxes, but sadly the opposite is true. The Democratic lawmaker is under House ethics investigation for everything from not paying his taxes to not reporting income, from taking bribes to illegal parking, and almost everything in between.

The House ethics committee expanded an already year old investigation into Rangel Thursday. The reason for the expansion was an August restatement of his personal finances, in which he under reported hundreds of thousands of dollars in assets. He has also admitted that he failed to report to the IRS rental income from a Dominican vacation home. He’s also been accused of improperly using official letterhead to solicit money for a City College of New York education center bearing his name and helping a big-dollar donor to the center keep a lucrative tax break. There are also allegations that he maintained multiple rent-stabilized apartments in violation of New York City rules.

In 2007, he reported a range of assets between roughly $500,000 and $1.3 million but has amended that to between roughly $1 million and $2.5 million.

Republicans have tried three times to have Rangel removed from his position on the House Ways and Means committee, but all efforts so far have been thwarted by Democrats. Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer have said they would take no action while the ethics investigation of the New York Democrat is under way, but the inquiry has dragged on for so long that some are wondering if it will be done in time for the 2010 elections.

Representative Rangel, one of the founding members of the Congressional Black Caucus, even charged his own campaign rent money to use an office in a building he owned, thereby allowing him to put campaign donations directly into his own pocket. He also illegally used taxpayer funded stationary to solicit for donations to his re-election campaign and his own Political Action Committee.

Despite all of this, thirty-six members of the Congressional Black Caucus wrote to Speaker Pelosi on Wednesday night to express their strong support for Rangel.

“Regrettably, the minority has repeatedly attempted to make an end-run around the bipartisan procedures for investigating possible ethics issues. These Republican attempts to presume guilt before an investigation has been completed violate the core American principle of the presumption of innocence,” the letter stated.

It is an American value to presume innocence until proven guilty, however, in light of seriousness and quantity of the allegations against Representative Rangel, and considering his position of considerable influence, it would be prudent for him to be removed until the investigation concludes.

It is not surprising that Democrats are standing behind Rangel, this provides another example of rules that apply to us but not to them. Just like Republican attempts to force politicians into enrolling in any healthcare reform plan that may be passed, Democrats knew it was good enough for us but not good enough for them. Lets hold Democrats accountable for their double standards and elect Republicans in 2010.

Paging Dr. Obama To The Prompter … Stat

2009-10-08T08:00:00.001-05:00

Flanked by doctors in white lab coats, President Obama pitched his case for healthcare reform to an audience of doctors in white lab coats in the rose garden at the White House on Monday. Doctors from all 50 states attended the press conference and the guest list drew heavily from Doctors for America, a grassroots organization that backs a government-run insurance option.

As the House and the Senate try to wrap up debate regarding healthcare, the President continues to try and drum up support within the healthcare community and the general population. Despite Obama’s claims in practically every speech that people overwhelmingly back a government option, support for the plan is evaporating, both with the public and doctors.

According to a September 24th Gallup Poll, the number of independents who oppose health-care reform hit 57% at the end of September, up from 33% in Jul, and among college graduates, opposition to health-care reform is now 50%, while only 33% supporting it. Also, among seniors, opposition to ObamaCare hit 63% in last month's Economist/YouGov Poll.

Another group in opposition to the healthcare reform plan is doctors. The American Medical Association (America’s largest physician organization) is letting Congress know that it will oppose creation of a government-sponsored insurance plan.

In a letter submitted to the Senate Finance Committee, the American Medical Association said: “The A.M.A. does not believe that creating a public health insurance option for non-disabled individuals under age 65 is the best way to expand health insurance coverage and lower costs. The introduction of a new public plan threatens to restrict patient choice by driving out private insurers, which currently provide coverage for nearly 70 percent of Americans.”

But the President and Congress are pressing ahead with their plans, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that she supported a government run health plan “A bill will not come out of the House without a public option,” she said on MSNBC.

But I digress, back to the white lab coat festival – it is interesting to note that three of the four President flanking doctors donated to Obama’s campaign, and all four whole heartedly support his reform plan. Campaign finance records made available by the Center for Responsive Politics show that Dr. Manget gave $500, Dr. Garner gave $4,415 and Dr. McKinney gave $1750. This revelation does make it a little harder to trust that these physicians don’t have a biased agenda in recommending the Presidents plan.

Aside from the from the fact that the Congressional Budget Office estimates a government run health plan would cost anywhere from $900 billion to one and a half trillion dollars, you have to ask yourself – why is it important for the government to replace private insurance rather than make improvements to the existing system? From the financial system to the auto industry, and from student loans to health care, the government is trying to become more and more involved in our daily lives.

Well Don’t Just Do Something, Stand There

2009-10-07T08:00:00.000-05:00

During his campaign for the White House, President Obama called the war in Afghanistan “a war of necessity.” Even as recently as August the President told a Veterans group that the war is necessary for the safety of the American people.

"This is not a war of choice," Barack Obama told the Veterans of Foreign Wars on Aug. 17. "This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al-Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is fundamental to the defense of our people."

President Obama believed so much in the war that he relieved the commanding General ahead of schedule and replaced him with Army General Stanley McChrystal. He then tasked General McChrystal with plotting a new course to win the war, but when the General followed through with his report it was put on the back burner and only came into public light because someone leaked it to the press.

The new strategy calls for an increase of around 40,000 troops which will allow for an Iraq type of surge, this affords soldiers the ability to stay in villages and towns to provide security for an extended period of time.

General McChrystal made his request for additional troops an urgent one, he stated in his report that unless more troops are sent the conflict “will likely result in failure”.

"Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) -- while Afghan security capacity matures -- risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible," Gen. McChrystal said in the report.

But now that the papers have been in the President’s hands for weeks, no word on how Obama plans to proceed has been reported. The President is also considering an alternative plan pushed by Vice President Biden, which includes reducing the number of American troops in Afghanistan and sending more instructors to train the Afghan army to fight for themselves. The plan also calls for increased missile strikes by aerial drones, or unmanned planes.

When asked if he thought the Vice President’s plan had merit, General McChrystal responded that he did not think the plan was a feasible strategy.

"The short answer is no," McChrystal said "A strategy that does not leave Afghanistan in a stable position is probably a short-sighted strategy."

"I think any decision to go forward will not just be based on resources. It will be based on what are our goals. And I know people are re-looking at what our goals and objectives are, and redefining and clarifying those."

With public support for the war waning, the Vice President’s plan is appealing to Obama, especially with liberal political pressure to end both wars and bring troops home immediately. This matter is a true test of leadership for the President, he must decide if he will stand up to the liberal base of the Democratic Party and do whatever it takes to defeat al Qaeda and the Taliban, or will he cave and dishonor all of those who have fought and sacrificed to defeat terrorism.

A side note to Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post, who wrote that the General just needs to shut up and salute: To those who seek to demean General McChrystal for speaking out in an effort to win the fight and protect his soldiers, maybe you would understand and feel differently if you had ever bothered to serve your country too. As a soldier I feel safer knowing that the commanding General is actively seeking additional troops and material to fight the war.

Don’t Stimulate Me

2009-10-06T08:00:00.001-05:00

At the beginning of the year President Obama and Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, more commonly known as the stimulus package. We were told by the President in a Washington Post op-ed piece, that if Congress did not immediately pass the Recovery Act, "our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse."

Congress moved swiftly to pass the mammoth legislation and declared a huge victory for the economy, stating that the end of the recession was near.

Now, eight months later, it is clear that the stimulus will have a lasting negative impact on the U.S. rather than a positive one. Rather than taking measured steps to rebuild a solid financial foundation, Democratic leadership in the White House and Congress have built our economic house on quickly shifting sands.

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the stimulus package will actually hurt the economy in the long run more than if nothing had been done at all. The CBO stated that the measure will result in so much government debt that within a few years it will crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years

The CBO’s basic assumption is that, in the long run, each dollar of additional debt crowds out about a third of a dollars worth of private domestic capital, the CBO said in a letter to Commerce Secretary Judd Gregg. The CBO did project the bill would create jobs, though by 2011 the effects would be minuscule.

The President is also loosing public support for the legislation with poll numbers showing increasing skepticism about its results. On July 23rd, Rasmussen Reports revealed that only 25% of U.S. voters believed that the stimulus plan was helping the economy. This number was down from 34% right after Congress approved the plan. Thirty-one percent (31%) said the stimulus was actually hurting the economy and a plurality (36%) said the plan has had no impact.

Proponents of the recovery plan say it is working, stating that indicators such as slowed unemployment growth and stock rebounds show that the recession has bottomed out. But history suggests that a mid to late 2009 turnaround was likely to occur on its own.

Since World War II the length of recessions has ranged from six to 16 months, with an average of 10. The current recession officially began in December 2007, so a recovery by the second half of 2009 was always widely expected.

Of all the times that government stimulus has been used over the years to boost a lagging economy, it has never worked, including the great depression economy which didn’t recover until the start of World War 2. The reason for its ineffectiveness is simply that the government can not create money out of thin air, it must be taxed from citizens or borrowed from foreign nations.

Take highway spending as an example. Lawmakers tell us every $1 billion in highway "stimulus" spending creates 34,779 new construction jobs. But Congress must first borrow that $1 billion out of the private economy, which then has $1 billion less to spend supporting jobs. It is a zero-sum transfer of jobs and income from one part of the economy to another.

A better solution for improving our economy would be to reduce government spending and tax rates and allow voters to decide for themselves where to invest their money. If congress can avoid over burdening and over regulating free enterprise, then entrepreneurs and large businesses alike can get back to producing and selling products and services. This will lead to new jobs being created, more people with jobs means more money to spend and more money to spend means more demand for products and services.
All of this would seem to be self evident but Democrats continue to think that the government should be the solution to our nation’s problems. I fear that until the free market is devoid of government interference, the recession will muddle on and on.

EUSSR Leaps to European Dominance

2009-10-05T08:00:00.000-05:00

In 2005 the European Union proposed a European Constitution to its member states and votes on the measure were held across the region, however the measure was soundly defeated in some major countries including France and the Netherlands. Now the legislation has been reborn as the controversial Lisbon Treaty, which is likely to transform regional and global politics.

Despite being rejected by voters, the EU leadership drafted an amendment to the treaty allowing the measure to be approved without popular support, thereby undermining its own commitment to Democracy.

The Lisbon Treaty will establish a permanent EU president, a European foreign minister, and a European Union diplomatic service. The agreement also paves the way for the covert creation of a European army by way of a mutual defense clause called Permanent Structured Cooperation. None of these positions would be elected by the populations of Europe, they would instead be nominated by government representatives.

Also, the Lisbon Treaty obligates EU nations to surrender their sovereignty in many areas to centralized decision-making; and it reduces national veto rights to allow more decisions to be made by majority voting instead of by unanimous consent.

Supporters of the Lisbon Treaty say its purpose is to cement European integration by “streamlining” decision making. But in its essence, the Lisbon Treaty, which has been called a “slow motion coup d’état,” is all about the centralization of political power by an unelected ruling clique in Brussels who desire to rule Europe free from the constraints of democracy.

The Lisbon Treaty also promotes European aspirations far beyond Europe, which is why Americans should take notice. European globalists hope the Lisbon Treaty will transform the EU into a superpower capable of counterbalancing the United States in global affairs.

Last year the treaty was put to a popular vote in Ireland, where it was defeated by the majority of the voters. Now, after 18 months of intense EU pressure, Dublin has produced the “correct” outcome in a re-vote. The desired result was achieved by playing on public fears over Ireland’s faltering economy, which is expected to contract by a shocking 10 percent this year. It also warned that Ireland would be “pushed out” or “left behind” in Europe in the event of another “no” vote.

