From the Senate Republican Policy Committee.
Senator Kerry just went on about the outrageous profits of health insurers who dominate the market and offer little choice to consumers. That’s an interesting point considering that according to the website of Heinz ketchup, the company holds a 60 percent retail market share. Heinz products enjoy #1 or #2 market share in more than 50 countries. And according to Yahoo Finance, Heinz profits (8.6 percent) are more than double the health insurance industry (3.3 percent).
Government-run Ketchup, anyone?
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
When In Rome Don't Do As Roman Did
Any one who feels sorry for Roman Polanski and not the 13-year-old girl should read Patterico's post (warning, some graphic descriptions at the end).
Monday, September 28, 2009
Gadhafi and Chavez Sign Anti-Terrorism Declaration
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha [hysterical laughter continues] What a joke.
Turn On The Brights
Given the president's claims about the cost savings of preventive care, I do hope he will consider acting on the results of this research and instituting a mandatory program:
A study by German scientists showed that 10 minutes a day of ogling women’s breasts by men was as good at warding off heart disease, high blood pressure and stress as 30 minutes of aerobic exercise.
By the way, this wasn't just some nickel'n'dime, fly-by-night survey. Two hundred men participated in this survey, for five years. Which is a lot of breasts. Or a lot of work-outs, if you drew the short straw.
Weatherby found that a mere 10-minutes of staring at well-endowed females is roughly the equivalent of a 30-minute aerobics workout, because sexual excitement gets the heart pumping and improves circulation...She added:
“Our study indicates that engaging in this activity a few minutes daily cuts the risk of a stroke and a heart attack in half. We believe that by doing so consistently, the average man can extend his life four to five years.”
Now that's affordable health care.
[UPDATE: Alas, the Digital Journal story linked above has now been removed, on the grounds that it was too good to be true. On the other hand, rectal massage as a cure for hiccups and country music as a cause of suicide appear, for the moment, to be holding up.]
A study by German scientists showed that 10 minutes a day of ogling women’s breasts by men was as good at warding off heart disease, high blood pressure and stress as 30 minutes of aerobic exercise.
By the way, this wasn't just some nickel'n'dime, fly-by-night survey. Two hundred men participated in this survey, for five years. Which is a lot of breasts. Or a lot of work-outs, if you drew the short straw.
Weatherby found that a mere 10-minutes of staring at well-endowed females is roughly the equivalent of a 30-minute aerobics workout, because sexual excitement gets the heart pumping and improves circulation...She added:
“Our study indicates that engaging in this activity a few minutes daily cuts the risk of a stroke and a heart attack in half. We believe that by doing so consistently, the average man can extend his life four to five years.”
Now that's affordable health care.
[UPDATE: Alas, the Digital Journal story linked above has now been removed, on the grounds that it was too good to be true. On the other hand, rectal massage as a cure for hiccups and country music as a cause of suicide appear, for the moment, to be holding up.]
Hail To The Redskins
With regard to the Lions snapping their 19-game losing streak with a win over the Redskins, the Washington Examiner's Tim Carney remarks: "Washington bails out Detroit again."
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Netanyahu At The United Nations
Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen,
Nearly 62 years ago, the United Nations recognized the right of the Jews, an ancient people 3,500 years-old, to a state of their own in their ancestral homeland.
I stand here today as the Prime Minister of Israel, the Jewish state, and I speak to you on behalf of my country and my people. The United Nations was founded after the carnage of World War II and the horrors of the Holocaust. It was charged with preventing the recurrence of such horrendous events. Nothing has undermined that central mission more than the systematic assault on the truth.
Yesterday the President of Iran stood at this very podium, spewing his latest anti-Semitic rants. Just a few days earlier, he again claimed that the Holocaust is a lie.
Last month, I went to a villa in a suburb of Berlin called Wannsee. There, on January 20, 1942, after a hearty meal, senior Nazi officials met and decided how to exterminate the Jewish people.
The detailed minutes of that meeting have been preserved by successive German governments.
Here is a copy of those minutes, in which the Nazis issued precise instructions on how to carry out the extermination of the Jews. Is this a lie? A day before I was in Wannsee, I was given in Berlin the original construction plans for the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp. Those plans are signed by Hitler’s deputy, Heinrich Himmler himself. Here is a copy of the plans for Auschwitz-Birkenau, where one million Jews were murdered. Is this too a lie?
This June, President Obama visited the Buchenwald concentration camp. Did President Obama pay tribute to a lie? And what of the Auschwitz survivors whose arms still bear the tattooed numbers branded on them by the Nazis? Are those tattoos a lie?
One-third of all Jews perished in the conflagration. Nearly every Jewish family was affected, including my own. My wife's grandparents, her father’s two sisters and three brothers, and all the aunts, uncles and cousins were all murdered by the Nazis. Is that also a lie?
Yesterday, the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium. To those who refused to come here and to those who left this room in protest, I commend you. You stood up for moral clarity and you brought honor to your countries.
But to those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame? Have you no decency? A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies that the murder of six million Jews took place and pledges to wipe out the Jewish state. What a disgrace! What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations!
Perhaps some of you think that this man and his odious regime threaten only the Jews. You're wrong. History has shown us time and again that what starts with attacks on the Jews eventually ends up engulfing many others.This Iranian regime is fueled by an extreme fundamentalism that burst onto the world scene three decades ago after lying dormant for centuries.
In the past thirty years, this fanaticism has swept the globe with a murderous violence and cold-blooded impartiality in its choice of victims. It has callously slaughtered Moslems and Christians, Jews and Hindus, and many others. Though it is comprised of different offshoots, the adherents of this unforgiving creed seek to return humanity to medieval times.
Wherever they can, they impose a backward regimented society where women, minorities, gays or anyone not deemed to be a true believer is brutally subjugated. The struggle against this fanaticism does not pit faith against faith nor civilization against civilization. It pits civilization against barbarism, the 21st century against the 9th century, those who sanctify life against those who glorify death.
The primitivism of the 9th century ought to be no match for the progress of the 21st century. The allure of freedom, the power of technology, the reach of communications should surely win the day.
Ultimately, the past cannot triumph over the future. And the future offers all nations magnificent bounties of hope. The pace of progress is growing exponentially. It took us centuries to get from the printing press to the telephone, decades to get from the telephone to the personal computer, and only a few years to get from the personal computer to the internet.
What seemed impossible a few years ago is already outdated, and we can scarcely fathom the changes that are yet to come. We will crack the genetic code. We will cure the incurable. We will lengthen our lives. We will find a cheap alternative to fossil fuels and clean up the planet.
I am proud that my country Israel is at the forefront of these advances – by leading innovations in science and technology, medicine and biology, agriculture and water, energy and the environment.
These innovations the world over offer humanity a sunlit future of unimagined promise.
But if the most primitive fanaticism can acquire the most deadly weapons, the march of history could be reversed for a time. And like the belated victory over the Nazis, the forces of progress and freedom will prevail only after a horrific toll of blood and fortune has been exacted from mankind.
That is why the greatest threat facing the world today is the marriage between religious fanaticism and the weapons of mass destruction, and the most urgent challenge facing this body is to prevent the tyrants of Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Are the member states of the United Nations up to that challenge?
Will the international community confront a despotism that terrorizes its own people as they bravely stand up for freedom? Will it take action against the dictators who stole an election in broad daylight and gunned down Iranian protesters who died in the streets choking in their own blood?
Will the international community thwart the world's most pernicious sponsors and practitioners of terrorism?
Above all, will the international community stop the terrorist regime of Iran from developing atomic weapons, thereby endangering the peace of the entire world?
