The USA is at greater risk of another terrorist attack - perhaps the greatest risk since 9/11. So said, in not so many words, National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, CIA Director Leon Panetta and FBI Director Robert Mueller. All three indicated to the Senate Intelligence Committee a further attack in the next 3 to 6 months was "certain." So what is the Obama Administration doing to protect us?
In his State of the Union address he expressed his concern about the threat of nuclear weapons; and that the US and Russia were going to enter into a new arms control agreement. Not so good. He talked about attempting to secure all nuclear material around the world at an upcoming 44 nation meeting in April. Good. And he talked about possible further sanctions against Iran and North Korea. Meaningless. Meanwhile, the EU has no interest in further sanctions against Iran unless they come from the UN Security Council. But with China being opposed, and likely Russia also, sanctions are simply not possible. Both countries have veto power.
Meanwhile, this past week Iran launched a missile into space. It appears that Iran is on its way towards developing an intercontinental ballistic missile. And, given the lack of action by the Western world, Iran is also about to have nukes. How convenient that they will have nuclear warheads to put on top of their ICBMs. Of course, if their only target was Israel, they would not need the ICBMs. So I wonder who else they might consider for targetting? Maybe the "Great Satan?"
And Iran and North Korea are not the only threats. China has been steadily increasing the size of its military personnel and arsenal over the last decade or so. It claims to have an F-22 type fighter that will be ready in a year. Not to be outdone, Russia says its next generation stealth fighter will be ready in 2013 with production in 2015. (From the 2/5/10 Investor's Business Daily.) And the US? Halting production of the F-22 Raptor in 2011 or 2012. The maximum authorized production is 187. Its replacement, the F-35, is in trouble. There have been the usual cost overruns and delays. Also, per the same IBD article, it is considered to be "vastly inferior in both air-to-air combat and ground defense penetration." Yet the Raptor may be the only plane we have capable of evading the Russian's sophisticated surface to air missile system - the S-300. Russia has already contracted to sell these advanced missile batteries to: IRAN. Nice how this all comes together. Israel has brought to bear whatever pressure it could to convince the Russians not to proceed with the delivery of the S-300's.
It should be pretty clear to all that Iran does not demonstrate much reluctance to cause - or threaten to cause - lots of problems. The unelected Ayatollah Khameni again threatened Israel saying: "Surely the day will come when the nations of the region will witness the destruction of the Zionest regime..." (From Caroline Glick in the 1/30/10 Jerusalem Post online.) But Obama gave the Iranians until 12/31/09 to come clean on their nuclear program. Yet another deadline has passed with no real action by the US or the West. And while the US Senate passed another round of sanctions, just how effective can they be if not even the EU is willing to go along. It's a sure bet that Iran can already count on China and Russia and Venezuela among others.
On the other hand, 54 members of the House of Representatives should be hanging their heads in shame. ALL DEMOCRATS, they sent a letter to President Obama asking that he pressure Israel to open up Gaza. Hamas, a terrorist organization, not only controls Gaza, but essentially acts as a branch of the Iranian military. In any conflict between Israel and Iran, becoming increasingly likely due to the Western powers failure to act, Hamas would undoubtedly join in on any attack against Israel. Signing on to this letter were Representatives Barbara Lee, Loretta Sanchez, Pete Stark and Diane Watson. And signing at the top: Keith Ellison, the sole muslim member of Congress.
Hezbollah has also jumped on the war bandwagon, with their leader Nasrallah saying on 1/15 that the next war will "change the face of the region." (From Caroline Glick in the 2/5/10 Jerusalem Post online.) Syria also has been making threatening sounds. Yet our President is going to open diplomatic relations with this state sponsor of terrorism.
So our President continues on his mission to rid the world of nuclear weapons, apparently oblivious to all of the dangers around us. And the strength (weakness?) of our military is also not an issue apparently. So while his State of the Union address now indicated that jobs would be the number one priority, he also has not given up on healthcare, energy/cap and trade, and education. Yes, he talked about Afghanistan, and getting our troops out of Iraq by 8/31. And not being able to control himself, he again compared himself favorably to Bush, noting that "far more" Al-Qaeda leaders and fighters were captured or killed in 2009 than 2008.
Imagine, however, if Israel did not have their widely estimated 200 nukes. Just what would the Arab states and/or Iran have tried already? 300 million Arabs and 80 million Iranians - compared to 7 million Israelis. Obama seems to have no appreciation of American military might - and it's ability to act as a deterrence. It is strength that leads to peace. Weakness leads to war.
But he appears to still have no uniform foreign policy/defense vision. Or maybe it's just that it's the same as a year ago - appeasement, and a belief that the US should not be the world's superpower. But it would have been nice to hear something from our Commander in Chief about what appears to be an imminent terrorist attack.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Saturday, January 23, 2010
U.S. Supreme Court Overturns Independent Corporate Campaign Spending Limits
The First Amendment to the Constitution provides, in pertinent part, the following: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."
In a major boost for the First Amendment the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that government may not limit or ban "independent" spending by corporations for political campaigns and elections. (Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee) While there is still a limit on direct contributions to political campaigns, corporations may now use unlimited funds to run their own ads. And they will not be restricted by the McCain-Feingold time limits which prohibit use of corporate general funds 30 days before a Presidential primary and 60 days before a general election.
In decrying the decision, and playing to his usual class-warfare theme, President Obama said it is "a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans."
So let's think about what the President says. First, never a believer in free enterprise and capitalism, he demonizes big business. It does not matter that these businesses provide millions of jobs. Next, he talks about how these corporations "marshal their power" in Washington. Is he really suggesting that the average American had the same access to politicians that the wealthy and big corporations had BEFORE this decision? How about all those $10,000. a plate fund- raisers politicians regularly hold. "Everyday Americans" attending those Mr. President? Real access is gained with big contributions.
So then what is the problem with the Court's decision that has politicians (mostly dems) in an uproar? It is not that vast sums of money will be flowing into political campaigns. That happens now. It is that the politicians will no longer be able to CONTROL how that money is spent. When the money goes directly into their campaigns, the candidates and their campaign directors can decide how to spend it. Now, there is no limit on corporate spending as long as it is an "independent expenditure" not coordinated with any candidate. And therein lies the rub. Even favorable ads may not focus on the issue(s) the candidates want to focus on. And attack ads on their opponents may not have the tone or content that the candidates prefer.
So on the one hand, you have the interest of political candidates wanting complete control over their own campaigns and messages; and on the other you have the First Amendment. In explaining why the First Amendment must prevail, Justice Kennedy wrote: "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."
The New York Times was fuming over the decision. In their 1/22/10 lead editorial they wrote: "It was a fundamental misreading of the Constitution to say that these artificial legal constructs (corporations) have the same right to spend money on politics as ordinary Americans have to speak out in support of a candidate." I think the NY Times is on to something. What right do any of the following artificial legal constructs have to political speech: The NY Times Corp., NBC/Universal, CBS, ABC, CNN, The Tribune Co., The Washington Post Co., and on and on. Or do only those corporations that own media outlets have a right to political speech?