Evidently European leaders have forgotten that the Third Reich was formed to unify Europe and bring the people under centralized leadership. By using intimidation Hitler was able to persuade many nations to supply troops for his army and the SS.

The lessons of the past seem to have been lost in Europe, which is one more reason that the United States must retain its unique position in the world of freedom and democracy. A government of the people, by the people and for the people is the only way to ensure equal representation and democratic accountability; additionally we should never allow an international court or law to subjugate our national sovereignty.

White House Biczars

2009-10-02T08:00:00.000-05:00

President Obama has nearly three dozen Czars who oversee different policies and report directly to him without any other oversight. Only about one third of these were required to go through a Senate vetting process, the rest escaped any congressional oversight.

As the Obama Administration hires more and more Czars, we find that fewer and fewer of them are actually qualified to advise the President. Van Jones, who was hired to be the “Green Jobs Czar”, was actually an avowed anarchist and communist who considered Republicans a**holes.

While at an energy conference in California, a woman asked why Republicans during the previous administration had more success getting legislation passed. Mr. Jones’ response was, "Well, the answer to that is, they're assholes," Jones said, to uproarious laughter. "That's a technical, political science term."

Since those comments were exposed by the media and drew attention to Mr. Jones’ controversial background, he was forced to resign from the White House. But if we look into the backgrounds of other Administration advisors we can detect a pattern of questionable values and disturbing policies.

Kevin Jennings, who is the founder of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), used to be a high school teacher and is now Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar”. In 1988 a 15 year old male student approached Jennings and told him about a sexual relationship he was having with an older man. Upon hearing about the relationship Mr. Jennings told the boy to just make sure “to use a condom.”

The Washington Times reported, "In this one case in which Mr. Jennings had a real chance to protect a young boy from a sexual predator, he not only failed to do what the law required but actually encouraged the relationship."

In two of his books, Jennings described similar conversations with other students but never reported those incidents to authorities either. He also wrote about his experiments with drugs and alcohol while he was a student.

Another stellar advisor to the Obama Administration is Cass Sunstein, who is the newly formed “Regulatory Czar”, which means one of Sunstein's top jobs is to review and provide guidance for draft federal regulations at different federal agencies. Mr. Sustein has argued that the government should be forced to pay for abortions in cases of rape or incest.

"I have argued that the Constitution ... forbids government from refusing to pay the expenses of abortion in cases of rape or incest, at least if government pays for childbirth in such cases," Sunstein wrote in his 1993 book "The Partial Constitution."

Sustein has also stated that “we ought to ban hunting” and that the Second Amendment does not protect an individuals “right to bear arms.” Incredibly, he has also stated that "Animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives..." meaning they could sue a person in court.

Obama Science Czar John Holdren stated in a college textbook he co-authored that in conditions of emergency, compulsory abortion would be sustainable under the U.S. Constitution, even with Supreme Court review.

To prevent ecological disasters, including "global warming," Holdren argued the U.S. Constitution would permit involuntary abortions, government-imposed sterilizations and laws limiting the number of children as steps justified under the banner of "sustainable well-being."

These are just a few examples of the people that the President has surrounded himself with. Clearly, Obama would not hire these people as advisors if he did not agree with the majority of their oppinions. I believe the views and behavior of these people give us an insight into the heart and mind of President Obama, and the image that is revealed really isn’t the hope and change people were looking for.

Crap And Trade In The Senate

2009-10-01T08:00:00.000-05:00

Yesterday Senators Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) introduced the "Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act”, which is a fancy way of saying Cap and Trade. The term Cap and Trade refers to a system of buying and selling carbon permits to meet emissions limits in an effort to prevent global warming. The bill includes a mandate to curb the nation's greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2020 to 20 percent of 2005 levels.

The House passed their version of the Cap and Trade bill on June 26th by a slim seven person majority, and many experts expect the Senate to have a much harder time getting the bill passed.

Critics argue that the measure will, in effect, levy a huge new tax burden on Americans by forcing energy producers to purchase expensive carbon credits, thereby raising the cost of energy. These costs will then be passed on to consumers who’s energy expenses will rise approximately $1,870 for a family of four, then as the bill's restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.

Aside from raising the cost of energy, the plan is a massive job killer. The measure would destroy thousands of jobs related to fossil fuels and force companies to ship millions of jobs overseas. In a nod to the obvious loss in work that this bill would create if passed into law, the House included a little mentioned provision that would pay workers for up to three years if they loose their jobs.

Workers who lose their jobs because of the climate change legislation could get a weekly paycheck for up to three years equaling 70% of their prior salary, subsidies of $1500 to find new work and $1500 for moving expenses, all paid by the government.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation's largest business group, opposes the House climate bill.

"This provision is an indication the transition won't be as smooth and easy as supporters of the bill make it seem," agreed Matt Letourneau, a spokesman for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for 21st Century Energy.

And Chris Tucker, a spokesman for the Institute for Energy Research asked "Can you name another jobs-creation bill that was so concerned about its potential impact that it preemptively included a benefits' program for the millions of workers it expected to displace?"

Opponents of the legislation are hoping that the measure gets held up in the Senate, which is a strong possibility considering the lack of support it had in the House. Phil Kerpen, of the pro-taxpayer group Americans for Prosperity, has crunched the numbers and points out that out of 50 state delegations, 28 voted "No" and only 22 voted "Aye" on the House bill, and that more than a quarter of the votes came from just two states: New York and California due to their high populations.

House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio was among the first to decry the Senate bill.

"The national energy tax was a terrible idea when it passed the House, and it is an even worse idea now," Boehner said in a press release. "Middle-class families and small businesses struggling to make ends meet shouldn't be punished with costly legislation that will increase electricity bills, raise gasoline prices and ship more American jobs overseas."

At a time when the economy is still trying to recover from a recession and millions of Americans are still unemployed, the Democratically controlled Congress seeks to increase taxes. This measure would not only make it even harder for most people to survive, but it would stifle innovation, destroy jobs and force companies to send millions of existing jobs overseas. Furthermore, no one has been able to provide conclusive proof that global warming is occurring because of rising CO2 levels, which invalidates the need for an emissions cap in the first place.

Roman Polanski, Hollywood & Democrats

2009-09-30T08:00:00.001-05:00

In 1977, Hollywood director Roman Polanski drugged, raped and sodomized a 13 year old aspiring model. During her grand jury testimony Samantha Geimer stated that she repeatedly told Polanski no and asked him to stop, but when asked why she didn’t resist more profusely she said that she was scared of the man. Polanski was 44 years old at the time.

Polanski was initially charged with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance (methaqualone) to a minor. These charges were dismissed under the terms of his plea bargain, and he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.

Rather than face jail time Polanski fled to France where he knew he wouldn’t face extradition to the U.S. Due to an arrangement between American and Swiss authorities, the director was arrested on September 26th while trying to attend a film festival in Switzerland, where extradition agreements are already in place.

Now that the child raping movie director may actually face justice for his heinous actions, apologists have come out of the woodwork, especially the Hollywoodwork. Names like Martin Scorsese, Steven Soderbergh, Monica Bellucci, and fellow child rapist Woody Allen along with around 110 other actors and directors have signed a petition demanding Polanski’s immediate release by authorities.

Many arguments have been made suggesting that Polanski should no longer be held to account for his crime. On September 28th Whoopee Goldberg declared on The View that what the director did wasn’t actually “rape-rape”.

"I know it wasn't rape-rape. It was something else but I don't believe it was rape-rape. He went to jail and and when they let him out he was like ‘You know what this guy's going to give me a hundred years in jail I'm not staying’, so that's why he left."

Of course this new revelation makes everything better, we shouldn’t worry about jail-jail or prison-prison since this wasn’t actually rape-rape, whatever that is.

The fact that so many Hollywood types have come to Polanski’s defense shouldn’t really be much of a surprise. These are the elites that have for years funded Democratic campaigns with millions of dollars while turning a blind eye to the moral vacuums in many politicians. In 2008 the Obama campaign attended a celebrity-packed fundraiser that raised around five million dollars in one night. The event drew Don Cheadle, Dennis Quaid, Sugar Ray Leonard, and Black Eyed Peas frontman will.i.am. Celebrities who had already given money to Obama included George Clooney, Paul Newman, Matt Damon, Larry David, Will Smith, Jennifer Aniston and Oprah Winfrey.

President Obama has certainly ridden the wave of Hollywood adulation and has used that opportunity to appear on television more frequently than any other U.S. President in his short tenure so far. Already, the President has brought the financial and banking systems under government control along with the auto industry. Obama is also trying to socialize the student loan industry which would force millions of students into a convoluted government bureaucracy.

Sometimes it seems that the more money you have, the less intelligent you become. When people advocate for the release of a convicted child molester and justice absconder, then I can’t imagine anyone with less of a moral compass. This story represents one more reason why we should be careful who we let our children look up to, and one more reason why we should disregard anything that comes out of Hollywood’s mouth, unless it’s scripted.

Steal Citizenship, Get Healthcare

2009-09-29T08:00:00.000-05:00

Yesterday The Washington Times broke a story about 21 liberal House Democrats arguing that any health care bill should extend to all legal immigrants and allow them access to a government health plan. They argue that its unfair to bar illegal immigrants from paying their own way in a government-sponsored exchange, however they fail to mention that most illegal immigrants work for minimum wage or less and would therefore require federal subsidies to pay for the plan.

"Legal permanent residents should be able to purchase their plans, and they should also be eligible for subsidies if they need it. Undocumented, if they can afford it, should be able to buy their own private plans. It keeps them out of the emergency room," said Rep. Michael M. Honda, California Democrat and chairman of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus.

However, President Obama has repeatedly stated that illegals would not be covered by his healthcare plan, but many people have wondered how he plans to deal with the issue. Some analysts suggest the answer is in his rhetoric.

“Even though I do not believe we can extend coverage to those who are here illegally, I also don’t simply believe we can simply ignore the fact that our immigration system is broken,” Mr. Obama said Wednesday evening in a speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. “That’s why I strongly support making sure folks who are here legally have access to affordable, quality health insurance under this plan, just like everybody else.

Mr. Obama added, “If anything, this debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all.”

In this statement the President demonstrates his stance on immigration reform, by pronouncing that the “issue of 12 million undocumented people” needs to be resolved once and for all, he is alluding to blanket amnesty. Republicans have called it a backdoor effort to make sure current illegal immigrants get health care.

Rep. Steve King, Iowa Republican, said proposals that include government coverage for illegal immigrants leave him incredulous.

"If anybody can, with a straight face, advocate that we should provide health insurance for people who broke into our country, broke our law and for the most part are criminals, I don't know where they ever would draw the line," he said.

Americans are generous people, but with difficult economic times and healthcare costs already high, most people feel that rewarding someone for breaking the law is not reasonable. Asking taxpayers to foot the doctor bill for those who sneak into our country and do not contribute to the system is an unfair burden that most of us are unwilling to bear.

No Spine When Strength Is Needed

2009-09-28T12:00:00.003-05:00

The war in Afghanistan is becoming a quagmire of tit-for-tat battles and town occupations. With the Taliban re-controlling villages that have been secured then left by NATO forces, citizens are unwilling to fight insurgents for fear of retribution. What is needed is a coalition surge like the one that secured Iraq and gave the villagers the backup they needed to fight for themselves.

Last week a leaked report by the top American General in Afghanistan outlined the urgent need for additional troops. In the report he states that without the troops, the conflict “will likely result in failure”.

"Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) -- while Afghan security capacity matures -- risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible," U.S. and NATO commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal said in the document.

The report has now been sent to President Obama who’s only comment was to say that there is no "immediate decision pending" regarding sending more troops to Afghanistan. Obama, who never served in the military, has preferred using drones (unmanned planes) in an effort to strike at insurgent hideouts. This effort has worked well in some instances but has occasionally resulted in civilian deaths, countering the effort to cultivate cooperation from the local population.