The people of Iran are courageously standing up to this regime. People of goodwill around the world stand with them, as do the thousands who have been protesting outside this hall.
Will the United Nations stand by their side? Ladies and Gentlemen, the jury is still out on the United Nations, and recent signs are not encouraging. Rather than condemning the terrorists and their Iranian patrons, some here have condemned their victims. That is exactly what a recent UN report on Gaza did, falsely equating the terrorists with those they targeted.
For eight long years, Hamas fired from Gaza thousands of missiles, mortars and rockets on nearby Israeli cities.
Year after year, as these missiles were deliberately hurled at our civilians, not a single UN resolution was passed condemning those criminal attacks. We heard nothing – absolutely nothing – from the UN Human Rights Council, a misnamed institution if there ever was one.
In 2005, hoping to advance peace, Israel unilaterally withdrew from every inch of Gaza. It dismantled 21 settlements and uprooted over 8,000 Israelis. We didn't get peace. Instead we got an Iranian backed terror base fifty miles from Tel Aviv.
Life in Israeli towns and cities next to Gaza became a nightmare. You see, the Hamas rocket attacks not only continued, they increased tenfold. Again, the UN was silent. Finally, after eight years of this unremitting assault, Israel was finally forced to respond.
But how should we have responded? Well, there is only one example in history of thousands of rockets being fired on a country's civilian population. It happened when the Nazis rocketed British cities during World War II.
During that war, the allies leveled German cities, causing hundreds of thousands of casualties.
Israel chose to respond differently.
Faced with an enemy committing a double war crime of firing on civilians while hiding behind civilians – Israel sought to conduct surgical strikes against the rocket launchers.
That was no easy task because the terrorists were firing missiles from homes and schools, using mosques as weapons depots and ferreting explosives in ambulances.
Israel, by contrast, tried to minimize casualties by urging Palestinian civilians to vacate the targeted areas. We dropped countless flyers over their homes, sent thousands of text messages and called thousands of cell phones asking people to leave.
Never has a country gone to such extraordinary lengths to remove the enemy's civilian population from harm's way.
Yet faced with such a clear case of aggressor and victim, who did the UN Human Rights Council decide to condemn?
Israel.
A democracy legitimately defending itself against terror is morally hanged, drawn and quartered, and given an unfair trial to boot.
By these twisted standards, the UN Human Rights Council would have dragged Roosevelt and Churchill to the dock as war criminals.
What a perversion of truth! What a perversion of justice!
Delegates of the United Nations, will you accept this farce?
Because if you do, the United Nations would revert to its darkest days, when the worst violators of human rights sat in judgment against the law-abiding democracies, when Zionism was equated with racism and when an automatic majority could declare that the earth is flat.
If this body does not reject this report, it would send a message to terrorists everywhere: Terror pays; if you launch your attacks from densely populated areas, you will win immunity.
And in condemning Israel, this body would also deal a mortal blow to peace.
Here's why.
When Israel left Gaza, many hoped that the missile attacks would stop. Others believed that at the very least, Israel would have international legitimacy to exercise its right of self-defense. What legitimacy? What self-defense? The same UN that cheered Israel as it left Gaza and promised to back our right of self-defense now accuses us –my people, my country - of war crimes?
And for what?
For acting responsibly in self-defense. What a travesty! Israel justly defended itself against terror. This biased and unjust report is a clear-cut test for all governments. Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists? We must know the answer to that question now. Now and not later.
Because if Israel is again asked to take more risks for peace, we must know today that you will stand with us tomorrow. Only if we have the confidence that we can defend ourselves can we take further risks for peace.
Ladies and Gentlemen, all of Israel wants peace.
Any time an Arab leader genuinely wanted peace with us, we made peace.
We made peace with Egypt led by Anwar Sadat. We made peace with Jordan led by King Hussein. And if the Palestinians truly want peace, I and my government, and the people of Israel, will make peace.
But we want a genuine peace, a defensible peace, a permanent peace.
In 1947, this body voted to establish two states for two peoples – a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jews accepted that resolution. The Arabs rejected it.
We ask the Palestinians to finally do what they have refused to do for 62 years: Say yes to a Jewish state.
Just as we are asked to recognize a nation-state for the Palestinian people, the Palestinians must be asked to recognize the nation state of the Jewish people.
The Jewish people are not foreign conquerors in the Land of Israel. This is the land of our forefathers. Inscribed on the walls outside this building is the great Biblical vision of peace: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation. They shall learn war no more."
These words were spoken by the Jewish prophet Isaiah 2,800 years ago as he walked in my country, in my city - in the hills of Judea and in the streets of Jerusalem.
We are not strangers to this land. It is our homeland. As deeply connected as we are to this land, we recognize that the Palestinians also live there and want a home of their own.
We want to live side by side with them, two free peoples living in peace, prosperity and dignity. But we must have security.
The Palestinians should have all the powers to govern themselves except those handful of powers that could endanger Israel. That is why a Palestinian state must be effectively demilitarized.
We don't want another Gaza, another Iranian backed terror base abutting Jerusalem and perched on the hills a few kilometers from Tel Aviv.
We want peace.
I believe such a peace can be achieved.
But only if we roll back the forces of terror, led by Iran, that seek to destroy peace, eliminate Israel and overthrow the world order.
The question facing the international community is whether it is prepared to confront those forces or accommodate them.
Over seventy years ago, Winston Churchill lamented what he called the "confirmed unteachability of mankind," the unfortunate habit of civilized societies to sleep until danger nearly overtakes them. Churchill bemoaned what he called the "want of foresight, the unwillingness to act when action will be simple and effective, the lack of clear thinking, the confusion of counsel until emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong.”
I speak here today in the hope that Churchill's assessment of the "unteachability of mankind" is for once proven wrong. I speak here today in the hope that we can learn from history -- that we can prevent danger in time.
In the spirit of the timeless words spoken to Joshua over 3,000 years ago, let us be strong and of good courage. Let us confront this peril, secure our future and, God willing, forge an enduring peace for generations to come.
[Hat Tip To Charlie Gifford.]
Nearly 62 years ago, the United Nations recognized the right of the Jews, an ancient people 3,500 years-old, to a state of their own in their ancestral homeland.
I stand here today as the Prime Minister of Israel, the Jewish state, and I speak to you on behalf of my country and my people. The United Nations was founded after the carnage of World War II and the horrors of the Holocaust. It was charged with preventing the recurrence of such horrendous events. Nothing has undermined that central mission more than the systematic assault on the truth.
Yesterday the President of Iran stood at this very podium, spewing his latest anti-Semitic rants. Just a few days earlier, he again claimed that the Holocaust is a lie.
Last month, I went to a villa in a suburb of Berlin called Wannsee. There, on January 20, 1942, after a hearty meal, senior Nazi officials met and decided how to exterminate the Jewish people.
The detailed minutes of that meeting have been preserved by successive German governments.
Here is a copy of those minutes, in which the Nazis issued precise instructions on how to carry out the extermination of the Jews. Is this a lie? A day before I was in Wannsee, I was given in Berlin the original construction plans for the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp. Those plans are signed by Hitler’s deputy, Heinrich Himmler himself. Here is a copy of the plans for Auschwitz-Birkenau, where one million Jews were murdered. Is this too a lie?
This June, President Obama visited the Buchenwald concentration camp. Did President Obama pay tribute to a lie? And what of the Auschwitz survivors whose arms still bear the tattooed numbers branded on them by the Nazis? Are those tattoos a lie?