The NY Times bemoans the fact that while labor unions will also be free to spend their money, the unions have far less to spend than corporations. The inference is less influence by the unions. So here's a question: how did the unions manage to get their special exemption on taxes on "cadillac" healthcare plans that corporations did not get under the Senate version of Obamacare?
In anticipation of what he thought might be an "unfavorable" decision, Democrat Senator Charles Schumer has been working on legislation to limit the impact of the court's decision. So I would ask Mr. Schumer if he refuses to accept campaign contributions from these evil corporations. Apparently not. According to one google site, the top five industries contributing to his campaign from 2005 to 2010 are as follows: Securities and Investments (over 1 million), Lawyers (over $830,000), Real Estate (over $587,000), Misc. Finance (over $280,000), and Insurance (over $197,000). And what committees does Senator Schumer sit on? Banking, Finance and Judiciary. Matches up pretty nicely with his top contributors. But their money was just fine - as long as it went into the Senator's campaign coffers to use as he saw fit.
In a major boost for the First Amendment the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that government may not limit or ban "independent" spending by corporations for political campaigns and elections. (Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee) While there is still a limit on direct contributions to political campaigns, corporations may now use unlimited funds to run their own ads. And they will not be restricted by the McCain-Feingold time limits which prohibit use of corporate general funds 30 days before a Presidential primary and 60 days before a general election.
In decrying the decision, and playing to his usual class-warfare theme, President Obama said it is "a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans."
So let's think about what the President says. First, never a believer in free enterprise and capitalism, he demonizes big business. It does not matter that these businesses provide millions of jobs. Next, he talks about how these corporations "marshal their power" in Washington. Is he really suggesting that the average American had the same access to politicians that the wealthy and big corporations had BEFORE this decision? How about all those $10,000. a plate fund- raisers politicians regularly hold. "Everyday Americans" attending those Mr. President? Real access is gained with big contributions.
So then what is the problem with the Court's decision that has politicians (mostly dems) in an uproar? It is not that vast sums of money will be flowing into political campaigns. That happens now. It is that the politicians will no longer be able to CONTROL how that money is spent. When the money goes directly into their campaigns, the candidates and their campaign directors can decide how to spend it. Now, there is no limit on corporate spending as long as it is an "independent expenditure" not coordinated with any candidate. And therein lies the rub. Even favorable ads may not focus on the issue(s) the candidates want to focus on. And attack ads on their opponents may not have the tone or content that the candidates prefer.
So on the one hand, you have the interest of political candidates wanting complete control over their own campaigns and messages; and on the other you have the First Amendment. In explaining why the First Amendment must prevail, Justice Kennedy wrote: "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."
The New York Times was fuming over the decision. In their 1/22/10 lead editorial they wrote: "It was a fundamental misreading of the Constitution to say that these artificial legal constructs (corporations) have the same right to spend money on politics as ordinary Americans have to speak out in support of a candidate." I think the NY Times is on to something. What right do any of the following artificial legal constructs have to political speech: The NY Times Corp., NBC/Universal, CBS, ABC, CNN, The Tribune Co., The Washington Post Co., and on and on. Or do only those corporations that own media outlets have a right to political speech?
The NY Times bemoans the fact that while labor unions will also be free to spend their money, the unions have far less to spend than corporations. The inference is less influence by the unions. So here's a question: how did the unions manage to get their special exemption on taxes on "cadillac" healthcare plans that corporations did not get under the Senate version of Obamacare?
In anticipation of what he thought might be an "unfavorable" decision, Democrat Senator Charles Schumer has been working on legislation to limit the impact of the court's decision. So I would ask Mr. Schumer if he refuses to accept campaign contributions from these evil corporations. Apparently not. According to one google site, the top five industries contributing to his campaign from 2005 to 2010 are as follows: Securities and Investments (over 1 million), Lawyers (over $830,000), Real Estate (over $587,000), Misc. Finance (over $280,000), and Insurance (over $197,000). And what committees does Senator Schumer sit on? Banking, Finance and Judiciary. Matches up pretty nicely with his top contributors. But their money was just fine - as long as it went into the Senator's campaign coffers to use as he saw fit.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Republican takes Massachusetts!
Republican Scott Brown won the U.S. Senate seat that had been occupied by democrats for nearly six decades - in the most liberal of states. President Obama went to Massachusetts over the weekend to help support Martha Coakley, the democrat's candidate. And once again, as happened in November in New Jersey and Virginia, it was to no avail. But the spin began before the final results were in - with the O. team already blaming Coakley for running a weak campaign and just not being a good candidate. In other words, THEY STILL DON'T GET IT!
When Obama was in Massachusetts campaigning with Coakley, he resorted to what he always seems to rely upon: Blame Bush! Guess what? You have been in office for a year Mr. President. The people don't want a whiner for president. The people don't want unrestrained government spending. The people don't want higher taxes. The people don't want government control of their healthcare. The people expect you to put greater emphasis on job creation by stimulating the economy through tax cuts, not by spending us deeper into debt. And the people expect a greater emphasis on keeping us safe.
It took "W" eight years to lose the support of independents and even some republicans. It's taken Obama only one year to lose the support of the independents and republicans who voted for him, and even the support of some democrats.
So it's time to stop the corruption (with special favors to Nebraska and Louisiana and union health plans); and provide the transparency you so frequently promised during your campaign. Stop the back room deals. Stop the express train of Obamacare now.
You have now been told time and again that the people don't want Obamacare. You heard it at the townhall meetings, at the tea parties, in N.J., in Virginia, and now in Massachusetts. So will you concede the issue? Or does your arrogance and disdain for the American people know no bounds? And will you try to ram it through the Congress before Brown can be seated? Will the democrats look for reasons to delay the seating of Brown? What the democrats do now could very well determine their fate in the November elections. But as of now, it certainly appears that they just don't get it.
When Obama was in Massachusetts campaigning with Coakley, he resorted to what he always seems to rely upon: Blame Bush! Guess what? You have been in office for a year Mr. President. The people don't want a whiner for president. The people don't want unrestrained government spending. The people don't want higher taxes. The people don't want government control of their healthcare. The people expect you to put greater emphasis on job creation by stimulating the economy through tax cuts, not by spending us deeper into debt. And the people expect a greater emphasis on keeping us safe.
It took "W" eight years to lose the support of independents and even some republicans. It's taken Obama only one year to lose the support of the independents and republicans who voted for him, and even the support of some democrats.
So it's time to stop the corruption (with special favors to Nebraska and Louisiana and union health plans); and provide the transparency you so frequently promised during your campaign. Stop the back room deals. Stop the express train of Obamacare now.
You have now been told time and again that the people don't want Obamacare. You heard it at the townhall meetings, at the tea parties, in N.J., in Virginia, and now in Massachusetts. So will you concede the issue? Or does your arrogance and disdain for the American people know no bounds? And will you try to ram it through the Congress before Brown can be seated? Will the democrats look for reasons to delay the seating of Brown? What the democrats do now could very well determine their fate in the November elections. But as of now, it certainly appears that they just don't get it.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Quick Hits II
1. President Obama's September,2009 speech to the UN General Assembly included this: "It is my deeply held belief that in the year 2009 - more than at any point in human history - the interests of nations and peoples are shared."