The strategy of brute force, with little disregard for civilian casualties, is counterproductive and exponentially increases the difficulty of the U.S. mission. General McChrystal has stated that protecting the local population must be a top priority in order to garner their support.

One only has to look back to the 70’s to see an example of tactics that don’t work in Afghanistan. In 1979 the Soviet Union deployed their 40th army to support the Marxist government of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan to help fight the Islamic Mujahideen resistance. Their tactics were brutal, killing men, women, and children in an effort to put down the uprising. These actions drove more people to resist the government, rather than put down their arms. After nine years of fighting an endless supply of insurgents, the Soviet Union gave up and pulled out of Afghanistan in defeat.

General McChrystal concluded his report’s five-page Commander's Summary on a note of muted optimism: "While the situation is serious, success is still achievable." But, he also added that "Inadequate resources will likely result in failure. However, without a new strategy, the mission should not be resourced."

The U.S. must not follow in Russia’s footsteps. We must seize the initiative by protecting civilians, helping to develop the Afghan economy, providing security, and training their military to stand on its own. If President Obama will find a spine of his own then the mission can still be a success.

President Obama did find the time to schedule a trip to Copenhagen, Denmark to lobby the International Olympic Committee in an effort to bring the Olympics to Chicago in 2016. If he could give our men and women in uniform the same priority, and talk with General McChrystal more than once every seventy days, then maybe we could turn the war around and bring our soldiers home with success.

Our Dear Leader in Chief

2009-09-25T11:00:00.007-05:00

When the White House reported that President Obama was going to address schoolchildren via the Internet a couple of weeks ago, many parents wondered why. So many people were concerned that the President was going to speak directly to their children about political issues they didn’t agree with or approve of, that the Department of Education replaced its planned study materials with more benign ones. It is also likely that Obama changed his address in response to the uproar.

Now the world has gotten another taste of Obamamania, with new video showing a growing cult of near worship for the U.S. President. Second grade students at B. Bernice Young Elementary School in Burlington Township, N.J. were instructed to memorize a song praising President Obama and recite it on video. See below for the lyrics.

Mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack Hussein Obama

He said all should lend a hand to make the country strong again

Mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack Hussein Obama

He said we must be fair today, equal work means equal pay.

Mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack Hussein Obama

He said take a stand, make sure everyone gets a chance

Mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack Hussein Obama

He said red, yellow, black and white, all are equal in his sight

Mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack Hussein ObamaYeah! Barack Hussein Obama

…Hello Mr. President, We honor you today

For all your great accomplishments, we all do say hooray

Hooray, Mr. President you are No. 1

The first black American to lead this nation

This phenomenon would be humorous if it wasn’t so scary. This song reminds many people of the homage paid to North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il. All North Korean citizens, including children, are required to learn and sing the following song:

You pushed away the severe storm

You made us believe, Comrade Kim Jong-il

We cannot live without you

Our country cannot exist without you!

Our future and hope depend on you

People's fate depends on you, Comrade Kim Jong-il!

We cannot live without you

Our country cannot exist without you!

Even if the world changes hundreds of times

People believe in you, Comrade Kim Jong-il

We cannot live without you

Our country cannot exist without you!
Oh... Our Comrade Kim Jong-il

Our country cannot exist without you!

In both instances I am reminded that all soldiers in Hitlers military were required to pledge their allegiance and blind obedience to Hitler himself, not to their country or constitution. I do not allege that Obama is comparable to Hitler, only that the fanatical worship of Obama borders on cultic obsession.

Narcissist Ball at the U.N.

2009-09-24T12:23:00.004-05:00

Yesterday President Obama addressed the U.N. General Assembly and continued his “apology tour” for American foreign policy. Obama stated that negative opinions of America were due to U.S. policies of self interest and disregard for other nations.

“America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others. This has fed an almost reflexive anti-Americanism…” Obama said.

President Obama even seemed to disavow the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, “Democracy cannot be imposed on any nation from the outside. Each society must search for its own path, and no path is perfect. Each country will pursue a path rooted in the culture of its people, and – in the past – America has too often been selective in its promotion of democracy.

What he failed to mention was how many countries brutally repress their citizens and are careful to not allow their people to search for their own path. An example of a repressive regime represented at the U.N. was Libya, who’s dictator spoke for the first time to the world body. Moammar Gadhafi referred to Obama as “our son” from Africa and wished that he could stay President of the United States for life.

Obama received a warm welcome from the General Assembly and his speech received standing ovations at times. He used the occasion to chastise Israel for protecting itself against Palestinian attacks.

"The United States does Israel no favors when we fail to couple an unwavering commitment to its security with an insistence that Israel respect the legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians.”

In declaring that it is time for Middle East peace "without preconditions," President Obama used his speech to fire a warning at Israel that "America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements."

However, this is no surprise considering the majority of the nations represented at the U.N. are not friendly to Israel or democracy. A U.S. President who engages dictators like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez will naturally gain respect from the leaders of the more than 100 members of the United Nations who are currently designated as “partly free” or “not free” by respected watchdog Freedom House. The UN is not a club of democracies, which still remain a minority within its membership, it is a vast melting pot of free societies, socialist regimes and outright tyrannies.

Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton noted Obama’s extraordinary self-referentialism mixed with Wilsonian naivete and anti-Bush subtext, and joked that the president “did everything but break out and ask ‘Can’t we all just get along?’”

President Obama is loved by the U.N., not because of strong leadership and dedication to anti-terrorism and other humanitarian policies, but because he is weak on human rights and freedom. The Obama administration is now overseeing and implementing the biggest decline in American global power since Jimmy Carter and countries like Israel, Poland and the Czech Republic are paying the price.

The world has recently seen Obama cave to Russian demands that the U.S. remove its plans for a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe, causing America to abandon its Polish and Czech allies. But nations like Iran and North Kora applaud these actions knowing that defenses against their missiles have been reduced.

No matter where or when President Obama speaks, he continues to demean and degrade American pride, leaving many to wonder when it became immoral to believe in American exceptionalism (the belief that the U.S. has been a unique force for good in the world).

No Support for Democracy in Iran

2009-09-23T12:30:00.005-05:00

On Friday, Iran held its annual Quds Day demonstration to show opposition to Israel, but instead protesters used the occasion to decry the outcome of June 12th’s disputed Presidential election. Opposition leaders called for a large turnout through social networking websites, and protesters poured onto the streets by the thousands all across the country.

The protests present themselves as a historic opportunity to support regime change in a hostile country without requiring U.S. military involvement. By encouraging reformists and criticizing the current government, the Obama Administration could help to bring about peaceful transition in a country that continues to fund terrorism and develop nuclear weapons.

The U.S. should be quick to jump on this bandwagon, especially on the heels of the war in Iraq and the continuing war in Afghanistan. The price of those two wars has come to nearly $1 trillion dollars and close to 5000 casualties.

Opposition leader Mir-Hossein Mousavi, may not turn Iran into a bastion of warm U.S. sentiment overnight, but he has demonstrated an openness to democratic reforms and improved international relations. Furthermore, Mousavi is suspected to be the actual winner of the June elections.

At the very lease President Obama should voice support for democracy in Iran and encourage the citizens there to continue their demands for change. But the lack of leadership in Washington is not surprising. Obama also demonstrated his apathy for democracy in Honduras where a would-be dictator tried to stay in power indefinitely. Luckily, the Honduran Supreme Court and Congress had the courage to expel the ex-President and restore the Constitution.

Instead of voicing support, Obama has declared that he doesn’t want to “meddle” in Iranian affairs. Ironically, French President Nicolas Sarkozy has decided to fill the leadership vacuum and has stated that Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

We will see in the next few months if the world has the will to do what it takes to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb. We know they are already building missiles that can be topped with a bomb and have purchased new anti-aircraft missiles from Russia. Supporting a regime change could induce a turning point that may lead to improved negotiations, but without support demonstrators have a slim chance for success.

Obama Seeks Takeover of Student Loans

2009-09-22T12:06:00.004-05:00

Ever since President Obama hit the campaign trail for the Presidency, he has advocated the elimination of private banks in the student loan process. Seeking to expand government control, Obama has recently begun berating the U.S.’s largest banks for fees they collect to service student loans.

In a 2007 campaign conference call to reporters, candidate Obama stated, “One way we can make college more affordable, because a lot of young people have been asking me about this on the campaign trail, is by reforming a wasteful system of student loans that benefits private banks at the cost of taxpayers,” Obama said. “Private lenders are costing America’s taxpayers more than 15 million dollars every day and provide no additional value except to the banks themselves. I think the system needs to be fixed.”

However, at that time Yale University had already begun to analyze direct government student loan programs and had determined that by requiring them, the government would create more problems than the current system. Yale Financial Aid Director Caesar Storlazzi stated that the “most important this is having a choice.”

“Students can get better deals on their student loans … through private lenders than they can get through direct loans,” Storlazzi said. “There would be groundswell of opposition if we moved to direct loans. It would be more expensive for students.”

Now the President has renewed his opposition to private banks, using student loans as a vehicle for the attacks. He claims that banks take advantage of students who need loans to pay for their education, in order to garnish unwarranted profits.

"The large banks, many who have benefited from taxpayer bailouts during the financial crisis, are lobbying to keep this easy money flowing. This is exactly the kind of special interest effort that has succeeded before and that we cannot allow to succeed again," Obama said, in fiery comments distancing himself from the banks.

But this amounts to one more government takeover of a private industry that has been successfully serving Americans for generations. In fact, 78% of all new federal student loans from 2007-2008 were administered through the Federal Family Education Loans (FFEL) program and has been the overwhelming choice for student and parents for the past 40 years. FFEL was initiated by the Higher Education Act of 1965 and is funded through a public/private partnership administered at the state and local level.

By ending the FFEL program and eliminating private sector competition in the student loan industry, experts predict that thousands of jobs will be lost and interest rates will increase.

In the spirit of cooperation, the banking industry has proposed their own plan to help low income students find affordable financing. The plan sets aside $5.5 billion for “borrower assistance and advocacy services.” However, all such efforts have been dismissed as an effort to hoard billions of dollars in profits. John Dean, special counsel to the Consumer Bankers Association, said lawmakers and administration officials seemed to be rejecting the industry plan without full consideration.

Combined with the financial bailouts and subsequent takeover along with the auto industry takeover, this move creates a frightening scenario where the government slowly begins to control more and more of our society. I believe it is becoming more and more evident that President Obama would like to see virtually all private enterprise controlled by the federal government. One could say that another term for this level of government control is communism.

Pleasing Our Enemies, Alienating Our Friends

2009-09-21T12:30:00.004-05:00

Shortly after taking office, President Obama traveled the world on his so called “apology tour” seeking to confess what he views as the sins of America.

Obama told a French audience that America "has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive" toward Europe. Never mind the fact that Americans are the reason that the French don’t speak German.

In Prague, he said America has "a moral responsibility to act" on arms control because only the U.S. had "used a nuclear weapon." The point that those nuclear weapons prevented millions of soldiers from being killed to defeat imperial Japan was of no consequence.

And in Latin America, he said the U.S. had not "pursued and sustained engagement with our neighbors" because we "failed to see that our own progress is tied directly to progress throughout the Americas." Apparently the North American Free Trade Agreement, signed in 1992, was not enough of a sustained engagement.

At the G20 Summit of world leaders in April, President Obama bowed to the king of Saudi Arabia upon their meeting. This unprecedented breach of protocol was news for weeks and underscored Obama’s lack of experience and appreciation of American exceptionalism.