One-third of all Jews perished in the conflagration. Nearly every Jewish family was affected, including my own. My wife's grandparents, her father’s two sisters and three brothers, and all the aunts, uncles and cousins were all murdered by the Nazis. Is that also a lie?
Yesterday, the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium. To those who refused to come here and to those who left this room in protest, I commend you. You stood up for moral clarity and you brought honor to your countries.
But to those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame? Have you no decency? A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies that the murder of six million Jews took place and pledges to wipe out the Jewish state. What a disgrace! What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations!
Perhaps some of you think that this man and his odious regime threaten only the Jews. You're wrong. History has shown us time and again that what starts with attacks on the Jews eventually ends up engulfing many others.This Iranian regime is fueled by an extreme fundamentalism that burst onto the world scene three decades ago after lying dormant for centuries.
In the past thirty years, this fanaticism has swept the globe with a murderous violence and cold-blooded impartiality in its choice of victims. It has callously slaughtered Moslems and Christians, Jews and Hindus, and many others. Though it is comprised of different offshoots, the adherents of this unforgiving creed seek to return humanity to medieval times.
Wherever they can, they impose a backward regimented society where women, minorities, gays or anyone not deemed to be a true believer is brutally subjugated. The struggle against this fanaticism does not pit faith against faith nor civilization against civilization. It pits civilization against barbarism, the 21st century against the 9th century, those who sanctify life against those who glorify death.
The primitivism of the 9th century ought to be no match for the progress of the 21st century. The allure of freedom, the power of technology, the reach of communications should surely win the day.
Ultimately, the past cannot triumph over the future. And the future offers all nations magnificent bounties of hope. The pace of progress is growing exponentially. It took us centuries to get from the printing press to the telephone, decades to get from the telephone to the personal computer, and only a few years to get from the personal computer to the internet.
What seemed impossible a few years ago is already outdated, and we can scarcely fathom the changes that are yet to come. We will crack the genetic code. We will cure the incurable. We will lengthen our lives. We will find a cheap alternative to fossil fuels and clean up the planet.
I am proud that my country Israel is at the forefront of these advances – by leading innovations in science and technology, medicine and biology, agriculture and water, energy and the environment.
These innovations the world over offer humanity a sunlit future of unimagined promise.
But if the most primitive fanaticism can acquire the most deadly weapons, the march of history could be reversed for a time. And like the belated victory over the Nazis, the forces of progress and freedom will prevail only after a horrific toll of blood and fortune has been exacted from mankind.
That is why the greatest threat facing the world today is the marriage between religious fanaticism and the weapons of mass destruction, and the most urgent challenge facing this body is to prevent the tyrants of Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Are the member states of the United Nations up to that challenge?
Will the international community confront a despotism that terrorizes its own people as they bravely stand up for freedom? Will it take action against the dictators who stole an election in broad daylight and gunned down Iranian protesters who died in the streets choking in their own blood?
Will the international community thwart the world's most pernicious sponsors and practitioners of terrorism?
Above all, will the international community stop the terrorist regime of Iran from developing atomic weapons, thereby endangering the peace of the entire world?
The people of Iran are courageously standing up to this regime. People of goodwill around the world stand with them, as do the thousands who have been protesting outside this hall.
Will the United Nations stand by their side? Ladies and Gentlemen, the jury is still out on the United Nations, and recent signs are not encouraging. Rather than condemning the terrorists and their Iranian patrons, some here have condemned their victims. That is exactly what a recent UN report on Gaza did, falsely equating the terrorists with those they targeted.
For eight long years, Hamas fired from Gaza thousands of missiles, mortars and rockets on nearby Israeli cities.
Year after year, as these missiles were deliberately hurled at our civilians, not a single UN resolution was passed condemning those criminal attacks. We heard nothing – absolutely nothing – from the UN Human Rights Council, a misnamed institution if there ever was one.
In 2005, hoping to advance peace, Israel unilaterally withdrew from every inch of Gaza. It dismantled 21 settlements and uprooted over 8,000 Israelis. We didn't get peace. Instead we got an Iranian backed terror base fifty miles from Tel Aviv.
Life in Israeli towns and cities next to Gaza became a nightmare. You see, the Hamas rocket attacks not only continued, they increased tenfold. Again, the UN was silent. Finally, after eight years of this unremitting assault, Israel was finally forced to respond.
But how should we have responded? Well, there is only one example in history of thousands of rockets being fired on a country's civilian population. It happened when the Nazis rocketed British cities during World War II.
During that war, the allies leveled German cities, causing hundreds of thousands of casualties.
Israel chose to respond differently.
Faced with an enemy committing a double war crime of firing on civilians while hiding behind civilians – Israel sought to conduct surgical strikes against the rocket launchers.
That was no easy task because the terrorists were firing missiles from homes and schools, using mosques as weapons depots and ferreting explosives in ambulances.
Israel, by contrast, tried to minimize casualties by urging Palestinian civilians to vacate the targeted areas. We dropped countless flyers over their homes, sent thousands of text messages and called thousands of cell phones asking people to leave.
Never has a country gone to such extraordinary lengths to remove the enemy's civilian population from harm's way.
Yet faced with such a clear case of aggressor and victim, who did the UN Human Rights Council decide to condemn?
Israel.
A democracy legitimately defending itself against terror is morally hanged, drawn and quartered, and given an unfair trial to boot.
By these twisted standards, the UN Human Rights Council would have dragged Roosevelt and Churchill to the dock as war criminals.
What a perversion of truth! What a perversion of justice!
Delegates of the United Nations, will you accept this farce?
Because if you do, the United Nations would revert to its darkest days, when the worst violators of human rights sat in judgment against the law-abiding democracies, when Zionism was equated with racism and when an automatic majority could declare that the earth is flat.
If this body does not reject this report, it would send a message to terrorists everywhere: Terror pays; if you launch your attacks from densely populated areas, you will win immunity.
And in condemning Israel, this body would also deal a mortal blow to peace.
Here's why.
When Israel left Gaza, many hoped that the missile attacks would stop. Others believed that at the very least, Israel would have international legitimacy to exercise its right of self-defense. What legitimacy? What self-defense? The same UN that cheered Israel as it left Gaza and promised to back our right of self-defense now accuses us –my people, my country - of war crimes?
And for what?
For acting responsibly in self-defense. What a travesty! Israel justly defended itself against terror. This biased and unjust report is a clear-cut test for all governments. Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists? We must know the answer to that question now. Now and not later.
Because if Israel is again asked to take more risks for peace, we must know today that you will stand with us tomorrow. Only if we have the confidence that we can defend ourselves can we take further risks for peace.
Ladies and Gentlemen, all of Israel wants peace.
Any time an Arab leader genuinely wanted peace with us, we made peace.
We made peace with Egypt led by Anwar Sadat. We made peace with Jordan led by King Hussein. And if the Palestinians truly want peace, I and my government, and the people of Israel, will make peace.
But we want a genuine peace, a defensible peace, a permanent peace.
In 1947, this body voted to establish two states for two peoples – a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jews accepted that resolution. The Arabs rejected it.
We ask the Palestinians to finally do what they have refused to do for 62 years: Say yes to a Jewish state.
Just as we are asked to recognize a nation-state for the Palestinian people, the Palestinians must be asked to recognize the nation state of the Jewish people.
The Jewish people are not foreign conquerors in the Land of Israel. This is the land of our forefathers. Inscribed on the walls outside this building is the great Biblical vision of peace: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation. They shall learn war no more."