News item: "Islamists looted and burned a Protestant church in Algeria." They also "set fire to a pile of Bibles and religious textbooks, and desecrated Christian crosses."
News item: "Nine churches have also been recently burned down amid violence against the country's (Malaysia) Christian minority." (News items from the 1/11/10 Jerusalem Post online.)
Everybody see those "shared interests?"
2. Obama, in 4/09, when asked if he believes in American exceptionalism: "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." So, Mr. President, after you reduce the size of our military and take away our nukes, and do all you can to negate American values, who would you like to see take America's place in the world? The U.N.? Russia? China? Iran? The islamofascists?
3. Jimmy Carter recently, with great publicity, "apologized" to the Jewish community for any offense caused by his remarks about Israel. Except, on the same day as his apology, he opined in the London Guardian that the terrorist organization Hamas should be recognized as a legitimate organization. The same Hamas that routinely calls for the destruction of Israel. So Carter remains an anti-semite. Or maybe it's just a coincidence that his "apology" comes at a time when his grandson may be running for state senate in Dekalb County, Georgia - which has a "substantial Jewish population." (From the 12/25/09 Jewish Press.)
4. Global cooling continues. Britain was in its "longest cold spell in nearly 30 years." In France "snow piled up from Normandy to Marseilles on the Mediterranean shore." Norway had its "lowest temperatures in more than two decades." (From the 1/8/10 Verizon News online.) And in Florida, USA, temperatures there broke 80 year old records for low temperatures. (From Fox News, 1/11/10.)
5. Dems are calling it quits. Senators Chris Dodd (Conn.) and Byron Dorgan (No. Dak.) will not be running for re-election. In the November, 2009 elections, two significant gubernatorial races went to the Republicans. Chris Christie won in N.J. and Bob McDonnell won in Virginia. Now, we have an election on Tuesday for the Senate seat in Massachusetts that became vacant upon the death of Ted Kennedy. A seat held by the dems/Kennedys for decades. But democrat state Attorney General Martha Coakley has been slipping in the polls to republican state Senator Scott Brown. Obama plans on making a last minute trip to Mass. to help bolster Coakley. Hopefully, it will be with the same ineffectiveness that he brought to the N.J. and Virginia races.
6. As previously discussed here, Iran has been given deadlines with regards to their nuclear program. October, 2009. December 31, 2009. So the U.S. is now working with Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany to try to come up with some new sanctions. The U.N. Security Council has already imposed three sets of sanctions on Iran. I wonder how many more sets of sanctions it will take until Iran finally has a nuke. Am I missing something here?
7. Israel had to cancel plans to send a delegation of IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) officers to Britain. Like other European countries, Britain has a "universal jurisdiction law" allowing them to decide cases in which Britain has no actual interest. Israeli civilian leaders have also had to avoid even diplomatic visits to Britain for fear of arrest. All this because of alleged war crimes committed by Israel in defending itself against Hamas rocket and missile attacks.
And for those who may think the above has no effect on the U.S., think again. Unlike President Bush, the Obama administration is pushing to get the U.S. to sign on to the Rome Statute, which created the International Criminal Court. Secretary Clinton expressed her "great regret but it is a fact we are not yet a signatory" to the Rome Statute. This, of course, would subject U.S. military personnel - and civilian leaders - to the jurisdiction of that court.
Given our President's lack of enthusiasm for "American exceptionalism," it should be no surprise that he would be willing to give up American autonomy and sovereignty to international organizations. As John Bolton discusses in the January, 2010 issue of Commentary, Obama is the first "post-American" president.
8. From George Mitchell, Obama's Middle East Czar, explaining why the U.S. may have to punish Israel and withhold loan guarantees: "We think the way to approach this is to try to persuade the parties what is in their self-interest." (From the 1/15/10Jewish Press.)
This sounds strangely similar to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, democratic Congress member from Florida. On Fox, she was asked why the democrats are pushing a health care bill the American people do not want. She felt it was her job, as part of the leadership, to explain to the American people why the health care bill is good for them.
Given the extreme arrogance of the "elite" in D.C. - Obama, et. al. - anyone doubt that the dems will attempt to rush through their health care plan if Scott Brown wins and the dems no longer have a filibuster-proof Senate?
Or maybe they can set up re-programming camps for those of us who have not accepted the party line and just do not know what is in our best interest.
News item: "Islamists looted and burned a Protestant church in Algeria." They also "set fire to a pile of Bibles and religious textbooks, and desecrated Christian crosses."
News item: "Nine churches have also been recently burned down amid violence against the country's (Malaysia) Christian minority." (News items from the 1/11/10 Jerusalem Post online.)
Everybody see those "shared interests?"
2. Obama, in 4/09, when asked if he believes in American exceptionalism: "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." So, Mr. President, after you reduce the size of our military and take away our nukes, and do all you can to negate American values, who would you like to see take America's place in the world? The U.N.? Russia? China? Iran? The islamofascists?
3. Jimmy Carter recently, with great publicity, "apologized" to the Jewish community for any offense caused by his remarks about Israel. Except, on the same day as his apology, he opined in the London Guardian that the terrorist organization Hamas should be recognized as a legitimate organization. The same Hamas that routinely calls for the destruction of Israel. So Carter remains an anti-semite. Or maybe it's just a coincidence that his "apology" comes at a time when his grandson may be running for state senate in Dekalb County, Georgia - which has a "substantial Jewish population." (From the 12/25/09 Jewish Press.)
4. Global cooling continues. Britain was in its "longest cold spell in nearly 30 years." In France "snow piled up from Normandy to Marseilles on the Mediterranean shore." Norway had its "lowest temperatures in more than two decades." (From the 1/8/10 Verizon News online.) And in Florida, USA, temperatures there broke 80 year old records for low temperatures. (From Fox News, 1/11/10.)
5. Dems are calling it quits. Senators Chris Dodd (Conn.) and Byron Dorgan (No. Dak.) will not be running for re-election. In the November, 2009 elections, two significant gubernatorial races went to the Republicans. Chris Christie won in N.J. and Bob McDonnell won in Virginia. Now, we have an election on Tuesday for the Senate seat in Massachusetts that became vacant upon the death of Ted Kennedy. A seat held by the dems/Kennedys for decades. But democrat state Attorney General Martha Coakley has been slipping in the polls to republican state Senator Scott Brown. Obama plans on making a last minute trip to Mass. to help bolster Coakley. Hopefully, it will be with the same ineffectiveness that he brought to the N.J. and Virginia races.
6. As previously discussed here, Iran has been given deadlines with regards to their nuclear program. October, 2009. December 31, 2009. So the U.S. is now working with Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany to try to come up with some new sanctions. The U.N. Security Council has already imposed three sets of sanctions on Iran. I wonder how many more sets of sanctions it will take until Iran finally has a nuke. Am I missing something here?
7. Israel had to cancel plans to send a delegation of IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) officers to Britain. Like other European countries, Britain has a "universal jurisdiction law" allowing them to decide cases in which Britain has no actual interest. Israeli civilian leaders have also had to avoid even diplomatic visits to Britain for fear of arrest. All this because of alleged war crimes committed by Israel in defending itself against Hamas rocket and missile attacks.