Last week President Obama announced that he was canceling plans to install a missile defense system in Eastern Europe, pleasing the Russians and Iranians. The system was supposed to include radar stations in the Czech Republic and ground based interceptor missiles in Poland. Both of these countries made political gambles by agreeing to allow the U.S. to install the systems in their countries, but now that the systems have been cancelled mistrust has replaced cooperation.

Last month General McChrystal, the new commander of the war in Afghanistan, sent a request to President Obama for additional troops. His request states that if the U.S. can not gain the initiative and reverse the momentum of insurgents within the next year the U.S. "risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible."

But during a series of interviews on Sunday, the President seemed unsure if he was willing to send more U.S. soldiers into the fight. According to the White House, the request for troops was under consideration, but no timetable for a decisions was given.

The lack of leadership shown by President Obama is showing the world that they can not count on the United States for support or strength. Allies have been marginalized and enemies have been pandered to in an effort to seem inclusive and open minded. The effect is that Americans are viewed as weak and indecisive.

No Priority For National Defense

2009-09-18T08:00:00.001-05:00

Yesterday morning President Obama and the Pentagon announced plans to scrap the missile defense shield that President Bush had begun in Eastern Europe. Unfortunately, this announcement continues a recent trend of cuts to defense programs and spending that may leave the U.S. vulnerable to threats from around the world.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates claimed in a news conference that plans to scrap the original system are in response to recent U.S. intelligence reports stating that short and medium range missiles from Iran are more of an imminent threat than long range missiles. But some analysts suspect that an alternate motivation could be to placate Russia who has voiced strong opposition to the missile shield since its inception, stating that it would undermine Russia’s nuclear deterrent.

It may be possible that President Obama feels that by conceding to Russia on the missile shield, Russia may be willing to put more pressure on Iran to halt uranium enrichment and nuclear weapons development. However, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov insisted earlier this month that his country would no longer support additional sanctions against Iran. Furthermore, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton claims that sanctions will not stop the Iranian nuclear weapon program anyway.

What we know for sure is that sanctions and negotiations have failed. Iran continues to enrich uranium and develop nuclear weapons while North Korea has already conducted two nuclear tests. Both nations are importing and building missiles that are capable of carrying nuclear warheads. Consequently strong national defenses are imperative.

In July, President Obama demanded the U.S. Senate cancel funding of the F-22 fighter or he would veto it’s budget. The Senate complied with his mandate effectively canceling thousands of jobs and cutting the Air Force short of its requests for the world’s most advanced jet fighter.

Obama’s budget for 2010 targets the Department of Defense to absorb more than 80% of the cuts he has proposed in next year's budget for discretionary programs. Cuts to the Defense Department total $9.4 billion out of an $11.5 billion cut to the overall budget, constituting 82% of the reduction. Even though this amount represents a small portion of the $680 billion defense budget, when combined with other reductions in spending and programs, it has an impact on military operations.

Another under analyzed threat to military spending is the prediction that a nationalized healthcare program could absorb the defense budget. It is commonly understood that in coming years both interest on the national debt and spending on entitlements will take up a larger share of the total budget. According to the Government Accountability Office, these two sources of government spending alone will exceed U.S. government revenues somewhere around the year 2030. If a government run healthcare system is introduced into the national budget additional funds would have to come from somewhere.

There are two main reasons to believe that spending on the defense budget would be a likely target for reductions. First, the U.S. spends about 4% of Gross Domestic Product on defense. Among U.S. allies the highest spenders are France and the UK, at 2.6% and 2.4% respectively, leaving liberals to feel that the U.S. spends too much. Secondly, many purchasers of U.S. debt, such as China, Russia and Brazil, are also actual or potential strategic competitors of the United States. These nations may not remain amenable to purchasing U.S. treasuries if they continue to see their money spent to maintain American military superiority.

The world continues to be a dangerous place with no shortage of would-be dictators and despots. Terrorism continues to be a constant threat and hostile countries are seeking to obtain nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them with. It is imperative that the United States remains a military powerhouse for its own defense as well as a deterrent to evil around the globe. The current Administration seeks to diminish our strength in an effort to increase domestic popularity at the cost of safety.

ACORN Exposes Deeper Liberal Ethics Vacuum

2009-09-17T08:00:00.001-05:00

The exposure of illegal activities conducted and condoned at several locations of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) has shown that institutions with the right political connections can get away with unbelievable behavior. This article will review three groups who’s actions reveal questionable ethics and nearly zero accountability.

ACORN’s primary purpose is to conduct community organization which includes helping people register to vote, spreading information about candidates, helping people with their taxes, helping others refinance high interest debt. But under cover videos taken at four locations across the U.S. show employees helping investigators posing as pimps and prostitutes, evade taxes, secure loans to buy houses to use as brothels, and advising on importing underage girls from Latin America to use as prostitutes.

ACORN has also been suspected of voter registration fraud for years, and many State Attorney’s Offices are currently conducting investigations of the group. Because the organization is largely funded by federal dollars, it is peculiar that it has never been charged with a crime, but if you dig deeper you will find the answer. Among their many Democratic political connections is President Obama, who served as an organizer, leadership trainer, and attorney.

After the videos were made public by Fox News, the U.S. Senate quickly passed a bill to cut off funding to ACORN. However, the bill was met with opposition from six Democratic Senators and one Independent.

Another famously corrupt group benefiting from Democratic support, are labor unions. In some states membership and dues to those unions is mandatory, and in most cases members have no say as to how their dues are spent. Very frequently, millions of dollars are spent on political campaigns for liberal candidates even if individual union members don’t agree with the candidates views.

An attempt to prevent this was the 2005 Paycheck Protection Initiative in California. The voter initiative, known as Proposition 75, would require public-employee unions to obtain permission annually from each member before using that member's dues for political purposes. Governor Schwarzenegger had endorsed the measure, saying it would protect government workers from having their money go to political causes they don't support. But again, the initiative was opposed by Democratic law makers.

One more powerful group that caters to Democrats are trial lawyers. This powerful group has been at the center of the recent healthcare reform debate. Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, a medical doctor who served as Governor of Vermont, said at a town hall meeting that Democrats in Congress did not include tort reform in the healthcare bill because they were fearful of “taking on” the trial lawyers.

For years Republicans have tried to gain support for tort reform, which would deter frivolous lawsuits by limiting non-economic awards to those who sue doctors for malpractice. These reforms would reduce the cost of medical treatment for everyone by reducing the cost of malpractice insurance and reducing the practice of defensive medicine. But trial lawyers have lobbied heavily against this measure and have donated vast sums of money to Democratic candidates to ensure they are allowed to continue getting the largest awards possible for their clients and the highest fees possible for themselves.

Trial lawyers are apathetic about the cost of healthcare and by seeking ever higher awards they have driven many doctors out of medicine and raised the cost of care too high for many Americans to afford. And the donations to Democratic campaigns continue because those who receive money continue to stand against reform.

There is a circle of fundraising and political favors in Washington D.C., but the scale of justice tilts away from the Democratic side of the aisle. Politicians should temper their need for campaign funds with the knowledge that their primary job is to protect their constituents, not impede their freedom. Transparency is paramount and if an elected official is embarrassed to expose his donors, then he shouldn’t accept that donor’s contributions in the first place.

The New American Racism

2009-09-16T11:31:00.005-05:00

At the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards, the world got a front row seat to obnoxious behavior in action. As country music star Taylor Swift was beginning her acceptance speech for winning Best Female Video, Hip Hop star Kanye West jumped on the stage and took the microphone from her.

West said, "Yo, Taylor, I'm really happy for you, I'm gonna let you finish, but Beyonce had one of the best videos of all time, one of the best videos of all time."

Swift stood in shock while Beyonce Knowles looked on in disbelief. Immediately after the event friends and show workers quickly consoled Swift so that she could perform live on the show five minutes later. Kanye West was escorted from the venue and blogged an apathetic apology from his house in all caps.

"I'M SOOOOO SORRY TO TAYLOR SWIFT AND HER FANS AND HER MOM. I SPOKE TO HER MOTHER RIGHT AFTER AND SHE SAID THE SAME THING MY MOTHER WOULD'VE SAID. SHE IS VERY TALENTED!"

West appeared on "The Jay Leno Show" the following day and apologized for the incident but has yet to apologize to Swift in person. This is not the first incident in which Kanye West has sparked outrage and controversy. West garnered wide criticism when he said, “George Bush doesn’t care about black people” during a telethon to raise money for Hurricane Katrina victims. Despite claims by Mr. West that he doesn’t harbor bigoted views, his actions beg an explanation.

On the other hand Rep. Joe Wilson’s outburst during President Obama’s speech to Congress on September 9th has had many questioning his views on race. Even though Mr. Wilson has apologized to the President, and President Obama accepted, the incident has caused an all-out mud slinging contest. The New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote a column claiming that the Congressman couldn’t restrain himself from yelling at the President because Wilson is racist.

Even former President Carter has gotten in on the name calling frenzy, claiming that all of the opposition to Barak Obama’s policies are steeped in racism.

"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African American," Carter said.

Adam Brandon, spokesman for FreedomWorks which organized last week’s “March on D.C.” to protest big government, said Carter's comments were "absurd." He noted that the protest featured about a dozen black speakers.

Representative Hank Johnson of Georgia alleged people will be putting on "white hoods and white uniforms again and riding through the countryside" if emerging racist attitudes, like those he alleges are supported by Wilson, are not rebuked.

It seems that if you are a white male, no matter what you do or say, you are automatically labeled a racist, but if you are a black male, no matter what you do or say, no one can touch you with the racism question.

It is time for everyone to be honest with themselves. It is not a racist act to question and even oppose a president for his policies, and it is not a racist act to speak out against anyone for their actions. When people resort to accusing others of being a racist, they are inadvertently admitting that they have lost the argument. And when someone repeatedly displays behavior that shows a racial bias it is fair to ask why. It is time for all of us to move beyond petty divisions, debate real issues that affect us all, and appreciate the ties that bind us as one nation under God.

A Tea Party Success Story

2009-09-15T11:55:00.003-05:00

Fed up with bankruptcy inducing government spending, protesters marched on Washington DC on Sunday, September 12th. People traveled from all over the country to demonstrate their discontent with President Obama’s healthcare proposals, deficit spending, and government expansion.

Several groups from around the U.S. marched together in the Saturday event referred to as a “March on Washington”. The event was coordinated by the FreedomWorks Foundation, a conservative group founded by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey. The movement originated with the Tea Party gatherings that were organized in April to protest tax policies, and Saturday's event was the culmination of a 34-city, 7,000-mile bus tour that began Aug. 28 in Sacramento, Calif.

ABC News estimated the turnout to be around 60,000 to 70,000, but the D.C. Police and the National Park Service put the turnout closer to 1.2 - 1.5 million. Some movement leaders and participants argue that the mainstream media have tried to downplay the significance of the march in an effort to detract from its significance.

Many of the marchers made reference to Obama as a socialist or communist, and another imposed his face on that of the villainous Joker from "Batman." Other protesters waved U.S. flags and held signs espousing fiscal conservatism, declaring "I'm Not Your ATM" and "Go Green Recycle Congress."

The rally drew lawmaker Rep. Mike Pence, chairman of the House Republican Conference, who said Americans want health care reform but they don't want a government takeover. "Republicans, Democrats and independents are stepping up and demanding we put our fiscal house in order," Pence, of Indiana, told The Associated Press. "I think the overriding message after years of borrowing, spending and bailouts is enough is enough."

Other politicians in attendance were Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., and Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., who also spoke at the rally. DeMint said he'd had enough of "Alice in Wonderland" politicians promising more programs at the risk of financial disaster. "The president has warned us if we disagree with him he's going to call us out," DeMint said. "Well, Mr. President, we are out."