These words were spoken by the Jewish prophet Isaiah 2,800 years ago as he walked in my country, in my city - in the hills of Judea and in the streets of Jerusalem.
We are not strangers to this land. It is our homeland. As deeply connected as we are to this land, we recognize that the Palestinians also live there and want a home of their own.
We want to live side by side with them, two free peoples living in peace, prosperity and dignity. But we must have security.
The Palestinians should have all the powers to govern themselves except those handful of powers that could endanger Israel. That is why a Palestinian state must be effectively demilitarized.
We don't want another Gaza, another Iranian backed terror base abutting Jerusalem and perched on the hills a few kilometers from Tel Aviv.
We want peace.
I believe such a peace can be achieved.
But only if we roll back the forces of terror, led by Iran, that seek to destroy peace, eliminate Israel and overthrow the world order.
The question facing the international community is whether it is prepared to confront those forces or accommodate them.
Over seventy years ago, Winston Churchill lamented what he called the "confirmed unteachability of mankind," the unfortunate habit of civilized societies to sleep until danger nearly overtakes them. Churchill bemoaned what he called the "want of foresight, the unwillingness to act when action will be simple and effective, the lack of clear thinking, the confusion of counsel until emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong.”
I speak here today in the hope that Churchill's assessment of the "unteachability of mankind" is for once proven wrong. I speak here today in the hope that we can learn from history -- that we can prevent danger in time.
In the spirit of the timeless words spoken to Joshua over 3,000 years ago, let us be strong and of good courage. Let us confront this peril, secure our future and, God willing, forge an enduring peace for generations to come.
[Hat Tip To Charlie Gifford.]
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Jihad, Jibber-Jabber & c.
Given the recent arrests of several jihadist plotters, we can be thankful that Obama did not, as once promised in various early manifestations, end renditions, wiretaps, intercepts, and the Patriot Act ("shoddy and dangerous").
So far he has not closed Gitmo; and it does not seem that he will do so within the promised year. Then 95 percent of the public was promised either no new taxes or a tax credit; that now seems quite impossible, given the vast new spending proposals and commensurate $2 trillion annual deficit.
Given federal shortfalls, we have already seen massive new state income taxes and higher user taxes at the local level; and the crushing deficits will mean higher income or payroll taxes, or else a new value-added tax; the latter would raise taxes on everyone at rates heretofore unknown.
Meanwhile, the health-care bill has gone from a public plan to a public-option plan to no one quite knows what, when, or if — other than if it's passed, taxes will soar there too.
No need to go into depth on the sensational promises of new transparency — not when the NEA is trying to run a ministry of correct art, a government website wants the addresses of "fishy" opponents, bills are not posted as promised, and town-hall dissidents are demonized as a Nazi-like mob and, by administration supporters, as racist.
On the foreign front, in Iraq we have seen not the Obama "combat brigades out by March 2008" plan, but rather the Petraeus plan. And the grand talk of October reengagement with Iran was predicated, as we know now, on suppressing intelligence estimates of a second nuclear facility whose disclosure would have rendered inoperative the always suspect 2007 "no bomb" National Intelligence Estimate on Iran.
Bottom line?
It would have been a lot simpler just to have told the truth, and now to adhere to the truth, rather than all this deceptive hope-and-change hocus-pocus.
So far he has not closed Gitmo; and it does not seem that he will do so within the promised year. Then 95 percent of the public was promised either no new taxes or a tax credit; that now seems quite impossible, given the vast new spending proposals and commensurate $2 trillion annual deficit.
Given federal shortfalls, we have already seen massive new state income taxes and higher user taxes at the local level; and the crushing deficits will mean higher income or payroll taxes, or else a new value-added tax; the latter would raise taxes on everyone at rates heretofore unknown.
Meanwhile, the health-care bill has gone from a public plan to a public-option plan to no one quite knows what, when, or if — other than if it's passed, taxes will soar there too.
No need to go into depth on the sensational promises of new transparency — not when the NEA is trying to run a ministry of correct art, a government website wants the addresses of "fishy" opponents, bills are not posted as promised, and town-hall dissidents are demonized as a Nazi-like mob and, by administration supporters, as racist.
On the foreign front, in Iraq we have seen not the Obama "combat brigades out by March 2008" plan, but rather the Petraeus plan. And the grand talk of October reengagement with Iran was predicated, as we know now, on suppressing intelligence estimates of a second nuclear facility whose disclosure would have rendered inoperative the always suspect 2007 "no bomb" National Intelligence Estimate on Iran.
Bottom line?
It would have been a lot simpler just to have told the truth, and now to adhere to the truth, rather than all this deceptive hope-and-change hocus-pocus.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Amy, ACORN & American Airlines
[Submitted by Amy Gifford]
The difference between American Airlines and ACORN is this: AA has not been accused repeatedly across the country of committing crimes (i.e. fraud, etc.) whereas ACORN has.
On the one hand it can be said that the crimes committed by the nine AA employees are isolated to this particular incident because no other incidents or criminal activity by AA has surfaced or been alleged. On the other, ACORN, based on the fact that it is being investigated and/or has been indicted in nearly half of the United States, appears to be a criminal enterprise.
Whereas the nine employees at AA were working in collusion to the furtherance of the crime, the ACORN employees on video were in different offices, in different states and were most likely not working together to commit these crimes. This means that either:
(i) the undercover journalists got lucky to get the "few bad apples" on tape;
-or-
(ii) the behavior on the videos is indicative of how A LOT of ACORN employees will behave in such circumstances. One wonders if that means that is how the ACORN employees are trained.
I think AA should sue Sheldon Whitehouse for cause for libel by publicly comparing it to a criminal enterprise such as ACORN.
The difference between American Airlines and ACORN is this: AA has not been accused repeatedly across the country of committing crimes (i.e. fraud, etc.) whereas ACORN has.
On the one hand it can be said that the crimes committed by the nine AA employees are isolated to this particular incident because no other incidents or criminal activity by AA has surfaced or been alleged. On the other, ACORN, based on the fact that it is being investigated and/or has been indicted in nearly half of the United States, appears to be a criminal enterprise.
Whereas the nine employees at AA were working in collusion to the furtherance of the crime, the ACORN employees on video were in different offices, in different states and were most likely not working together to commit these crimes. This means that either:
(i) the undercover journalists got lucky to get the "few bad apples" on tape;
-or-
(ii) the behavior on the videos is indicative of how A LOT of ACORN employees will behave in such circumstances. One wonders if that means that is how the ACORN employees are trained.
I think AA should sue Sheldon Whitehouse for cause for libel by publicly comparing it to a criminal enterprise such as ACORN.
Anyone? Anyone?
[Submitted by Sheila Verdi]
[Whitehouse's] letter is like the rambling of Libya’s president.
[Whitehouse's] letter is like the rambling of Libya’s president.
The Pattern
[Submitted by Gordon Horton]
Uh oh...I got one too - now I know what that dark sedan parked across from my house was for...