And for those who may think the above has no effect on the U.S., think again. Unlike President Bush, the Obama administration is pushing to get the U.S. to sign on to the Rome Statute, which created the International Criminal Court. Secretary Clinton expressed her "great regret but it is a fact we are not yet a signatory" to the Rome Statute. This, of course, would subject U.S. military personnel - and civilian leaders - to the jurisdiction of that court.
Given our President's lack of enthusiasm for "American exceptionalism," it should be no surprise that he would be willing to give up American autonomy and sovereignty to international organizations. As John Bolton discusses in the January, 2010 issue of Commentary, Obama is the first "post-American" president.
8. From George Mitchell, Obama's Middle East Czar, explaining why the U.S. may have to punish Israel and withhold loan guarantees: "We think the way to approach this is to try to persuade the parties what is in their self-interest." (From the 1/15/10Jewish Press.)
This sounds strangely similar to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, democratic Congress member from Florida. On Fox, she was asked why the democrats are pushing a health care bill the American people do not want. She felt it was her job, as part of the leadership, to explain to the American people why the health care bill is good for them.
Given the extreme arrogance of the "elite" in D.C. - Obama, et. al. - anyone doubt that the dems will attempt to rush through their health care plan if Scott Brown wins and the dems no longer have a filibuster-proof Senate?
Or maybe they can set up re-programming camps for those of us who have not accepted the party line and just do not know what is in our best interest.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Terrorism; and the Big Chill
1. The Global War Against...um..."man made disasters"...er..."networks." One Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab tried to blow up Northwest Flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas day. Abdulmutallab, a muslim from Nigeria, apparently was able to buy a one-way ticket for cash. His father had warned the US embassy about his extremist tendencies. By sheer luck, and the impatience of this terrorist in waiting sufficiently long for the chemicals to mix to be able to explode, the bomb never went off.
On the direction of our President, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano previously told us that we have a fight with "man made disasters." That is the kind of spin that they put on the logical, understandable expression of "war on terror." But "terror" was too closely associated with radical islam; and was definitely too closely associated with our former President Bush. Then, after the attempted blowing up of Flight 253, Secretary Napolitano tells us that the system worked like it should - because the bomb did not go off. Even the lamestream media could not tolerate that one; and she had to retract her statement a day later.
When we heard from our President we were told that: "Our nation is at war against a far reaching network of violence and hatred." That's it - we are at war against a "network." Is that like ABC or CBS or NBC? Is that the network? Obama WILL NOT say "terrorism" or "radical Islam" or "jihadists." He continues his stupid appeasement of the muslim world; even though a year later he has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to show for his approach. Well, not nothing. Foreign leaders seem to think he is weak and indecisive. I wonder why! (On the other hand, Reagan called the Soviet Union the "evil empire." He was not afraid of insulting the Russians; and maybe even encouraged the dissidents. Obama gives great deference to a regime like Iran, which strengthens the Ayatollahs and fails to give needed moral support to the dissidents there. Reagan was feared. Bush was feared. Obama wants to be everyone's BFF - but no one fears him. A little fear in the right people is a good thing. You know, "talk softly, but carry a big stick." Too bad our President does not get that.) So what formerly antagonistic muslim country has warmed up to the US because of the Great Obama? Iran? No. Syria? No. The palestinians? No. Of course, the same applies to the formerly - and still - antagonistic non-muslim countries - No. Korea, Russia, Venezuela. I feel so much safer now!
Consistent with his appeasement and anti-Bush approach, he immediately decided to try Abdulmutallab in criminal court rather than as an enemy combatant. That, of course, gives him the right to an attorney and the right to remain silent. Although some might think that we might actually want to find out what he knows about others who may be planning further attacks. But no.
Obama's Deputy National Security Advisor, John Brennan, had this to say: "There was no single piece of intelligence or smoking gun if you will that said Mr. Abdulmutallab was going to carry out an attack against that aircraft." Well, you have a young muslim male (OMG - profiling!) whose father reported to US authorities that he had been influenced by extremists, who buys a one way ticket for cash, and was apparently known to the CIA before.
Now I recall after 9/11 some of the criticisms of Bush. He was on vacation in August and should have been in D.C. coordinating intelligence efforts - because when the head guy is away, people do not work as hard. Although I find that suggestion to be silly, this time Obama was away - and clearly did not rush back from his Hawaiian vacation after the Christmas day terrorist act. Also, Bush was blamed because our intelligence agencies were not sharing information in a way that would have allowed someone to connect all the dots. So Congress did what it always does to solve a problem - it created new bureaucracies. We got a new National Intelligence Director, the Department of Homeland Security and a new Counter terrorism unit. Personally, I thought it was ridiculous to think that creating new levels of bureaucracy would help improve our intelligence gathering and counter terrorism efforts. And clearly, those additional bureaucracies did NOTHING to prevent this current act of terrorism. Brennan had this to say: "There is no indication whatsoever that any agency or department was not trying to share information." Which, of course, misses the point entirely! So if everyone was cooperating and the system FAILED anyway - then maybe the problem was never the "system" in the first place. Maybe the problem is a failed mind-set.
My son just returned from a trip to Israel. He flew El Al - probably the No. 1 target for terrorists - yet the safest airline to fly. My son indicated the questioning by the El Al agents was more intense than ever. Yes, they do not just rely on x-ray screening or metal detectors. They ask questions - and they PROFILE! Why are you going to Israel? What's your Jewish background? What holidays do you celebrate? Where will you be staying? And the questions are often repeated to check for inconsistencies in the answers. Is the United States of America incapable of that same type of screening? Do we not have enough people that can be trained to do this type of screening? Or, does political correctness prevent us from doing what should be done (just like it prevented the Army from kicking out another murderous islamist terrorist - Major Hasan). So we will continue to give the same attention to elderly grandmothers and six year old girls that we should be giving to young men from muslim countries.
2. The Big Chill! Forget global warming. CNN reported today that "dangerously cold weather had much of the United States in its grip early Monday morning, with no relief in sight for the rest of the week." The cold temps went all the way down to Florida which had a hard freeze warning in effect. Parts of Louisiana and Florida were expecting temperature readings in the 20's; with possible new record lows being set there and in southern Georgia and Texas. Maybe that's why the left stopped referring to "global warming" and in its place put "climate change." Now, they just need to come up with an explanation as to how man's activities are causing the "global cooling." Problems, problems.
On the direction of our President, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano previously told us that we have a fight with "man made disasters." That is the kind of spin that they put on the logical, understandable expression of "war on terror." But "terror" was too closely associated with radical islam; and was definitely too closely associated with our former President Bush. Then, after the attempted blowing up of Flight 253, Secretary Napolitano tells us that the system worked like it should - because the bomb did not go off. Even the lamestream media could not tolerate that one; and she had to retract her statement a day later.