It is obvious that Americans are dissatisfied with the government’s handling of the economy, national debt, and plans for a public healthcare option, among other things. It is clear that this is a true movement of the people and not astroturfing, as many Democrats have claimed. It would be wise for lawmakers to take a serious look at the concerns that protesters voiced during the march on September 12th.

ObamaCare Will Fund Abortions

2009-09-14T08:50:00.001-05:00

On Wednesday President Obama delivered an address to Congress in an effort to reignite support for his healthcare overhaul. During his speech, he tried to counter points that opponents have made, and one of those points was the fact that under President Obama’s plan, tax payer funded abortions will be covered by the public insurance option.

In his speech to Congress, Obama declared that no such provision is in the bill, "One more misunderstanding I want to clear up - under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place."

But, according to Douglas Johnson, legislative director of National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the wording of Obama's statement allowed him to dispense with the abortion opposition without admitting the actual expansion of abortion in the bill. "Obama apparently seeks to hide behind a technical distinction between tax funds and government-collected premiums," said Johnson. "These are merely two types of public funds, collected and spent by government agencies."

Johnson continued: "The Obama-backed legislation makes it explicitly clear that no citizen would be allowed to enroll in the government plan unless he or she is willing to give the federal agency an extra amount calculated to cover the cost of all elective abortions - this would not be optional. The abortionists would bill the federal government and would be paid by the federal government. These are public funds, and this is government funding of abortion."

On Wednesday, August 19, President Obama met with a group of religious leaders in an attempt to gain support for his healthcare bill. At the meeting the President addressed the issue of government funded abortions and tried to reassure the group that there would be no such funding in his plan. Using many Biblical references the President asserted that opponents of his plan were “bearing false witness” by spreading misinformation.

A later investigation by the non-partisan analysis website FactCheck.org concluded that Johnson’s assertion that the bill "explicitly authorizes the government plan to cover all elective abortions" was true, and that the President had gone "too far" by calling the charge a "fabrication”.

Also, a report released by the Associated Press in early August (no longer available on it’s website) confirmed that the legislation would allow the government plan to cover abortions and "recast federal policy" on abortion.

On the behalf of the Susan B. Anthony List, Public Opinion Strategies conducted a national survey of 800 registered voters between August 30 and September 1, 2009. The nationwide survey has a margin of error of ±3.5%. The survey clearly shows that the majority of Americans do not support government funded abortions.

Again Americans see President Obama saying whatever it takes to gain support for his agenda. By claiming that his bill will not pay for abortions, Obama is not telling the truth and is misleading Americans into supporting a plan that contributes to a moral decline in our country. Americans must learn the facts and be informed.

ACORN keeps on keeping on!

2009-09-11T20:39:00.000-05:00

A
Corrupt
Organization
Run
Negligently

Write your Senators, write your Congressman.

Honorable Sir:

I can only hope that you have heard of and are aware of the recent exposures of the operation of the Baltimore and Washington D.C. offices of ACORN. These were both clearly video-taped and subsequently transcribed. The employees of both locations not only offered counsel and advise as to how to work and beat the system, but showed complete non-shock, surprise or concern when told the proposed intent of the people visiting them was to purchase a house for the purpose of running a prostitution operation. Not only was it shocking to see them mentally aid and assist these folks in ways to accomplish what they want and not have to worry about problems with Income Taxes, etc., but it appeared this could not possibly have been the first time they have been approached about something of this type and description.

Appalled does not even begin to explain my feelings regarding this action. More so, I fear what this organization is doing around our country and the ultimate effect it will have. I personally have witnessed folks in Oak Cliff being notified by a national tax preparation service that they cannot claim a certain child as a dependent on their income tax return because that child and Social Security Number had already been used on the tax return of someone else. I was even asked "how much did I think a dependent was worth? This was in reference to the fact that they already had accomplished all that could accomplished on their own return and had children they did not need to claim and were going to "sell" the names and Social Security numbers to someone who needed additional dependents.

I am not naive enough to think ACORN can be stopped, but I do seriously believe that you and other Senators and Congressmen can present a bill to immediately cease and desist all financial support and funding to ACORN as well as immediately terminating any and all agreements with them to operate, conduct business for, or be employed, retained or otherwise utilized in any manner, form or fashion by the United States of America or any Government branch or agency to include, but not limited to the Department of Commerce in regard to the 2010 census.

Sir, I know it is not easy, but we the People of these United States, of which I hope you consider yourself to be a part, have got to get this out of control society back under control. It will take a vast majority of both Houses to make this bill "Veto Proof" since we know that our honorable President will veto anything that even looks like this. If you cannot get get enough Democratic support on such a bill then raise all the noise in the news you can to let it be known that they not only condone, but obviously support the myriad of questionable and illegal practices of ACORN. The burden of proof is now upon them to and ACORN to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that given all the other election problems they had and now this, that their entire organization is not corrupted all the way to the roots. Again, I realize this is legally backward, but I feel certain that as a lawyer you can phrase it in a way that places the burden on them to justify why we the People should continue to use and support them.

Please, Please, Please help before we lose all we cherish and honor.

An Inspirational Bomb

2009-09-10T10:49:00.004-05:00

President Obama addressed a joint session of Congress and the American people last night. In typical Obama fashion, the speech was inspirational and uplifting. With a call to action the President laid out his plan for healthcare reform.

During the course of his address the President made points that struck chords of agreement with both sides of the aisle on items such as: requiring health insurance companies to cover those with pre-existing conditions and insurance policy portability. He brought up the sound idea of creating an insurance exchange program that would encourage insurance companies to compete for customers who are either self employed or who aren’t offered insurance by their employers.

Obama even threwRepublicans a fig leaf by mentioning malpractice lawsuit reform and stated that his administration palnned to institute an idea the Bush administration had tried to implement but was ultimately blocked by Congressional Democrats. The idea consists of testing a designated area of the country in which to restrict frivolous malpractice lawsuits and set limits on jury awards and settlements in an effort to reduce the practice and expense of defensive medicine. Defensive medicine is the practice of ordering tests, procedures, or visits, or avoiding high-risk patients or procedures in order to reduce doctors’ exposure to malpractice liability.

Even though some of these points are favorable to both parties, President Obama still persisted with the need for a government run public health insurance option. He claimed that insurance companies are not treating their customers fairly and that the limited number of insurance companies in most states prevents them from being held accountable for their actions. Obama stated that creating a public option will increase competition, drive down costs, and keep insurance companies honest.

What President Obama failed to mention is that costs can be lowered and accountability increased without a government run public plan. One way to accomplish this is by eliminating laws that bar people from buying health insurance plans from companies outside of their own state. Such a bill was introduced in 2005 by U.S. Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) and allowed individuals to by out-of-state health plans, but was never passed by Congress.

Also, the President stated that his plan will include a fine for individuals who elect not to buy health insurance, although experts speculate that this part of his bill is unconstitutional and would not pass Supreme Court scrutiny. Ironicly, as a candidate, Barak Obama campaigned against the idea of forcing people to purchase health insurance, saying it’s too expensive to mandate.

The President said in his speech that opponents claim his bill would set up “death panels” that would kill off senior citizens. This is an untrue exaggeration, intended to make Obama's opponents look bad and convince senior citizens that under Obama's healthcare reform there will be no cuts to Medicare. In truth, a provision in the bill does provide Medicare coverage for “End of Life Counseling” for seniors, which would be provided every five years or more frequently for those with terminal diseases. It is this “End of Life Counseling” combined with government rationing, that lead to many fear the President's plan could lead to reduced senior’s benefits and premature death.

In his address to Congress, President Obama touched on some good ideas. But unfortunately he coupled those good ideas with some really bad ones to create a bill that will not lead to improved lives for Americans, but instead to larger government and bureaucratic control over our healthcare. We all agree that change needs to happen in our healthcare system, but lets make sure that we don’t hand the government control over another segment of our free market.

Lawyers and Doctors

2009-09-09T11:18:00.004-05:00

Let's see if we understand this correctly.

The lawyers, who will do anything possible to increase the settlement of their malpractice lawsuits since they typically receive 33 1/3% of the total, are falsely, inaccurately and deceptively accusing doctors of "immediately receiving" anywhere from $35,000 to $50,000 for an amputation, when in fact when the doctor is finally paid, actually amounts to between $500 and $2,000 depending on his location.

Makes you go Hmmmmmmmm!

Maybe we need to throw out all the lawyers and elect the doctors to run things. Neither one may be formally educated in politics, but at least part of a doctors training usually includes education on how to run an office and business. I have known many lawyers who cannot even balance a checkbook and pay their bills when due, let alone seriously run a business. Have you ever been in a lawyers office? What I have seen appears to be completely disorganized with stacks of "stuff" everywhere. And we are trusting them to run the largest business in the world (the American Government)?

As I said - Hmmmmmmmm!.

Associated Press, Example Of Biased Reporting

2009-09-09T10:30:00.003-05:00

Marine Lance Corporal Joshua "Bernie" Bernard was a devout Christian and Iraq War veteran from Maine. He was described by his squad leader as "a true-heartedly very good guy ... probably one of the best guys I've known in my entire life." Sadly, Lance Corporal Bernard was killed in action on August 14, 2009 by a rocket propelled grenade in Afghanistan.

It is common for the military to a representative of the media embedded with it’s units. Although reporters are required to sign an agreement which is meant to maintain operational security and protect the lives of soldiers and marines, critics claim that the agreements are actually meant to “sanitize” the war and keep Americans from seeing the grizzly realities of combat.

On August 14, while on patrol in the Helmand province of southern Afghanistan, Lance Corporal Bernard’s unit was ambushed. He was struck by an RPG, one of his legs was blown off and the other was badly mangled. He was taken to a field hospital where medics were unable to save his life. Associated Press photographer Julie Jacobson was embedded with the unit and took pictures of the events as they happened. She captured a graphic image of an injured Lance Corporal Bernard while fellow marines raced to help him. Later the photograph and her story were sent to the Associated Press for publication.

The A.P. waited until after Bernard’s funeral to let his family know that it planned on running the story and photo, which would be re-printed in countless newspapers and websites across the U.S. The family protested in earnest, pleading with the A.P. not to run the photo because it would cause the family to relive its pain.

Department of Defense Secretary Robert Gates found out and sent a letter to the A.P. also asking it not to run the photo.

"I cannot imagine the pain and suffering Lance Corporal Bernard's death has caused his family," Gates wrote. "Why your organization would purposefully defy the family's wishes knowing full well that it will lead to yet more anguish is beyond me. Your lack of compassion and common sense in choosing to put this image of their maimed and stricken child on the front page of multiple American newspapers is appalling. The issue here is not law, policy or constitutional right -- but judgment and common decency."

Despite the protests, the Associated Press claimed that it has a “journalistic duty” to publish the photo, breaking a nearly universal press practice since 9/11 of deferring to grieving family members. The A.P. stated "the stories and photos of Lance Corporal Bernard conform with military regulations surrounding journalists embedded with U.S. forces".

But some find the A.P.’s claim to “journalistic duty” somewhat ironic due to it’s refusal to print cartoons depicting Muhammad which were first published in a Danish newspaper in 2005. The story became international news when Muslims around the world rioted, setting fire to the Danish Embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran, storming European buildings, and desecrating the Danish, Dutch, Norwegian and German flags in Gaza City.

Even though it reported the Muhammad cartoon story, the A.P. was unwilling to print the images that originally sparked the controversy. It commented, "we don't distribute content that is known to be offensive."

It seems that the Associated Press is very selective about who it is willing to offend. It found offending a grieving family who just laid their hero son to rest acceptable, but sought to appease violent Muslim protesters. The A.P. should consider the morale boost insurgents receive when pictures of dying soldiers are posted in the news, and the encouragement it gives them to continue using their tactics of violence and intimidation. Undoubtedly, the photos of Lance Corporal Bernard will be gloated over by terrorists around the world.