From: Sheldon Whitehouse [mailto:sheldon_whitehouse@whitehouse.senate.gov] Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 11:35 AMTo: ghorton21@cox.netSubject: Message from Senator Sheldon Whitehouse
Contact SheldonConstituent ServicesCommunity Dinners
Dear Mr. Horton:
Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns about the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). I appreciate hearing from you.ACORN is a community-based non-profit organization that advocates for low and moderate income families. The organization works out of more than 1,200 neighborhood chapters in over 100 cities across the United States, fighting for better housing and public schools, and encouraging greater community development investment from banks and governments. Recently, allegations of misconduct by some ACORN employees have surfaced. In response, Senator Johanns introduced an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2010 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act to deny federal funds to ACORN. The bill did not appropriate any federal funds to the organization, but rather established competitive grants for which organizations can compete. As you know, I voted against the Johanns amendment. I want to be clear ? my vote in no way condones the conduct in question by a few ACORN employees. I believe that an appropriate investigation will determine whether these persons broke the law. If they did, they should be prosecuted. But I voted against the Johanns amendment because condemning the organization for the acts of some of its employees goes too far. If we tried to shut down every organization, nonprofit, or company that was embarrassed by the actions of a few employees, we wouldn't have many left. As a prosecutor who has over and over looked at issues of when corporations rather than individuals should be charged, I don?t think we can determine that yet. For example, the front page of the Wall Street Journal recently showed nine American Airlines employees arrested for trafficking thousands of pounds of cocaine into the country on American Airlines planes. This was a real crime the airline employees were charged with, not, like the ACORN situation, a "Punk'd" or Candid Camera-style set-up. In response to the American Airlines arrests there has, very properly, been no hue and cry to stop federal funds to American Airlines or to forbid federally-paid travel on that airline. The simple fact is that there is no case from these nine employees' actions, at least yet, to hold the entire airline accountable. If we went after American Airlines prematurely, and ultimately perhaps wrongly, good people would lose their jobs, people served by the airline would be inconvenienced, and all without proper legal cause. I think the same could be true of ACORN. Let me conclude by making a personal observation. This had to me the feel of a stampede. As a prosecutor, I faced public pressure to take certain law enforcement actions. But one cannot yield to that when one holds the power of law enforcement in one's hands. It is the core credo of a prosecutor. From my childhood it has been my nature, from my youth it has been my experience, and through my professional life it has been my responsibility, to resist a stampede.Again, thank you for contacting me and sharing your views. Although we disagree on this issue, I hope you'll continue to stay in touch on any matter of importance to you.
Sincerely,
Sheldon WhitehouseUnited States Senator
Uh oh...I got one too - now I know what that dark sedan parked across from my house was for...
From: Sheldon Whitehouse [mailto:sheldon_whitehouse@whitehouse.senate.gov] Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 11:35 AMTo: ghorton21@cox.netSubject: Message from Senator Sheldon Whitehouse
Contact SheldonConstituent ServicesCommunity Dinners
Dear Mr. Horton:
Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns about the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). I appreciate hearing from you.ACORN is a community-based non-profit organization that advocates for low and moderate income families. The organization works out of more than 1,200 neighborhood chapters in over 100 cities across the United States, fighting for better housing and public schools, and encouraging greater community development investment from banks and governments. Recently, allegations of misconduct by some ACORN employees have surfaced. In response, Senator Johanns introduced an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2010 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act to deny federal funds to ACORN. The bill did not appropriate any federal funds to the organization, but rather established competitive grants for which organizations can compete. As you know, I voted against the Johanns amendment. I want to be clear ? my vote in no way condones the conduct in question by a few ACORN employees. I believe that an appropriate investigation will determine whether these persons broke the law. If they did, they should be prosecuted. But I voted against the Johanns amendment because condemning the organization for the acts of some of its employees goes too far. If we tried to shut down every organization, nonprofit, or company that was embarrassed by the actions of a few employees, we wouldn't have many left. As a prosecutor who has over and over looked at issues of when corporations rather than individuals should be charged, I don?t think we can determine that yet. For example, the front page of the Wall Street Journal recently showed nine American Airlines employees arrested for trafficking thousands of pounds of cocaine into the country on American Airlines planes. This was a real crime the airline employees were charged with, not, like the ACORN situation, a "Punk'd" or Candid Camera-style set-up. In response to the American Airlines arrests there has, very properly, been no hue and cry to stop federal funds to American Airlines or to forbid federally-paid travel on that airline. The simple fact is that there is no case from these nine employees' actions, at least yet, to hold the entire airline accountable. If we went after American Airlines prematurely, and ultimately perhaps wrongly, good people would lose their jobs, people served by the airline would be inconvenienced, and all without proper legal cause. I think the same could be true of ACORN. Let me conclude by making a personal observation. This had to me the feel of a stampede. As a prosecutor, I faced public pressure to take certain law enforcement actions. But one cannot yield to that when one holds the power of law enforcement in one's hands. It is the core credo of a prosecutor. From my childhood it has been my nature, from my youth it has been my experience, and through my professional life it has been my responsibility, to resist a stampede.Again, thank you for contacting me and sharing your views. Although we disagree on this issue, I hope you'll continue to stay in touch on any matter of importance to you.
Sincerely,
Sheldon WhitehouseUnited States Senator
I'm On "The List"
Contact SheldonConstituent ServicesCommunity Dinners
Dear Mr. Lopez:
Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns about the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). I appreciate hearing from you.ACORN is a community-based non-profit organization that advocates for low and moderate income families.
The organization works out of more than 1,200 neighborhood chapters in over 100 cities across the United States, fighting for better housing and public schools, and encouraging greater community development investment from banks and governments. Recently, allegations of misconduct by some ACORN employees have surfaced. In response, Senator Johanns introduced an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2010 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act to deny federal funds to ACORN.
The bill did not appropriate any federal funds to the organization, but rather established competitive grants for which organizations can compete. As you know, I voted against the Johanns amendment. I want to be clear [that-no lisp] my vote in no way condones the conduct in question by a few ACORN employees. I believe that an appropriate investigation will determine whether these persons broke the law.
If they did, they should be prosecuted. But I voted against the Johanns amendment because condemning the organization for the acts of some of its employees goes too far. If we tried to shut down every organization, nonprofit, or company that was embarrassed by the actions of a few employees, we wouldn't have many left [including Congress]. As a prosecutor who has over and over looked at issues of when corporations rather than individuals should be charged, I don't think we can determine that yet[?].
For example, the front page of the Wall Street Journal recently showed nine American Airlines employees arrested for trafficking thousands of pounds of cocaine into the country on American Airlines planes. This was a real crime the airline employees were charged with, not, like the ACORN situation, a "Punk'd" [this term used by a US Senator?] or Candid Camera-style set-up.
In response to the American Airlines arrests there has, very properly, been no hue and cry to stop federal funds to American Airlines or to forbid federally-paid travel on that airline. The simple fact is that there is no case from these nine employees' actions, at least yet, to hold the entire airline accountable.
If we went after American Airlines prematurely, and ultimately perhaps wrongly, good people would lose their jobs, people served by the airline would be inconvenienced, and all without proper legal cause. I think the same could be true of ACORN.
Let me conclude by making a personal observation.
This had to me the feel of a stampede. As a prosecutor, I faced public pressure to take certain law enforcement actions. But one cannot yield to that when one holds the power of law enforcement in one's hands. It is the core credo of a prosecutor. From my childhood it has been my nature, from my youth it has been my experience, and through my professional life it has been my responsibility, to resist a stampede. Again, thank you for contacting me and sharing your views. Although we disagree on this issue, I hope you'll continue to stay in touch on any matter of importance to you.
Sincerely,
Sheldon Whitehouse
United States Senator
Nothing To See Here, Move Along
Remember the central rationale of Obama's decision to cancel the missile-defense sites in the Czech Republic and Poland? It relied on new estimates of Iran's ability to build ballistic missiles. With today's news, it makes you wonder how reliable these estimates really are — and whether missile defense, given Iran's capacity to surprise, deserves a second look.
Obama's Oration To The World
If one were to sum up the Obama speech, it is the same old, same old formula: "I am a uniquely post-American fresh start; the era of Bush and our dreadful past is over; and because this is our moment, you, the world, owe me attention and support for my redefining America more to your tastes."