When we heard from our President we were told that: "Our nation is at war against a far reaching network of violence and hatred." That's it - we are at war against a "network." Is that like ABC or CBS or NBC? Is that the network? Obama WILL NOT say "terrorism" or "radical Islam" or "jihadists." He continues his stupid appeasement of the muslim world; even though a year later he has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to show for his approach. Well, not nothing. Foreign leaders seem to think he is weak and indecisive. I wonder why! (On the other hand, Reagan called the Soviet Union the "evil empire." He was not afraid of insulting the Russians; and maybe even encouraged the dissidents. Obama gives great deference to a regime like Iran, which strengthens the Ayatollahs and fails to give needed moral support to the dissidents there. Reagan was feared. Bush was feared. Obama wants to be everyone's BFF - but no one fears him. A little fear in the right people is a good thing. You know, "talk softly, but carry a big stick." Too bad our President does not get that.) So what formerly antagonistic muslim country has warmed up to the US because of the Great Obama? Iran? No. Syria? No. The palestinians? No. Of course, the same applies to the formerly - and still - antagonistic non-muslim countries - No. Korea, Russia, Venezuela. I feel so much safer now!
Consistent with his appeasement and anti-Bush approach, he immediately decided to try Abdulmutallab in criminal court rather than as an enemy combatant. That, of course, gives him the right to an attorney and the right to remain silent. Although some might think that we might actually want to find out what he knows about others who may be planning further attacks. But no.
Obama's Deputy National Security Advisor, John Brennan, had this to say: "There was no single piece of intelligence or smoking gun if you will that said Mr. Abdulmutallab was going to carry out an attack against that aircraft." Well, you have a young muslim male (OMG - profiling!) whose father reported to US authorities that he had been influenced by extremists, who buys a one way ticket for cash, and was apparently known to the CIA before.
Now I recall after 9/11 some of the criticisms of Bush. He was on vacation in August and should have been in D.C. coordinating intelligence efforts - because when the head guy is away, people do not work as hard. Although I find that suggestion to be silly, this time Obama was away - and clearly did not rush back from his Hawaiian vacation after the Christmas day terrorist act. Also, Bush was blamed because our intelligence agencies were not sharing information in a way that would have allowed someone to connect all the dots. So Congress did what it always does to solve a problem - it created new bureaucracies. We got a new National Intelligence Director, the Department of Homeland Security and a new Counter terrorism unit. Personally, I thought it was ridiculous to think that creating new levels of bureaucracy would help improve our intelligence gathering and counter terrorism efforts. And clearly, those additional bureaucracies did NOTHING to prevent this current act of terrorism. Brennan had this to say: "There is no indication whatsoever that any agency or department was not trying to share information." Which, of course, misses the point entirely! So if everyone was cooperating and the system FAILED anyway - then maybe the problem was never the "system" in the first place. Maybe the problem is a failed mind-set.
My son just returned from a trip to Israel. He flew El Al - probably the No. 1 target for terrorists - yet the safest airline to fly. My son indicated the questioning by the El Al agents was more intense than ever. Yes, they do not just rely on x-ray screening or metal detectors. They ask questions - and they PROFILE! Why are you going to Israel? What's your Jewish background? What holidays do you celebrate? Where will you be staying? And the questions are often repeated to check for inconsistencies in the answers. Is the United States of America incapable of that same type of screening? Do we not have enough people that can be trained to do this type of screening? Or, does political correctness prevent us from doing what should be done (just like it prevented the Army from kicking out another murderous islamist terrorist - Major Hasan). So we will continue to give the same attention to elderly grandmothers and six year old girls that we should be giving to young men from muslim countries.
2. The Big Chill! Forget global warming. CNN reported today that "dangerously cold weather had much of the United States in its grip early Monday morning, with no relief in sight for the rest of the week." The cold temps went all the way down to Florida which had a hard freeze warning in effect. Parts of Louisiana and Florida were expecting temperature readings in the 20's; with possible new record lows being set there and in southern Georgia and Texas. Maybe that's why the left stopped referring to "global warming" and in its place put "climate change." Now, they just need to come up with an explanation as to how man's activities are causing the "global cooling." Problems, problems.
Friday, December 25, 2009
Reid and Obamacare, a Conservative's View of Healthcare "Reform"
1. THE SELLING OF THE SENATE. The Senate needed sixty votes to get their health care bill passed - all 58 democrats and the 2 independents. However, there was much dissension in the dems ranks, so Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had to BUY votes. Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska objected to the language on abortion. But somehow, he ended up getting Nebraska PERMANENTLY exempt from the payment for ANY Medicaid expenses for future Medicaid recipients in Nebraska. Currently, each state pays a share of Medicaid and the Feds also pay a share for each state. Now, the taxpayers in the other 49 states will pay for their own Medicaid (Medi-Cal in CA.) recipients and for a share of Nebraska's as well!
Perhaps George Will said it best: "Reid was buying the votes of senators whose understanding of the duties of representation does not rise above the looting of the nation for local benefits. And Reid had two advantages - the spending, taxing and borrowing powers of the federal leviathan, and an almost gorgeous absence of scruples or principles." (From the 12/22/09 Ventura County Star.) Of course, Nelson was not alone in accepting bribes (is there any other word for it?). Senator Mary Landrieu managed to get an extra $300,000,000. for her state by holding out.
And how harsh was the mainstream media about this vote buying and bribery in the United States Senate? The 12/22/09 Ventura County was emblematic in their editorial: "...in the end, he (Reid) held together his 58 fractious fellow democrats and plus two independents..." Held together? Don't they mean bribed? Let's be realistic. If this type of bribery occurred in any city council in the country, the participants would be going to JAIL! In fact, if this type of bribery occurred in any state legislature in the country, the participants would be going to jail. But when it happens in the highest deliberative political body in the country they call it "deal making," or "horse trading," or "earmarks." But make no mistake; Reid was giving away taxpayers' dollars (YOUR MONEY) to buy votes.
Obama came into office promising transparency in government; trying to put an end to "earmarks;" bipartisanship; and a new way of doing business in Washington. Transparency? Reid engaged in one back room deal after the next. An end to earmarks? See above giveaways! Bipartisanship? No bill of this magnitude has EVER passed on a single party vote. New way of doing business in Washington? Really? So the question is, do any of these politicians even SEE a problem here, the way the rest of America does. Mary Landrieu: "Nothing could make me vote for a bill if I didn't think it was the right thing to do for my state and for the nation." Really Mary? Did $300 million help you come to the conclusion that it was the "right" thing to do? Reid: "A number of states are treated differently than other states. That's what legislation's all about: compromise." (Quotes from the 12/21/09 USA Today.) I think Harry's a little too easy on himself - "bribery" fits a lot better than "compromise." And Obama? He was so impressed with the fact that the Senate was "working" so hard he delayed his holiday trip to Hawaii. "If they're making these sacrifices to provide healthcare to all Americans, then the least I can do is to be around and to provide them any encouragement and last minute help if necessary." (From the 12/23/09 LA Times.) So it appears that mister "Hope and Change" does not see any problem.
So to my readers who support the proposed healthcare legislation: do you agree that the ends justify the means, as the dems in the Senate do? Or do you agree that people like Reid and Nelson and Landrieu should be prosecuted and go to jail? Is anyone NOT totally disgusted by the behavior of these senators?