ACLU “Outs” CIA Operatives to Terrorists

2009-09-08T16:57:00.005-05:00

Most Americans know about exposed CIA operations officer Valerie Plame, and the outrage expressed when her career was exposed. But what most Americans don’t know is that the American Civil Liberties Union has been secretly photographing CIA officers and their families in public and at their homes. The ACLU then distributed these photographs to attornies who are defending detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison. The attornies in turn showed the photographs to terrorists suspected to be responsible for organizing the 9/11 attacks.

When Valerie Plame was identified in 2003 by Washington Post journalist Robert Novak, the mainstream media turned the event into a bonanza. Congress convened committees to review if any laws had been broken, lawsuits were filed, and Lewis Libby (Vice President Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff) was sent to prison for trying to clear the Bush administration of any involvement. An important, yet unreported fact in the case is that Plame's own husband, Joseph Wilson, first “outed” his wife when he spoke to reporters a month before Novak's article was published, and told them about his wife’s employment with the CIA. But instead reporting all of the facts, the mainstream media used Plame's exposure to criticize the Bush Administration.

Now the rolls have changed and the ACLU is leaking the identities of CIA operatives, not to the media, but to terrorists. Under the so-called John Adams Project, started by the ACLU and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, private investigators have been trying to figure out which officials used harsh interrogation techniques to question detainees.

It has been reported that ACLU investigators tracked international CIA-chartered flights, identified hotels in Europe that CIA operatives stayed at, went through hotel phone records, and were able to identify about 45 officials. The investigators then jeopardized CIA employees' secret identities by dialing their U.S. phone numbers and taking photographs which were given to military lawyers who showed those photographs to terror detainees in the hopes of identifying former interrogators.

The FBI approached three military lawyers and advised them of their right to remain silent, then questioned them about whether they had illegally shown their clients pictures of
CIA officials, possibly including covert agents thereby breaching laws protecting classified information. Defense attorneys describe the FBI investigation as an attempt by the U.S. government to intimidate them into not exposing what interrogation techniques were used on their clients.

The ACLU case is currently being investigated by John Dion, head of the Justice Department's counter-espionage section, who has worked on many high-profile national security cases, including the prosecution of Aldrich H. Ames, the CIA mole who spied for the Soviet Union.

If you are waiting to hear the indignant outrage from the media or Democrats, don’t hold your breath. There has been a noticeable absence of coverage from the mainstream media. I think it’s safe to say that protecting innocent lives is less important to many liberal thinkers than a utopian dream of hand holding conflict resolution . There are times when harsh methods are necessary to deal with a determined enemy who is bent on death and destruction. The only barrier between the violent and the docile is the determination of good people and the will to stand and fight against evil. Such people should be hailed as heroes instead of vilified as the evil they are fighting.

Alarming Homeland Security Appointments

2009-09-08T06:53:00.027-05:00

My cousin contacted me with the following article. Here is my response and the article that was forwarded:

I wish I could tell you it isn't true, but then I would be lying. I had not yet heard about it, but followed some links and did some other research and found numerous sites with the same information. From what I have found so far, these guys don't seem to be too bad on the surface, but as we are beginning to learn the hard way, they will say and do what they must, in order to lore the naive American public into compliance, then slowly but surely change things to the way they really want them to be. Our society has become so "instant gratification" oriented that all we think about is "me" and "today", when much of the rest of the word thinks in terms of "we" and "my grandchildren and great grandchildren".

Jim

Jim,
A friend sent the following to me. PLEASE tell me it isn't true.
Pat

You can go to bed assured that Obama has your best interest at heart.

Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end. Well, boys and girls, today we are letting the fox guard the henhouse. Tomorrow, the wolves can herd the sheep! Obama Appoints Two (2) Devout Muslims to Homeland Security Posts. Doesn't this make you feel safer already?

President Obama and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano have appointed a Devout Muslim to a Homeland Security Post. Arif Alikhan has been appointed as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development at the agency.

Source for announcement:
Homeland Security Press Room
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/06/obama-appointment-arif-ali-khan-asst-secretary-dhs.html

Kareem Shora who was born in Damascus, Syria has been appointed by DHS Secretary Napolitano to the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC).
Washington, DC
June 5, 2009
www.adc.org

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) is proud to announce that earlier today at a ceremony held in Albuquerque, New Mexico, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano swore-in ADC National Executive Director Kareem Shora as a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC)

Debt Is A Four Letter Word

2009-09-07T15:03:00.008-05:00

Our government continues to assert that stimulus money and deficit spending will help our economy rebound. Democrats and some Republicans continue spending money tht simply does not exisit while our national debt clibs to an all-time high. And still the recession persists.

This year, Congress passed the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009" worth $787 billion in an effort to jump start the economy. Funds under this program are to be used to extend unemployment benefits, welfare, education, healthcare, and other domestic programs.

But if officials will move beyond their emotional and political reflexes and do honest research, they will discover that history proves stimulus programs don't work. These programs are based on theories by economist John Maynard Keynes, who argued that the economy could be boosted if the government borrowed money and spent it. This is fallacious considering that in order for the government to contribute money to the economy, it must first remove money from the economy, resulting in no net gain.

This is not the first time that our government has attempted to stimulate the economy. Consider the Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt administrations which both attempted to grow the economy by running large deficits and public spending. The U.S. economy took years to recover.

In May 1939 (during the Roosevelt Presidency), Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau testified: "We are spending more money than we have ever spent before, and it does not work. ... We have never made good on our promises. ...after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... and an enormous debt, to boot."

Economic growth occurs when there is an increase in income, not a redistribution of it. President Ronald Reagan cut taxes by 25% which led to the financial boom of the 1980's. President Calvin Coolidge cut tax rates from nearly 70% to 25%, which led to the prosperity of the 1920's. Cutting taxes allows citizens to spend or reinvest more of their own income, which in turn creates growth in the free-market system.

Instead of lowering taxes to promote growth, the U.S. government has created programs that are leading to the highest national debt in history, and finding new ways to raise taxes, restrict business, and expand government control. The Obama Administration likes to use financial reports to bolster their claims that the stimulus program is working, but they ignore other economic indicators. When one report shows unemployment claims are down, another will show orders for manufactured goods are also down. When one report shows home sales are up, another will show the median household income is down, or the stock market will dip, and so on.

David Walker, former head of the Government Accountability Office under President Clinton, attempted to put the $1.8 trillion budget deficit for 2009 into perspective: "A deficit that large is $3.4 million a minute, $200 million an hour, $5 billion a day".

It is clear that we can't borrow ourrselves out of debt, and that by refusing to take an honest critical look into our nation's finances, our futures and our children's futures are at serious risk. This enormous level of debt is unsustainable and huge cuts in government spending are critical to maintaining the value of the American dollar and the prosperity of the United States.

Honduras, Just Say No To Democracy!

2009-09-04T13:18:00.007-05:00

In June of this year, Honduran President Manuel Zelaya decided to start a referendum to amend his Honduras's Constitution so that he could remain in office for a second term. What he failed to take seriously was Article 239 of the Constitution, which states that any president who seeks to amend the Constitution and extend his term is automatically disqualified and is no longer president.

Prior to the 1990's, military coups and dictatorships were common in Central America. In the last 15 to 20 years, Honduras and many other countries have seen dramatic democratization and have succeeded in establishing free and fair elections as well as national constitution. Honduras' Constitution includes strict limits on executive power in an effort to prohibit a President from accumulating too much authority.

Many in the mainstream media (BBC, Reuters, LA Times, CBS News) have reported that the Honduran President was removed from office and exiled by an illegal military coup, and U.S. President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and other U.S. politicians have demanded that Zelaya be reinstated. President Obama described the coup that forced the Zalaya into exile as "not legal" and declared that the United States still considers him to be the President of Honduras.

The Organization of American States threatened to suspend Honduras' OAS membership if it did not restore Zelaya to power within three days. Senior U.S. Administration Officials are still looking into the possibility of cutting off aid to the small country.

Despite all of this, the Honduran government is not willing to reverse it's position. It asserts that it's actions were legal and in keeping with the country's Constitution. Let's review the following:

• The Supreme Court, by a 15-0 vote, found that Mr. Zelaya had acted illegally by proceeding with an unconstitutional “referendum,” and it ordered the Armed Forces to arrest him. The military executed the arrest order of the Supreme Court because it was the appropriate agency to do so under Honduran law.

• Eight of the 15 votes on the Supreme Court were cast by members of Mr. Zelaya’s own Liberal Party.

• The Honduran Congress voted overwhelmingly in support of removing Mr. Zelaya. The vote included a majority of members of Mr. Zelaya’s Liberal Party.

• Independent government and religious leaders and institutions—including the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, the Administrative Law Tribunal, the independent Human Rights Ombudsman, four-out-of-five political parties, the two major presidential candidates of the Liberal and National Parties, and Honduras’ Catholic Cardinal—all agreed that Mr. Zelaya had acted illegally.

• The Constitution expressly states in Article 239 that any president who seeks to amend the Constitution to extend his term is automatically disqualified and is no longer president. Thus, at the time of his arrest Zalaya was no longer—as a matter of law, as far as the Supreme Court was concerned—President of Honduras.

• Days before his arrest, Mr. Zelaya had his Chief of Staff illegally withdraw millions of dollars in cash from the Central Bank of Honduras.

• A day or so before his arrest, Mr. Zelaya led a violent mob to overrun an Air Force base to seize referendum ballots that had been shipped into Honduras by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s government.

Mr. Zelaya is a close friend of President Chavez and Cuba's dictator Fidel Castro, both of who have demanded Zelaya's reinstatement.

During Zelaya's tenure he used mobs to intimidate his critics, threatened government employees with termination if they refused to go along with his plans, engaged in massive corruption, illegally cut off public funds to local governments whose leaders refused to help him acquire more power, denied basic government services to his critics, refused to enforce dozens of laws passed by the Honduran Congress, and spent the country into virtual bankruptcy by refusing to submit a budget so that he could illegally spend public funds on friends and favorite projects.

Even though all of this information can be easily found and verified, President Obama and his administration continue to seek Zelaya's return to power in Honduras. I am confounded and dismayed that, despite strict adherence to their Constitution, the Hondurans receive criticism and threats for enforcing the rule of law. But I also find it encouraging that the Honduran people found the strength to stand against a would-be dictator and have peacefully removed him from office and are looking forward to free and fair elections in the near future.

Senators and Congressman On Notice

2009-09-04T10:26:00.002-05:00

Dear Senator Cornyn et al,

Although we have never met, please consider this a preamble to a "Dear John" letter.

Our Senate and House of Representative are both out of control and useless, both at the same time. Your cohort from Texas, soon to not be Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison has either decided it is too hard to deal with things in Washington, D.C. or realizes she is in jeopardy of being voted out of office. She therefore has decided to turn tail and return to Texas and try and take over running our State when she, along with 100 others can't find a way to properly run our Nation. We effectively have a lame duck Senator at one of the most important times in the history of our country. It therefor falls upon you to do the work of two. This is not the choice of your people, this is the choice of Mrs. Hutchison. My purpose for writing however is not to berate Mrs. Hutchison.

Sir, you and the remaining Republican Senators need to find time and a way to meet with your fellow Republican Congressmen to work on a unified plan to get things under control. Yes, you are "outvoted" by volume. However, in spite of their majority, the Democrats can't seem to get anything done except to wildly, frivolously and without any care or concern for the general populace, now or in the future, spend money like there is a real unlimited supply. You have got to stop this NOW! It is time for a real political revolution to take control of the Congress and put our Country ack into the hands of the People.