The problems with all this are endless:
(1) Most existing problems predated Bush and transcended him, as Obama is discovering with Iran, radical Islam in America, North Korea, Russia, etc.;
(2) By separating himself from the past, Obama sends the implicit message to allies (like Israel, India, Columbia, the Maliki government, eastern Europe, Sarkozy, Merkel, etc) that there must have been something wrong with them to have allied themselves with the U.S. during the Bush years — and to enemies and belligerents that their anti-Americanism is perhaps understandable given a shared antipathy for the Bush regime;
(3) By staking out the messianic, prophetic ground, and his strident anti-Bush credentials, observers are going to note his serial hypocrisies, such as keeping the Patriot Act, rendition, tribunals, Predator attacks, the Petraeus plan in Iraq, wiretaps, intercepts, etc., and in fact anything that smacks of a transnationalist protecting U.S. interests first, and global ones, second;
(4) By throat-clearing every speech with "Bush did it" and his own historic ascension to the presidency, Obama has given hope to unsavory characters — as the likes of everyone from a supportive Chávez to Castro have enthusiastically noted — that the United States has now "flipped," moving away from a Britain or Israel and more closely aligning itself with revolutionary figures on the West Bank or the exiled Zelaya, and thereby giving the impression that the prior regional order was flawed, and necessary change either will not, or cannot, be stopped by the U.S. — and indeed may be silently encouraged by America.
In hopes of sowing short-term good will to Obama himself, the president is sowing long-term problems ahead for his country, the United States. There are lots of areas — Iran and its environs, the free former Soviet Republics, Taiwan, the 38th Parallel, Venezuela/Colombia, the borders of Israel, Cyprus, Eastern Europe, the Balkans, etc. — where tensions are scarcely restrained, and major aggressive players could easily try to change the existing order, if any thought the United States either did not care to intervene, could not intevene, or supported their efforts.
The key question is at what point will the American people sense that the Obama feel-good magic comes at the expense of long-term American interests — and that making some unsavory characters like our president now, will mean only trouble ahead for the country itself and its friends abroad.
The problems with all this are endless:
(1) Most existing problems predated Bush and transcended him, as Obama is discovering with Iran, radical Islam in America, North Korea, Russia, etc.;
(2) By separating himself from the past, Obama sends the implicit message to allies (like Israel, India, Columbia, the Maliki government, eastern Europe, Sarkozy, Merkel, etc) that there must have been something wrong with them to have allied themselves with the U.S. during the Bush years — and to enemies and belligerents that their anti-Americanism is perhaps understandable given a shared antipathy for the Bush regime;
(3) By staking out the messianic, prophetic ground, and his strident anti-Bush credentials, observers are going to note his serial hypocrisies, such as keeping the Patriot Act, rendition, tribunals, Predator attacks, the Petraeus plan in Iraq, wiretaps, intercepts, etc., and in fact anything that smacks of a transnationalist protecting U.S. interests first, and global ones, second;
(4) By throat-clearing every speech with "Bush did it" and his own historic ascension to the presidency, Obama has given hope to unsavory characters — as the likes of everyone from a supportive Chávez to Castro have enthusiastically noted — that the United States has now "flipped," moving away from a Britain or Israel and more closely aligning itself with revolutionary figures on the West Bank or the exiled Zelaya, and thereby giving the impression that the prior regional order was flawed, and necessary change either will not, or cannot, be stopped by the U.S. — and indeed may be silently encouraged by America.
In hopes of sowing short-term good will to Obama himself, the president is sowing long-term problems ahead for his country, the United States. There are lots of areas — Iran and its environs, the free former Soviet Republics, Taiwan, the 38th Parallel, Venezuela/Colombia, the borders of Israel, Cyprus, Eastern Europe, the Balkans, etc. — where tensions are scarcely restrained, and major aggressive players could easily try to change the existing order, if any thought the United States either did not care to intervene, could not intevene, or supported their efforts.
The key question is at what point will the American people sense that the Obama feel-good magic comes at the expense of long-term American interests — and that making some unsavory characters like our president now, will mean only trouble ahead for the country itself and its friends abroad.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Qaddafi Duck & Obama
The Obama administration has notified Congress of the State Department's intention to contribute $400,000 to foundations run by Muammar Qaddafi's two children — $200,000 each for daughter Aisha and son Saif. Saif, you may recall, is the son who escorted the Lockerbie terrorist Abdel Baset al-Megrahi home to a hero's welcome in Libya after President Obama sternly "warned" Qaddafi that there was to be no hero's welcome.
Illinois Republican congressman Mark Steven Kirk (House Appropriations Subcommittee on State/Foreign Operations) has sent Obama a letter asking him to rescind the funding.
Could somebody please tell this president that this is not just Annenberg Foundation cash he's passing out to his personal terrorist pals like Bill Ayers but American taxpayer dollars he's doling out to the terrorist tyrant behind the murder — in just that one incident — of 270 people, including 189 Americans.
Just 40 months to go. God help us.
Illinois Republican congressman Mark Steven Kirk (House Appropriations Subcommittee on State/Foreign Operations) has sent Obama a letter asking him to rescind the funding.
Could somebody please tell this president that this is not just Annenberg Foundation cash he's passing out to his personal terrorist pals like Bill Ayers but American taxpayer dollars he's doling out to the terrorist tyrant behind the murder — in just that one incident — of 270 people, including 189 Americans.
Just 40 months to go. God help us.
Squirrely Acorns
ACORN is suing Breitbart.com, Giles, and O'Keefe over the videos
ACORN has reacted to videotaped evidence of gross mismanagement and horrific staff judgment by deciding to sue the people that provided the evidence. Don't expect major internal reforms from ACORN any time soon. The first step in repentance is recognizing you have a problem; ACORN is blaming the messenger.
Where do I send in my check for the defense fund?
ACORN has reacted to videotaped evidence of gross mismanagement and horrific staff judgment by deciding to sue the people that provided the evidence. Don't expect major internal reforms from ACORN any time soon. The first step in repentance is recognizing you have a problem; ACORN is blaming the messenger.
Where do I send in my check for the defense fund?
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Nothing To Fears But Fears Himself
In the wake of the ACORN scandal, the Washington Post (Darryl Fears and Carol Leonning) did exactly what you might expect of the major media. They wrote a series of petty and unhelpful pieces questioning the motivations of James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, the two young journalists that broke the story. Of all the things they wrote, perhaps none was so blatantly offensive as the suggestion that Giles and O'Keefe were motivated by racism:
Though O'Keefe described himself as a progressive radical, not a conservative, he said he targeted ACORN for the same reasons that the political right does: its massive voter registration drives that turn out poor African Americans and Latinos against Republicans.
"Politicians are getting elected single-handedly due to this organization," he said. "No one was holding this organization accountable. No one in the media is putting pressure on them. We wanted to do a stunt and see what we could find."
Well, yesterday the Post decided that retaining some degree of credibility is probably wise and they ran the following correction:
This article about the community organizing group ACORN incorrectly said that a conservative journalist targeted the organization for hidden-camera videos partly because its voter-registration drives bring Latinos and African Americans to the polls. Although ACORN registers people mostly from those groups, the maker of the videos, James E. O'Keefe, did not specifically mention them.
I'd say some measure of credit goes to Powerline for forcing this correction — they really took the Post to task for their appalling coverage, and deservedly so.
Though O'Keefe described himself as a progressive radical, not a conservative, he said he targeted ACORN for the same reasons that the political right does: its massive voter registration drives that turn out poor African Americans and Latinos against Republicans.