2. NO NEW TAXES? Obama said the healthcare bill should not increase the deficit or raise taxes. LIE! Seriously, just how did you think they were going to pay for all of this? Obama also said that "the federal government will go bankrupt" if the healthcare bill fails. (From 12/16/09 Verizon News online.) ANOTHER LIE! Where's the proof for that? And how does spending trillions more PREVENT bankruptcy? One of the biggest proposed taxes in the Senate bill is on "Cadillac" health insurance plans costing more than $8500. per year. This writer pays $2053 per month or $24636 per year. The tax would be on the amount over $8500 which is $16136. 40% of that is $6454.40! That's my new tax. Millions of people across the country pay more than $8500. per year for their premiums. So the Dems tell us we have a health care crisis that is making insurance too costly for an increasing number of Americans. So it would be fair to ask: why is the government making it MORE costly? (More on this below.) (Correction on 12/28/09: I am told by my insurance agent that his understanding is that the $8500. tax free limit is per PERSON and not per POLICY. If that is the case, my apologies to my readers.)
All Americans will be required to buy health insurance. If you cannot afford it, the taxpayers will pay it for you. If you can afford it and refuse, you pay a 2.5% income tax surcharge under the House bill; and "fines" (read "taxes") under the Senate bill (up to $750. in 2016, $350. in 2015 and $95. in 2014). However, higher earners pay 2% of their income up to $2250. per family. And businesses get to pay separate taxes: under the House bill up to 8% of payroll for companies with $500,000. or more total payroll; and under the Senate bill a "fine" (read "tax") of $750. for each qualified full time employee with companies employing 50 or more people. (Data from the 12/21/09 USA Today.)
3. CONSTITUTIONALITY? Hopefully, republicans will be challenging the constitutionality of some of the soon to be law's new provisions. Can the feds mandate that people actually buy a particular good or service; in this case, health insurance. As Orrin Hatch noted, the Congress has previously "regulated" activities that people voluntarily engaged in; and not mandated that they actually do an activity. But House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer says Congress' power comes from Article 1, Section 8, which allows Congress to provide for the "general welfare." (Quotes from the 12/24/09 Investor's Business Daily) If that becomes the standard, then there is absolutely no limit on what Congress can do, from requiring you to buy certain cars, buy certain foods, participate in government run/supervised exercise programs and on and on and on; all for the purpose of the "general welfare." Clearly, the dems have no understanding or respect for the Constitution, which was intended to create a government of limited powers.
Apparently, the Senate also put a provision in their bill that future Congresses would NOT be allowed to amend or change certain parts of this proposed law. That hardly seems constitutional. That would allow this Congress to pass legislation in every major area that could never be changed. Why would we need future Congresses?
4. WHAT'S IT ALL ABOUT, ALFIE? Clearly, the dems did not get everything they wanted in the current senate bill. No public option. No Medicare buy-in at age 55. Employers will have to pay fines or subsidize their employees health benefits; or, as seems likely, lay people off. Individuals will have to become law-breakers or buy their own insurance if their employers do not come under the mandate. Small businesses and the self-insured, as usual, will be very hard hit. I think the socialist senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders, is on to something: "government run health insurance will return when the realization dawns that private insurance companies are no longer needed." I think the dems intend to revisit the issue down the road when enough people and businesses complain about the new costs and taxes. Then the dems will step in as the saviors, presenting the people with a fully nationalized healthcare system that will forever eliminate private insurance company involvement in healthcare. As Sanders says, his approach "eliminates the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste, administrative costs, bureaucracy and profiteering that is engendered by the private insurance companies." (Quotes from the 12/16/09 Verizon News online.) Billions in waste? Administrative costs? Bureaucracy? Profiteering? Funny - I thought he was talking about the federal government!
Perhaps George Will said it best: "Reid was buying the votes of senators whose understanding of the duties of representation does not rise above the looting of the nation for local benefits. And Reid had two advantages - the spending, taxing and borrowing powers of the federal leviathan, and an almost gorgeous absence of scruples or principles." (From the 12/22/09 Ventura County Star.) Of course, Nelson was not alone in accepting bribes (is there any other word for it?). Senator Mary Landrieu managed to get an extra $300,000,000. for her state by holding out.
And how harsh was the mainstream media about this vote buying and bribery in the United States Senate? The 12/22/09 Ventura County was emblematic in their editorial: "...in the end, he (Reid) held together his 58 fractious fellow democrats and plus two independents..." Held together? Don't they mean bribed? Let's be realistic. If this type of bribery occurred in any city council in the country, the participants would be going to JAIL! In fact, if this type of bribery occurred in any state legislature in the country, the participants would be going to jail. But when it happens in the highest deliberative political body in the country they call it "deal making," or "horse trading," or "earmarks." But make no mistake; Reid was giving away taxpayers' dollars (YOUR MONEY) to buy votes.
Obama came into office promising transparency in government; trying to put an end to "earmarks;" bipartisanship; and a new way of doing business in Washington. Transparency? Reid engaged in one back room deal after the next. An end to earmarks? See above giveaways! Bipartisanship? No bill of this magnitude has EVER passed on a single party vote. New way of doing business in Washington? Really? So the question is, do any of these politicians even SEE a problem here, the way the rest of America does. Mary Landrieu: "Nothing could make me vote for a bill if I didn't think it was the right thing to do for my state and for the nation." Really Mary? Did $300 million help you come to the conclusion that it was the "right" thing to do? Reid: "A number of states are treated differently than other states. That's what legislation's all about: compromise." (Quotes from the 12/21/09 USA Today.) I think Harry's a little too easy on himself - "bribery" fits a lot better than "compromise." And Obama? He was so impressed with the fact that the Senate was "working" so hard he delayed his holiday trip to Hawaii. "If they're making these sacrifices to provide healthcare to all Americans, then the least I can do is to be around and to provide them any encouragement and last minute help if necessary." (From the 12/23/09 LA Times.) So it appears that mister "Hope and Change" does not see any problem.
So to my readers who support the proposed healthcare legislation: do you agree that the ends justify the means, as the dems in the Senate do? Or do you agree that people like Reid and Nelson and Landrieu should be prosecuted and go to jail? Is anyone NOT totally disgusted by the behavior of these senators?
2. NO NEW TAXES? Obama said the healthcare bill should not increase the deficit or raise taxes. LIE! Seriously, just how did you think they were going to pay for all of this? Obama also said that "the federal government will go bankrupt" if the healthcare bill fails. (From 12/16/09 Verizon News online.) ANOTHER LIE! Where's the proof for that? And how does spending trillions more PREVENT bankruptcy? One of the biggest proposed taxes in the Senate bill is on "Cadillac" health insurance plans costing more than $8500. per year. This writer pays $2053 per month or $24636 per year. The tax would be on the amount over $8500 which is $16136. 40% of that is $6454.40! That's my new tax. Millions of people across the country pay more than $8500. per year for their premiums. So the Dems tell us we have a health care crisis that is making insurance too costly for an increasing number of Americans. So it would be fair to ask: why is the government making it MORE costly? (More on this below.) (Correction on 12/28/09: I am told by my insurance agent that his understanding is that the $8500. tax free limit is per PERSON and not per POLICY. If that is the case, my apologies to my readers.)