Sir, I have never been politically active until the past few years. I am scared to death. This man we call President is taking our country in a direction and to places we should not go. There are now people in the Whitehouse as "Czars" aka advisers, whatever, who have known unscrupulous backrounds. We have lost so much control over our Nation already that this man has so negatively influenced the FBI, CIA and other protective agencies to improperly allow these people into the Whitehouse as well as become advisers to the administration. THIS HAS GOT TO STOP. NOW!!!!

Scared! Angry! Agitated! These only begin to express my feelings of concern. My father fought in Italy and Africa in WWII, I served in the Air Force from 1963 thru 1967. WWII we won on two completely opposite fronts. Viet Nam we lost our will, turned tail and ran. At best we have only been partially successful in subsequent endeavors. The Middle East has yet to prove itself as a win, loose, or draw. Worst of all, I fear we are about to loose the United States of America as it was conceived and created by the Founders.

You and the others in just 8 months have allowed this President and his cronies to take over enough of our financial system, both banks and insurance companies, to effectively control the entire industry. They have over-ridden common bankruptcy law and taken over two of our largest automobile manufactures to pay back the unions by giving them majority control. They are attempting to take over the entire health-care, medical and insurance industries. Where will this stop?

This President has effectively either given himself or is attempting to give himself "emergency" authority to step in and take over things such as the internet if he feels such an emergency exists. What is an emergency? Although I personally put no faith in our "media" at this time, I still believe in the 1st Amendment and consider any power such as this over the internet as a violation of my civil rights.

We have the right to PURSUE life, liberty and happiness. These are not entitlements. We must work for and earn them. I still cringe when I remember a black woman standing on the steps of the city of Dallas, Texas city hall a few years ago making the statement "I demand the respect I am entitled too." When did respect become an entitlement? Respect is earned, and right now the vast majority of members of Congress are not earning any.

Sir, please know that as a constituant I demand the service from you for which you were elected. You must get together with the rest of the Senators and Congressman who truely underatnd what must be done and subsequently "Get 'er done!" As an attorney I'm sure you can appreciate that I consider each and every member of both houses of Congress in Breach of Contract for your joint failure to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America as is part of your oath of office. Unfortunately, the only recourse I have is to vote you out of office.

Please be advised that if things do not show an obvious and apparent change and return to normal order by the time of the next elections, I and all those I can influence will vote each and every one of you out of office. Not for the simple sake of "change", but for the sake of taking our wonderful country back and putting those who will uphold their oath back in control.

A copy of this is being sent to lame duck Hutchison and Congressman Pete Sessions as well.

I appreciate your "canned" replies but await measurable and visible action. ACTION speaks far louder than words. Forgive the cliche.

Sincerely,

Jim McClintock
Irving, TX

The Left Is Free To Insult The Right

2009-09-03T14:41:00.007-05:00

Political mud slinging has been around for decades and certainly comes from both sides of the aisle. What is remarkable is the amount of personal hatred and slander that comes from the left. What is even more remarkable is the lack of attention paid by the mainstream press to those comments by the left and yet similar comments from the right are quickly published and scrutinized.

By now most of us know about Republican Senator Jim DeMint’s remarks about Obamacare. "If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him." The media went crazy over this and have replayed and printed it as proof of Republican ill-will.

You’ve probably also heard about Senator Trent Lott honoring Senator Strom Thurmond for his 100th birthday. Senator Thurmond served in the U.S. Senate until 2003, retiring at the age of 100. His career was controversial due to his 1948 presidential campaign as a segregationist. Although Senator Lott disagreed with Thurmond’s racial opinions, he did seek to honor the longest serving Senator for his record on national security and other important issues.

In both instances the media focused attention on the stories for many days. What doesn’t get media attention is how the left makes outrageous statements and slanderous claims about people on the right. For instance, President Obama’s “Green Jobs Advisor” Van Jones, who is an avowed communist and black nationalist, recently stated that Republicans are “assholes”.

While at an energy conference in California, a woman asked why Republicans during the previous administration had more success getting legislation passed. Mr. Jones’ response was, "Well, the answer to that is, they're assholes," Jones said, to uproarious laughter. "That's a technical, political science term." Despite how divisive his comment is, it’s gotten very little coverage by the mainstream media.

Also, in 1991 when President Bush nominated Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court, the left tried to vilify him as a crazy, sexual harasser because he was a conservative African American. The liberal ethos reflects that a minority must be a democrat or something must be wrong with him or her.

Ever since his appointment to the Supreme Court, Justice Thomas has been one of the Left’s biggest targets. The late columnist Carl Rowan sarcastically suggested that "if you give Thomas a little flour on his face, you’d think you had [former Klansman] David Duke." San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown called Thomas not only "a shill for the most insidious form of racism, but also a man whose views are legitimizing of the Ku Klux Klan." Brown added that Thomas "should be reduced to talking only to white conservatives," and "must be shut out by the black community."

Political scientist Manning Marable asserts that Justice Thomas has "ethnically ceased being an African American." Movie director Spike Lee calls Thomas "a handkerchief-head, chicken-and-biscuit-eating Uncle Tom." Author June Jordan characterizes him as a "virulent Oreo phenomenon," a "punk-ass," and an "Uncle Tom calamity."

Another example is Michael Steele, the current chairman of the National Republican Party. He has been called an “Uncle Tom” and a “Sambo” (partial black) and had Oreo cookies thrown at him among other things. Additionally, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, has been referred to as a “House Nigga” as well as other very offensive terms.

These are all examples of vile personal attacks that were never scrutinized by the mainstream media, and why? Could it be because most people in the press actually agree with the left’s comments and are happy to let those comments slide? This is a question that everyone should ask for themselves. In the end it’s up to each one of us to scrutinize those who scrutinize everyone else.

The ObamaCare Realities

2009-09-02T10:50:00.007-05:00

Healthcare reform is front and center these days. It's taken over the press, from mainstream news to cable news, from talk radio to the internet and beyond. By now everyone knows about the congressional townhall meetings that have been characterized by angry protesters and congressmen and women challenged for their support of a government run healthcare system.
Republicans assert the plan contains "death panels", higher taxes, and rationing, while Democrats accuse Republicans of exagerating or fabricating details of the healthcare bill.

The following outlines the five most contentious points of the legislation and sheds some light on the facts. Regarless of what is said by President Obama and other politicians, the facts are in the written bill, and that bill will become law if it is passed.

1) "If you like your health insurance, you can keep it."
President Obama chants this mantra at every opportunity even though it is untrue. The fact is, if you get your health insurance from a large employer, you will not be able to keep it. After 5 years, large employers will be required to offer only government approved plans. Also, if you buy your own health insurance from a private insurer, you will lose it if either you or your insurer makes any changes to your plan. Need a higher or lower deductible or to add or subtract a family member? Too bad. After the bill becomes law, private insurers will not be allowed to issue any new, individual plans.

2) "The public health insurance option will not raise taxes."
Obama recently began raising the idea of taxing health insurance benefits for the first time in history. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said the President expressed a willingness to consider changing the existing tax exclusion.

"Yeah, it's something that he might consider," Baucus told reporters after the meeting between Obama and Democratic lawmakers. "That was discussed. It's on the table."

3) "The government will be able to control rising healthcare costs better than private insurance."
The President has repeatedly said that Medicare is a good model for the new healthcare plan now being debated. But the facts show that even though Medicare reimbursment levels to providers are abismally low, the program is on the verge of failure. Trustees over Medicare said the program for hospital expenses will pay out more in benefits than it collects this year and will be insolvent by 2017, two years earlier than the date projected in last year's report.

4) "The public option will not be a 'trojan horse' for a single payer system"
President Obama repeatedly claims that a public option will merely keep private insurance companies "honest" and increase competition which will drive down costs. The fact is, the government will be able to dictate the rates doctors, hospitals, and pharma charge people who are insured through the public option. Currently, providers make up the difference for inadequate Medicare reimbursments by charging a higher rate for private insurance.

Slowly but surely, private insurance companies will not be able to compete with the low premiums that the government will be able to charge due to the government's low reimbursment rates. In addition, as more and more people are not able to renew their policies (see point #1) everyone will eventually wind up on the government "option".

5) "There will be no rationing of services."
Democrats have accused Republicans of trying to scare Americans into believing that the government plan will set up "death panels" and try to "euthenize grandma". The fact is, that Obama's Office of Management and Budget issued a paper noting the opportunity for "an expanded federal role" in constraining costs without adverse health consequences by more aggressively investing in comparative-effectiveness research. And the OMB's newly released budget commits over a billion dollars to comparative-effectiveness research.

Comparative-effectiveness research is the practice of using medical records from a large sampling of people to determine which procedures yeild the best results at the lowest cost. The problem with using this research method for medical procedures is that it doesn't account for the biological differences between individuals. The healthcare plans that are currently under debate use this method to determine which procedures you are qualified to receive based on age, health, and other factors.

For instance, Britain uses the same cost-calculation method and recently denied breast cancer patients access to a life saving drug called Herceptin because of it's high cost. Enraged women fought back and eventually the health regulating authority allowed the drug to be prescribed.

Canada is another country that uses a single payer healthcare system. The Canadian Press reported that Dr. Anne Doig, the incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association, said her country’s healthcare system is “sick” and “imploding”.

“We know there must be change,” Doig said in a recent interview. “We’re all running flat out, we’re all just trying to stay ahead of the immediate day-to-day demands.” “We all agree the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize,” she said of her colleagues.

These are just a few examples of what to expect if a bill is passed with any type of government run health care plan. Typically, when government gets involved in any enterprise, the outcome is worse than the original problem.

Obama To Address America's School Children

2009-09-01T20:16:00.008-05:00

For the first time in history, a U.S. President has announced that he plans to directly address the nations school children. His address will be broadcast live through a White House website and will be accompanied by "suggested" classroom activities.

There has been no announcements regarding the content of Obama's address, and it has been noted that this could merely be a call to "study hard" or "stay in school". But many fear that the President could use his address to overtly, or even covertly, persuade children to support his agenda. Even subtle undertones could encourage teachers, who are sympathetic to his cause, to presure students into conforming to the President's views. If you believe that liberal-leaning teachers in America would never do such a thing, click here to see an Obama activist/teacher berate a young student because the student supported John McCain.

Children are a captive audience, especially while at school, and using that time for anything other than education is an irresponsible use of time. Even before the address begins, students are encouraged to read books about Barack Obama, and teachers are instructed to ask students “Why do you think he wants to speak to you?”

During the speech, students will be instructed to ask themselves several questions such as: "What is the President asking me to do?" and "What specific job is he asking me to do?" After the speech they will be told to ponder the question "Are we able to do what President Obama asks us to do?" Teachers will also have students write down what they can do to help the President. These assignment will be collected and redistributed later in the year in an attempt to hold students accountable to their "goals".

This smells strongly of the indoctrination used many times throughout history to achieve socialistic goals. Every tyrant who has risen to power has understood the need to train children in his way of thinking. Obama knows that by using schools to intrude in children's lives, he can implant the seeds of long-term liberal goals and therefore bypass the better judgement of their parents.

Why It Matters Who You Vote For

2009-09-01T10:14:00.008-05:00

So often people tell me that they don't support a particular political party; that they just vote for the candidate they like at the time. While I agree that you shouldn't vote for someone just because of his/her party affiliation, you should also be smart enough to know that there are long term consequences for your voting actions.

There are major philosophical differences between the Democratic and Republican parties and those philosophies have evolved over the years. It is important to remember that the majority party in Congress controls the agenda that is used to debate bills, effectively controlling which bills come to the floor for a full vote. The majority party also appoints the chairmen (leaders) of every committee and subcommittee, further controlling which items the Congress votes on.