"Politicians are getting elected single-handedly due to this organization," he said. "No one was holding this organization accountable. No one in the media is putting pressure on them. We wanted to do a stunt and see what we could find."
Well, yesterday the Post decided that retaining some degree of credibility is probably wise and they ran the following correction:
This article about the community organizing group ACORN incorrectly said that a conservative journalist targeted the organization for hidden-camera videos partly because its voter-registration drives bring Latinos and African Americans to the polls. Although ACORN registers people mostly from those groups, the maker of the videos, James E. O'Keefe, did not specifically mention them.
I'd say some measure of credit goes to Powerline for forcing this correction — they really took the Post to task for their appalling coverage, and deservedly so.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Breitbart At Bat
Andrew Breitbart on his master plan from today's Washington Times:
Everything you needed to know about the unorthodox roll out of the now-notorious ACORN sting videos was hidden in plain sight in my Sept. 7 column, "Katie Couric, Look in the Mirror." ACORN was not the only target of those videos; so were Katie, Brian, Charlie and every other mainstream media pooh-bah.
They were not going to report this blockbuster unless they were forced to. And they were. What's more, it ain't over yet. Not every hint I dropped in that piece about what was to come has played itself out yet.Stay tuned.
When filmmaker and provocateur James O'Keefe came to my office to show me the video of him and his friend, Hannah Giles, going to the Baltimore offices of ACORN - the nation's foremost "community organizers" - dressed as a pimp and a prostitute and asking for - and getting - help for various illegal activities, he sought my advice. In the past, Mr. O'Keefe created brilliant social satire that rocked his college campus and even made its way on to the talk-radio and cable-news shows, but the magnitude of his latest adventure had the potential to rock the political establishment.
I was awed by Mr. O'Keefe's guts and amazed by the footage, but explained that the mainstream media would try to kill this important and illuminating expose about a corrupt and criminal political racket, and that the well-funded political left would go into "war room" mode, with 25-year-old Mr. O'Keefe and 20-year-old cohort Miss Giles in the cross hairs. I felt I had a moral obligation to protect these young muckrakers from the left and from the media, and to devise a strategy that would force the media's hand.
The rest here.
Everything you needed to know about the unorthodox roll out of the now-notorious ACORN sting videos was hidden in plain sight in my Sept. 7 column, "Katie Couric, Look in the Mirror." ACORN was not the only target of those videos; so were Katie, Brian, Charlie and every other mainstream media pooh-bah.
They were not going to report this blockbuster unless they were forced to. And they were. What's more, it ain't over yet. Not every hint I dropped in that piece about what was to come has played itself out yet.Stay tuned.
When filmmaker and provocateur James O'Keefe came to my office to show me the video of him and his friend, Hannah Giles, going to the Baltimore offices of ACORN - the nation's foremost "community organizers" - dressed as a pimp and a prostitute and asking for - and getting - help for various illegal activities, he sought my advice. In the past, Mr. O'Keefe created brilliant social satire that rocked his college campus and even made its way on to the talk-radio and cable-news shows, but the magnitude of his latest adventure had the potential to rock the political establishment.
I was awed by Mr. O'Keefe's guts and amazed by the footage, but explained that the mainstream media would try to kill this important and illuminating expose about a corrupt and criminal political racket, and that the well-funded political left would go into "war room" mode, with 25-year-old Mr. O'Keefe and 20-year-old cohort Miss Giles in the cross hairs. I felt I had a moral obligation to protect these young muckrakers from the left and from the media, and to devise a strategy that would force the media's hand.
The rest here.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Funny The Way It Is
The NYT has a story about the ongoing John Edwards saga — he may admit paternity at some point down the road. I know, what a shock.
But perhaps the most revealing detail was this:
In the proposal, which The New York Times examined, Mr. Young asserts that he assisted the affair by setting up private meetings between Mr. Edwards and Ms. Hunter. He wrote that Mr. Edwards once calmed an anxious Ms. Hunter by promising her that after his wife died, he would marry her in a rooftop ceremony in New York with an appearance by the Dave Matthews Band.
Why I am I not surprised to learn that Edwards is using the same come-ons as a half-witted college boy trying to seal the deal with a co-ed he's only been dating for two weeks?
But perhaps the most revealing detail was this:
In the proposal, which The New York Times examined, Mr. Young asserts that he assisted the affair by setting up private meetings between Mr. Edwards and Ms. Hunter. He wrote that Mr. Edwards once calmed an anxious Ms. Hunter by promising her that after his wife died, he would marry her in a rooftop ceremony in New York with an appearance by the Dave Matthews Band.
Why I am I not surprised to learn that Edwards is using the same come-ons as a half-witted college boy trying to seal the deal with a co-ed he's only been dating for two weeks?
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Jimmy Carter's Race Problem
When former president Jimmy Carter accuses the opponents of Barack Obama’s policy of nationalizing broad aspects of our economy and spending us into bankruptcy of being “racists,” perhaps he should look in the mirror.
In his 1982 book, Keeping Faith, Carter disingenuously said he “was not directly involved in the early struggles to end racial discrimination.” No kidding — in fact, he directly and unambiguously supported segregation.
When Carter returned to Plains, Georgia, to become a peanut farmer after serving in the Navy, he became a member of the Sumter County School Board, which did not implement the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision handed down by the Supreme Court. Instead, the board continued to segregate school children on the streets of Carter’s hometown.
As Laughlin McDonald, director of the ACLU’s Voting Project, relates in his book, A Voting Rights Odyssey: Black Enfranchisement in Georgia, Carter’s board tried to stop the construction of a new “Elementary Negro School” in 1956. Local white citizens had complained that the school would be “too close” to a white school.
As a result, “the children, both colored and white, would have to travel the same streets and roads in order to reach their respective schools.” The prospect of black and white children commingling on the streets on their way to school was apparently so horrible to Carter that he requested that the state school board stop construction of the black school until a new site could be found.
The state board turned down Carter’s request because of “the staggering cost.” Carter and the rest of the Sumter County School Board then reassured parents at a meeting on October 5, 1956, that the board “would do everything in its power to minimize simultaneous traffic between white and colored students in route to and from school.”
I am not aware that Rep. Joe Wilson has ever supported segregation or engaged in the same type of reprehensible, racist behavior. The idea that opposition to Obama’s policies reflects “racism” is absurd; even the White House has rejected it.
All of this raises a larger issue about Carter’s remarks. When he makes such a claim, is he projecting his own inner racial beliefs? Is he so guilt-ridden over his past racist behavior that he wants to make amends to the race-baiters that today populate the Left? Or is he just cynically helping them score political points?
[Hat Tip to Hans Spakovsky]
In his 1982 book, Keeping Faith, Carter disingenuously said he “was not directly involved in the early struggles to end racial discrimination.” No kidding — in fact, he directly and unambiguously supported segregation.
When Carter returned to Plains, Georgia, to become a peanut farmer after serving in the Navy, he became a member of the Sumter County School Board, which did not implement the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision handed down by the Supreme Court. Instead, the board continued to segregate school children on the streets of Carter’s hometown.
As Laughlin McDonald, director of the ACLU’s Voting Project, relates in his book, A Voting Rights Odyssey: Black Enfranchisement in Georgia, Carter’s board tried to stop the construction of a new “Elementary Negro School” in 1956. Local white citizens had complained that the school would be “too close” to a white school.