All Americans will be required to buy health insurance. If you cannot afford it, the taxpayers will pay it for you. If you can afford it and refuse, you pay a 2.5% income tax surcharge under the House bill; and "fines" (read "taxes") under the Senate bill (up to $750. in 2016, $350. in 2015 and $95. in 2014). However, higher earners pay 2% of their income up to $2250. per family. And businesses get to pay separate taxes: under the House bill up to 8% of payroll for companies with $500,000. or more total payroll; and under the Senate bill a "fine" (read "tax") of $750. for each qualified full time employee with companies employing 50 or more people. (Data from the 12/21/09 USA Today.)
3. CONSTITUTIONALITY? Hopefully, republicans will be challenging the constitutionality of some of the soon to be law's new provisions. Can the feds mandate that people actually buy a particular good or service; in this case, health insurance. As Orrin Hatch noted, the Congress has previously "regulated" activities that people voluntarily engaged in; and not mandated that they actually do an activity. But House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer says Congress' power comes from Article 1, Section 8, which allows Congress to provide for the "general welfare." (Quotes from the 12/24/09 Investor's Business Daily) If that becomes the standard, then there is absolutely no limit on what Congress can do, from requiring you to buy certain cars, buy certain foods, participate in government run/supervised exercise programs and on and on and on; all for the purpose of the "general welfare." Clearly, the dems have no understanding or respect for the Constitution, which was intended to create a government of limited powers.
Apparently, the Senate also put a provision in their bill that future Congresses would NOT be allowed to amend or change certain parts of this proposed law. That hardly seems constitutional. That would allow this Congress to pass legislation in every major area that could never be changed. Why would we need future Congresses?
4. WHAT'S IT ALL ABOUT, ALFIE? Clearly, the dems did not get everything they wanted in the current senate bill. No public option. No Medicare buy-in at age 55. Employers will have to pay fines or subsidize their employees health benefits; or, as seems likely, lay people off. Individuals will have to become law-breakers or buy their own insurance if their employers do not come under the mandate. Small businesses and the self-insured, as usual, will be very hard hit. I think the socialist senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders, is on to something: "government run health insurance will return when the realization dawns that private insurance companies are no longer needed." I think the dems intend to revisit the issue down the road when enough people and businesses complain about the new costs and taxes. Then the dems will step in as the saviors, presenting the people with a fully nationalized healthcare system that will forever eliminate private insurance company involvement in healthcare. As Sanders says, his approach "eliminates the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste, administrative costs, bureaucracy and profiteering that is engendered by the private insurance companies." (Quotes from the 12/16/09 Verizon News online.) Billions in waste? Administrative costs? Bureaucracy? Profiteering? Funny - I thought he was talking about the federal government!
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Fools, Liars and Thieves
1. Fools. This prize goes to Jimmy Carter. The 12/09/09 USA Today had an article about the four Presidents who have received the Nobel Peace Prize: Obama, Carter, Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt. The paper gave a quote by each of the four about war and peace.
Carter: "War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other's children." Carter has no moral compass. War is always an evil. Really? The Allies in WWII had to fight the truly evil Nazi regime; it was the only way to defeat them. But if the Allies engaged in the evil activity of war, doesn't that make them evil? So following Carter's logic (or lack thereof), are the Allies and Nazis equally evil for engaging in war? This is not unlike the liberal writer of the letter to the editor expressing how the use of bullets would upset her, so she would presumably let herself and her family be killed rather than use a gun in self defense. Because guns and bullets - and war - are all evil! As for me, when guns are used to protect the innocent and kill the bad guys - I'm all for them. Same for war.
Contrast T.R.'s comment: "Peace is generally good in itself, but it is never the highest good unless it comes as the handmaid of righteousness; and it becomes a very evil thing if it serves merely as a mask for cowardice and sloth, or as an instrument to further the ends of despotism or anarchy." So while Carter foolishly declares all war "evil," Roosevelt understood that peace itself could be evil if it was imposed to further evil ends. Roosevelt clearly understood the nuances - even peace is not always a "good." And undoubtedly, he would not have called all war "evil." Because war with righteousness, just like peace with righteousness, can not ever be evil.
In the 12/04/09 Jewish Press, Professor Paul Eidelberg coincidentally discusses this very issue, albeit in reference to the Middle East. "Politicians and pundits fail to see that to seek peace with tyrants is to arm the wicked and disarm the virtuous (as Churchill warned in 'The Gathering Storm')...But 'Woe unto them,' warns Isaiah, 'that call evil good and good evil.' Seeking peace with evil men is tantamount to calling evil good." Needless to say, Professor Eidelberg is referring to today's left-leaning, politically correct politicians and pundits. He would not have had to worry about Teddy Roosevelt.
2. Liars. This prize goes to Senate Moronic (sorry, Majority) Leader Harry Reid. As discussed by Michelle Malkin in the 12/10/09 Investor's Business Daily, Reid was accusing Republicans of standing in the way of Obama's healthcare plan. He compared today's Republicans to others who have stood in the way of history: "When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'Slow down. It's too early. Things aren't bad enough.' When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted 'Slow down...' When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today."
So you see, Reid suggested that Republicans are always on the wrong side of history. Or, maybe Reid is a liar. Or, maybe it's just that he has as much knowledge of history as the period at the end of this sentence. But it was the Republican Abraham Lincoln that freed the slaves. It was the democratic south that strongly fought against civil rights for blacks. That was in Reid's lifetime. So not likely he forgot, especially something that historic. George Wallace - democrat. Lester Maddox - democrat. And as Michelle Malkin points out: "It was then Democrat Strom Thurmond who led the civil rights filibuster that Reid tried to lay on the Republicans. And it's the Democratic Party, not the GOP, that boasts ex-Klansman Sen. Robert Byrd among its leaders." And it was the "progressive's" pushing women's right to vote.
So what's the message here? The democrats, as usual, get to engage in unlimited amounts of demagoguery and name calling based on outright lies, without ever being called on it by the mainstream media. With the Far Left in charge of the House, Senate, White House and the Fourth Estate, we have no checks and no balances. Nothing to stop or even slowdown the onslaught of government tyranny - except the American people.
3. Thieves. The last prize goes to: the Feds. According to the 12/11-13/09 USA Today, "Federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants during the recession's first 18 months - and that's before overtime pay and bonuses are counted." And let's not forget all the paid holidays, great benefits and virtually lifetime job guarantees! The article goes on: "Federal workers are enjoying an extraordinary boom time - in pay and hiring - during a recession that has cost 7.3 million jobs in the private sector." So we can clearly see that Congress takes care of their own. And anyone still have any doubt about whether they think they work for us or we work for them?
Now, one might think that if Congress had normal, rational people they might understand the fact that the average American doesn't get this. When 7.3 million have lost their livelihoods - their ability to support their families, this kind of salary inflation might appear, shall we say, somewhat unseemly? But apparently not. So who still believes that a government willing to stick it in your face with these unconscionable taxpayer-funded salary grabs is looking out for you? But one thing is for certain: there will be lots of new government jobs in all the new bureaucracies about to be created - and at least 19% of them will apparently pay $100,000 or more!