Generally the Democratic party tends to be liberal, supporting abortion rights, gay marriage, and restricting public religious expression. It also tends to believe that the United States has been an oppressor by forcing other nations to adopt a democratic system they don't want or by exploiting weaker nations for oil.

Other basic principals of the Democratic party are:
- larger government
- higher taxes
- more regulation
- smaller military and national
defense
- large welfare system
- nationalized medical system

In contrast, the Republican party is conservative, striving to curb abortions, preserve traditional marriage by restricting gay marriage, and protect religious freedom. It also believe that the U.S. is a force for good in the world by spreading democracy and oppressing tyrants.

Some of the other basic principals of the Republican party are:
- smaller government
- lower taxes
- less business regulation
- individual and states rights
- strong military and national defense
- individual responsibility

These are some of the reasons to be very careful when you vote for someone. Do your research, become informed on a candidate's position on issues and check his/her track record. Don't just listen to the words coming out of his/her mouth. Decide first what your values are and then vote for the candidate who will represent you.

The Thanks of an Ungrateful President

2009-08-31T10:07:00.006-05:00

This story is not exactly "new news", but I just found out about it and thought it deserved to be retold.

In March, President Obama proposed a plan that would require a soldier's private insurance company to reimburse the Veterans Association for treating combat and other on-duty injuries. Currently, soldiers use private insurance for off-duty medical needs only.

The plan was said to save the government an estimated $540 million, but according to Craig Roberts, Media Relations Manager for the American Legion, the amount of savings "is a great mystery and it seems to be an arbitrary number. ... The commander said it seemed like this phantom number."

The American Legion is the nations largest veterans group with nearly 3 million members, consisting of men and women, in nearly 15,000 American Legion posts worldwide.

The American Legion, along with ten other veterans groups met with Obama, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, VA Secretary Eric Shinseki and Office of Management and Budget defense spending chief Steven Kosiak were told to come up with another plan if they didn't like the one proposed by Obama.

"What we've been tasked with now is to raise this money through alternative means and we're supposed to have a conference call in two or three days ... with Rahm Emanuel. So the implication was ... you guys come up with a better idea or this is what's going to happen," Roberts said.

Roberts also mentioned that any effort to describe the care of wounded soldiers as the moral obligation of the country was swept aside by the Obama administration. He noted that if a wounded warrior comes back and needs ongoing treatment but is required to use private insurance, he or she could run up "to the max of the coverage in very short order," leaving his family with nothing.

"The President deflected any discussion when it got into any moral issue here," he said. "Any attempt to direct the conversation (to the moral discussion) was immediately deflected."

"The President's avowed purpose in doing this is to, quote, 'make the insurance companies pay their fair share'," Roberts said. "It's not the Blue Cross that puts soldiers in harm's way, it's the federal government."

Shortly after the meeting with the President and administration officials, the veterans organizations issued a formal letter of complaint describing the plan as "unconscionable". The President retracted the plan within a few days after meeting with the veterans groups.

As a soldier, I find it disgusting, yet believable, that this President would even consider this sort of plan. Of course, without ever serving his country as a soldier, he has no idea what it is like to put yourself in harm's way, never expecting to make a lot of money, not expecting to gain power or influence, only expecting that if needed, your country will take care of you and treat you like the hero you are.

People

2009-08-28T17:08:00.006-05:00

We all know the phase "Of the People, By the People and For the People". Just what does this mean? Who are the "People"?

Specifically we have 536 persons in Washington D.C. who have been elected by the People. These 536 have innumerable underlings operating in various capacities and designations, such as Secretary of this, that or the other, Czar, Adviser, Director and on and on.

My question is, who are these persons answering to? If we in fact are supposed to have government of, by and for the "People", then doesn't it stand to reason that the persons appointed, nominated and approved by our elected representatives, should get the same services and benefits that ALL of the "People" get?

But instead these persons get special jets and favoritism when traveling, limousines to get them around Washington D.C. and even wonderful and apparently almost unlimited medical care that We the People don't and can't get except at tremendous personal expense, expense that does not extend to these persons. It's considered part of their "benefits" for serving their country. They even get lifelong retirement for having served only one term. Our soldiers, who are serving and who fight to maintain our freedom, volunteer to put their lives on the line. Do they get a lifetime retirement? Which is more dangerous: Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barack Obama or a bullet from a gun, an RPG, or a missile? Who do these persons really serve?

In spite of all the wonderful lifetime benefits of becoming a servant of our country, these persons want "We the People" to have less then they receive. They refuse to agree to accept the same medical treatment that they propose the rest of us accept.

I refer to them as "persons" because it is apparent and obvious they do not consider themselves part of "We the People", but instead feel they are entitled to more than the People because they have offered to be our leaders and "servants".

As I recall, the Supreme Court ruled some years ago that there is no such thing as "equal yet separate." Yet these persons put themselves separate from We the People and don't consider themselves to be governed Of, By and For the People.

It is time "We the People" take back our government. We need to restore our country to be "Of The People, By The People and For The People" and not those persons who have deliberately, intentionally and without any regard for anything but themselves attempted to hijack our country.

Throw them all out.

We Don't Need To Be Safe, Just Distracted

2009-08-26T08:39:00.008-05:00

The war on terror is real and the people who want to kill us are real, but without an attack since 9/11, people seem to forget that there are still enemies out there who seek to destroy us, our children, and our way of life.

It's no coincidence that we haven't been attacked again. Brave and hard working people have been fighting and sacrificing on the front lines for years. Some of those people have been interrogators working for the CIA and other organizations. The information that has come from those interrogations has been vital to stopping further attacks against the U.S. and has played a direct role in saving countless lives.

One of the most high value terrorists captured was Khalid Sheik Mohamed who planned and executed the September 11th attacks. Khalid is also responsible for the beheading of Daniel Pearl, a Wall Street Journal reporter, in 2002.

In an interview, he reportedly said, “I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew Daniel Pearl in the City of Karachi, Pakistan.

KSM rose to prominence within Al Qaeda during the 1990's and is directly responsible for a long list of terror attacks that have killed and injured thousands of people around the world.

Initially KSM was described as an "accomplished resistor" to interrogation techniques, providing only a handful of intelligence reports, most of which were out-dated, inaccurate or lies. But when the CIA used water boarding, the accuracy of his information changed. The information that he provided led to the identification, arrest, and subsequent life imprisonment of six major terrorists. His information also prevented many deadly attacks, including a plot to down several transatlantic flights and a massive 9/11 style attack against Los Angeles.

KSM “didn’t resist,” one CIA veteran said. “He sang right away. He cracked real quick.” Another CIA official recalled: “KSM lasted the longest under water-boarding, about a minute and a half, but once he broke, it never had to be used again.”

Water boarding is the act of strapping a person's body to a long board and tilting him head down at a slight angle while restraining his arms and legs. Some kind of cloth is placed over his face and then water is poured over the cloth. The person is never in any real danger but the psychological impact is enormous. The brain interprets the sensation as drowning and activates his gag reflexes and other bodily reactions.

Now, despite how well this technique works and the intelligence that it has garnered, the Attorney General, an Obama political appointee, has announced that he is selecting a special prosecutor to go after former interrogators who used this method. Even though congress was briefed that the technique was being used, and the fact that there are no laws restricting it's use, the administration is seeking to appease the far left by prosecuting those who did a job that had to be done.

From now on when information is critically needed from people who want nothing more that to kill every American, the worst that an interrogator will be able to do is turn red in the face and shake his finger angrily. Liberals decry harsh interrogation techniques as torture all day in the media, and personalities such as Katie Couric are happy to oblige them, but at the end of the day America is left weaker and more unsafe. Just give us our American Idol and Starbucks and we won't bother to notice our security slipping away.

The 3 Trillion Dollar Bus Ride

2009-08-25T22:45:00.003-05:00

A woman gets on a bus in Zimbabwe and hands the driver stacks of currency totaling three trillion Zimbabwe dollars. Sounds impossible right? But it's not, three trillion "zimdollars" equals only fifty cents in U.S. currency.

The regime in Zimbabwe has allowed world record setting hyper inflation, turning the nation into one of the poorest in the world.

The currency is so devalued they are more routinely used as IOU's or promisory notes, and shops in more rural areas that don't have change for foreign currency use candy and handwriten credit notes for customers to redeem on future purchases.

This is an extream, yet real, example of what hyper inflation can do to an economy and a country. Careless spending, borrowing, and currency printing have consequences that can grow like a snowball down a hill unless reversed.

Peter Schiff, President of Euro-Pacific Capital, says that the U.S. is on a dangerous road that could take us from bad to much worse. According to Schiff, government stimulus is the problem, not the solution. Schiff predicts double-digit inflation within the next two to three years, and potential Zimbabwe style hyperinflation within the next five to 10 years, “depending on how the government reacts to high inflation.”

“As painful as it is, this recession is necessary,” Schiff told Moneynews.com’s Dan Mangru, “We’re never going to have a vibrant economy if we keep concentrating on reflating a busted bubble.”

But not only do we have to worry about our dollars sliding down in value, but the government continues to seek ways to squeeze more and more of our money out of our hands. One massive new tax that recently passed the House of Representatives is the Cap and Trade bill. Simply put, under a cap-and-trade system, government sets a cap on the total amount of carbon that can be emitted nationally; companies then buy or sell permits to emit CO2. The cap gets cranked down over time to reduce total carbon emissions.

This sounds fine until you realize that the new restrictions will hit energy producers the hardest, and where do you think the energy companies find the money to pay for these new carbon credits that they will have to buy? You and me, and every single one of us will see an average $1500 to $2000 per year increase in the cost to turn on the lights and air conditioning in our homes.

And then there's the deficit. Clearly, Bush wasn't a fiscal conservative's best friend, but a person could argue that he was hit with our nations first terror attack on our soil and a following recession. While I don't agree with the social spending that he embarked on, I do believe that our national security did need bolstering and some of the changes were worth the time and money.

Obama has taken a cue from the spending that Bush started and multiplied that lesson many times over. What was left to him at around a $450 billion deficit, is now estimated by the Congressional Budget Office (democrat contolled I might add) to be 9 TRILLION in ten years. With fewer and fewer nations willing to buy up U.S. debt, and the debt literally exploding, more and more dollars will just have to be printed to pay for all of the things that Obama and the democrats want to buy. When dollars get printed with nothing to assure their value you have inflation. At the rate that the government will have to print inflated dollars, we are sure to suffer hyper inflation and maybe in ten years you'll have to pay three trillion dollars to ride the bus too.

Czars of America

2009-08-24T08:44:00.007-05:00

Czars have been used for years by many administrations, they can coordinate between agencies, oversee policy, and help make sure that the President's plan is adhered to.

They can also be used to consolidate power to the white house if the president decides to make cabinet members and heads of agencies answerable to these czars.

Obama currently has nearly three dozen czars many of which overlap cabinet and department positions. Only about a third of the czars are required to be confirmed by the senate and the rest are answerable only to the president. So, with no congressional oversight, the president can push changes and policy on a huge number of issues and not have to worry about elected representatives, or at least confirmed officials, objecting to his plans.

Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.VA.), the longest serving democratic senator, has even critisized the administrations creation of so many positions. He wrote a letter to the president saying these positions “can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials.”

He continues “As presidential assistants and advisers, these White House staffers are not accountable for their actions to the Congress, to cabinet officials, and to virtually anyone but the president,” Byrd wrote. “They rarely testify before congressional committees, and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege. In too many instances, White House staff have been allowed to inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability.”

Certainly these positions and how they are controlled has created a fog over how the executive branch exercises it's power. This is in direct contrast to Obama's campaign pledge of more transparency and government openess. One more hollow promise of the Obama administration, and one more example of democrats tendancy to enlarge government and seek to control more and more of our daily lives with little or no accountability. The notion that through government and regulation our lives and the world at large can be made a better place.