Honorable mention for the "thief" prize goes to: Medicare. As discussed previously, workers comp cases require a Medicare Set Aside Trust in the lump sum settlement documents in certain cases. The purpose is to set aside some of the settlement money to cover future medical expenses so that Medicare does not have to pay for work related injuries. So Medicare actually approves the amount to be set aside in a separate account. Once that money is used up then (what they say is that) Medicare will cover the industrial injury thereafter. It turns out to be a big lie!
It is up to the individual to keep an accounting and to make sure that the money is used only to pay medical bills related to the injury, and only for treatment that Medicare would otherwise cover, and only at the Medicare rate. This writer had an opportunity to speak with an attorney intimately familiar with the process and who has important contacts at Medicare. He asked one of his contacts: How do you expect the average person to follow all the rules and pay properly and keep an accurate accounting? The reply: WE DON'T! AND WE DON'T CARE! They have no expectation that people will be able to follow all their technical rules. They even expect that many people will improperly use the money for personal items, and not for medical bills.
So then what gives? It's simple. A beautiful scam really. Medicare, knowing that people will make mistakes, will simply deny future Medicare coverage for any body part involved in the industrial injury - FOR LIFE! No matter at all to them that many of these people have paid into Medicare over a lifetime. No matter that they are told that after the "trust account" money is used up, Medicare will cover them. The Government looking out for you!
Carter: "War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other's children." Carter has no moral compass. War is always an evil. Really? The Allies in WWII had to fight the truly evil Nazi regime; it was the only way to defeat them. But if the Allies engaged in the evil activity of war, doesn't that make them evil? So following Carter's logic (or lack thereof), are the Allies and Nazis equally evil for engaging in war? This is not unlike the liberal writer of the letter to the editor expressing how the use of bullets would upset her, so she would presumably let herself and her family be killed rather than use a gun in self defense. Because guns and bullets - and war - are all evil! As for me, when guns are used to protect the innocent and kill the bad guys - I'm all for them. Same for war.
Contrast T.R.'s comment: "Peace is generally good in itself, but it is never the highest good unless it comes as the handmaid of righteousness; and it becomes a very evil thing if it serves merely as a mask for cowardice and sloth, or as an instrument to further the ends of despotism or anarchy." So while Carter foolishly declares all war "evil," Roosevelt understood that peace itself could be evil if it was imposed to further evil ends. Roosevelt clearly understood the nuances - even peace is not always a "good." And undoubtedly, he would not have called all war "evil." Because war with righteousness, just like peace with righteousness, can not ever be evil.
In the 12/04/09 Jewish Press, Professor Paul Eidelberg coincidentally discusses this very issue, albeit in reference to the Middle East. "Politicians and pundits fail to see that to seek peace with tyrants is to arm the wicked and disarm the virtuous (as Churchill warned in 'The Gathering Storm')...But 'Woe unto them,' warns Isaiah, 'that call evil good and good evil.' Seeking peace with evil men is tantamount to calling evil good." Needless to say, Professor Eidelberg is referring to today's left-leaning, politically correct politicians and pundits. He would not have had to worry about Teddy Roosevelt.
2. Liars. This prize goes to Senate Moronic (sorry, Majority) Leader Harry Reid. As discussed by Michelle Malkin in the 12/10/09 Investor's Business Daily, Reid was accusing Republicans of standing in the way of Obama's healthcare plan. He compared today's Republicans to others who have stood in the way of history: "When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'Slow down. It's too early. Things aren't bad enough.' When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted 'Slow down...' When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today."
So you see, Reid suggested that Republicans are always on the wrong side of history. Or, maybe Reid is a liar. Or, maybe it's just that he has as much knowledge of history as the period at the end of this sentence. But it was the Republican Abraham Lincoln that freed the slaves. It was the democratic south that strongly fought against civil rights for blacks. That was in Reid's lifetime. So not likely he forgot, especially something that historic. George Wallace - democrat. Lester Maddox - democrat. And as Michelle Malkin points out: "It was then Democrat Strom Thurmond who led the civil rights filibuster that Reid tried to lay on the Republicans. And it's the Democratic Party, not the GOP, that boasts ex-Klansman Sen. Robert Byrd among its leaders." And it was the "progressive's" pushing women's right to vote.
So what's the message here? The democrats, as usual, get to engage in unlimited amounts of demagoguery and name calling based on outright lies, without ever being called on it by the mainstream media. With the Far Left in charge of the House, Senate, White House and the Fourth Estate, we have no checks and no balances. Nothing to stop or even slowdown the onslaught of government tyranny - except the American people.
3. Thieves. The last prize goes to: the Feds. According to the 12/11-13/09 USA Today, "Federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants during the recession's first 18 months - and that's before overtime pay and bonuses are counted." And let's not forget all the paid holidays, great benefits and virtually lifetime job guarantees! The article goes on: "Federal workers are enjoying an extraordinary boom time - in pay and hiring - during a recession that has cost 7.3 million jobs in the private sector." So we can clearly see that Congress takes care of their own. And anyone still have any doubt about whether they think they work for us or we work for them?
Now, one might think that if Congress had normal, rational people they might understand the fact that the average American doesn't get this. When 7.3 million have lost their livelihoods - their ability to support their families, this kind of salary inflation might appear, shall we say, somewhat unseemly? But apparently not. So who still believes that a government willing to stick it in your face with these unconscionable taxpayer-funded salary grabs is looking out for you? But one thing is for certain: there will be lots of new government jobs in all the new bureaucracies about to be created - and at least 19% of them will apparently pay $100,000 or more!
Honorable mention for the "thief" prize goes to: Medicare. As discussed previously, workers comp cases require a Medicare Set Aside Trust in the lump sum settlement documents in certain cases. The purpose is to set aside some of the settlement money to cover future medical expenses so that Medicare does not have to pay for work related injuries. So Medicare actually approves the amount to be set aside in a separate account. Once that money is used up then (what they say is that) Medicare will cover the industrial injury thereafter. It turns out to be a big lie!
It is up to the individual to keep an accounting and to make sure that the money is used only to pay medical bills related to the injury, and only for treatment that Medicare would otherwise cover, and only at the Medicare rate. This writer had an opportunity to speak with an attorney intimately familiar with the process and who has important contacts at Medicare. He asked one of his contacts: How do you expect the average person to follow all the rules and pay properly and keep an accurate accounting? The reply: WE DON'T! AND WE DON'T CARE! They have no expectation that people will be able to follow all their technical rules. They even expect that many people will improperly use the money for personal items, and not for medical bills.
So then what gives? It's simple. A beautiful scam really. Medicare, knowing that people will make mistakes, will simply deny future Medicare coverage for any body part involved in the industrial injury - FOR LIFE! No matter at all to them that many of these people have paid into Medicare over a lifetime. No matter that they are told that after the "trust account" money is used up, Medicare will cover them. The Government looking out for you!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)