As a result, “the children, both colored and white, would have to travel the same streets and roads in order to reach their respective schools.” The prospect of black and white children commingling on the streets on their way to school was apparently so horrible to Carter that he requested that the state school board stop construction of the black school until a new site could be found.
The state board turned down Carter’s request because of “the staggering cost.” Carter and the rest of the Sumter County School Board then reassured parents at a meeting on October 5, 1956, that the board “would do everything in its power to minimize simultaneous traffic between white and colored students in route to and from school.”
I am not aware that Rep. Joe Wilson has ever supported segregation or engaged in the same type of reprehensible, racist behavior. The idea that opposition to Obama’s policies reflects “racism” is absurd; even the White House has rejected it.
All of this raises a larger issue about Carter’s remarks. When he makes such a claim, is he projecting his own inner racial beliefs? Is he so guilt-ridden over his past racist behavior that he wants to make amends to the race-baiters that today populate the Left? Or is he just cynically helping them score political points?
[Hat Tip to Hans Spakovsky]
Friday, September 18, 2009
Nancy "Swastika" Pelosi
This (from ABC News) is classic. She's even got the choking-back-tears bit going — which is no doubt easier than having her overtaxed water-works produce the real thing.
It's such a target-rich environment that not much comment is warranted. The beginning of the Speaker's remarks caught our ears, though: "The balance between freedom and safety is one that we have to carefully balance."
For the longest time, President Obama and AG Holder have been telling us all this right-wing jibber-jabber about balancing freedom and safety is a "false choice." Sure is getting hard to follow these folk.
It's such a target-rich environment that not much comment is warranted. The beginning of the Speaker's remarks caught our ears, though: "The balance between freedom and safety is one that we have to carefully balance."
For the longest time, President Obama and AG Holder have been telling us all this right-wing jibber-jabber about balancing freedom and safety is a "false choice." Sure is getting hard to follow these folk.
Let The Sun Shine
If nothing else, the election of ACORN ally Barack Obama as president shined some light on ACORN's practices and enormous federal funding for those activities, and it was that disinfecting sunshine that paved the path for the House vote to defund ACORN.
ACORN, it seems, is now untouchable, but in the opposite way. All but the absolutely safest Democrats have abandoned it. As the Wall Street Journal noted, even ACORN promoter Barney Frank was conveniently — and suddenly — absent for the House vote.
At the end of four or eight years, I doubt that the Obama White House will include the defunding of ACORN among their proudest accomplishments, but conservatives will probably place this at the top of the list.
ACORN, it seems, is now untouchable, but in the opposite way. All but the absolutely safest Democrats have abandoned it. As the Wall Street Journal noted, even ACORN promoter Barney Frank was conveniently — and suddenly — absent for the House vote.
At the end of four or eight years, I doubt that the Obama White House will include the defunding of ACORN among their proudest accomplishments, but conservatives will probably place this at the top of the list.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Something To Study
The govt. is taking over everything possible while it still can...
House college aid bill would boost Pell Grants, kill subsidized student loans
By Libby Quaid, AP Education Writer
On Thursday September 17, 2009, 11:25 am EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House is poised to vote to push private lenders out of the federal college loan business and massively expand the government's own lending program.
Following a day of debate, House lawmakers were expected to approve on Thursday a student aid bill that has widespread support, including from the White House. The measure will then go to the Senate, where its fate is somewhat less certain.
Putting the government in charge of all federal loans would save taxpayers an estimated $87 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.. The CBO says the figure could be much lower, $47 billion, when administrative costs and market conditions are considered.
The money would boost Pell Grants for needy students, increasing the maximum grant by $1,400 to $6,900 over the next decade. It also would pay for a new college completion fund, community college reforms and more college aid for veterans.
"No student in this great country of ours should have to mortgage their future to pursue their dreams," said the bill's sponsor, California Democratic Rep. George Miller, chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee.
Yet the money also would be spent on things that don't help pay for college, such as construction at K-12 schools and new preschool programs.
And while the measure would increase Pell Grants, it would do nothing to curb college costs, which rise much faster than Pell Grants do.
As consumers, college students probably wouldn't notice much difference in their loans, which they would get through their schools. Broadly speaking, the bill doesn't do much to make loans cheaper or help pay them off.
It does keep interest rates for need-based federal loans from jumping from 3.4 percent currently to 6.8 percent as scheduled in 2012. Rates for most other loans would remain at 6.8 percent.
Still, the bill's changes to federal college aid programs would be the most sweeping since their creation in the 1960s and would fulfill a campaign promise by President Barack Obama.
The measure would end the subsidized loan program under which private lenders made $56 billion in government-backed loans to more than 6 million students last year, compared with $14 billion in direct loans from the government.
The bill would also shorten the labyrinthine college aid form, which Obama proposed to eliminate altogether when he ran for president.
Republican critics argue it is wrong to put the government in near-total control of student lending.
"Ask yourselves whether another government takeover is what we need right now," said Minnesota Rep. John Kline, senior Republican on the Education Committee.
Many also worry about job losses in their districts. Private lenders employ more than 30,000 people whose jobs depend on the subsidized loan program, and the industry says many would be laid off.
Employees of Sallie Mae, the biggest student lender, have been trying to involve local leaders in the issue and recently held a series of town hall meetings and petition drives in Pennsylvania, Florida, Delaware, New York and Indiana.
The Reston, Va.-based lender has about 8,500 employees in the program and probably would lay off about 30 percent of those workers. It still will have contracts to service federal loans.
Democratic Rep. David Wu of Oregon said lenders still could make all the loans they want. "What will not happen anymore is making those student loans with taxpayer subsidies," he said.
Under the measure, Pell Grants would rise slightly more than inflation over the next decade, increasing on average by about 2.6 percent yearly, according to the bill's sponsors.
However, the grants would still depend on annual spending bills and could rise less than promised, as has happened in the past.
Obama originally proposed to take Pell Grants out of lawmakers' hands entirely, making the program an entitlement like Social Security and Medicare, which would have cost an estimated $117 billion -- more than lawmakers have to spend.
[Hat Tip to Amy Gifford]
House college aid bill would boost Pell Grants, kill subsidized student loans
By Libby Quaid, AP Education Writer
On Thursday September 17, 2009, 11:25 am EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House is poised to vote to push private lenders out of the federal college loan business and massively expand the government's own lending program.
Following a day of debate, House lawmakers were expected to approve on Thursday a student aid bill that has widespread support, including from the White House. The measure will then go to the Senate, where its fate is somewhat less certain.
Putting the government in charge of all federal loans would save taxpayers an estimated $87 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.. The CBO says the figure could be much lower, $47 billion, when administrative costs and market conditions are considered.
The money would boost Pell Grants for needy students, increasing the maximum grant by $1,400 to $6,900 over the next decade. It also would pay for a new college completion fund, community college reforms and more college aid for veterans.
"No student in this great country of ours should have to mortgage their future to pursue their dreams," said the bill's sponsor, California Democratic Rep. George Miller, chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee.
Yet the money also would be spent on things that don't help pay for college, such as construction at K-12 schools and new preschool programs.
And while the measure would increase Pell Grants, it would do nothing to curb college costs, which rise much faster than Pell Grants do.
As consumers, college students probably wouldn't notice much difference in their loans, which they would get through their schools. Broadly speaking, the bill doesn't do much to make loans cheaper or help pay them off.
It does keep interest rates for need-based federal loans from jumping from 3.4 percent currently to 6.8 percent as scheduled in 2012. Rates for most other loans would remain at 6.8 percent.
Still, the bill's changes to federal college aid programs would be the most sweeping since their creation in the 1960s and would fulfill a campaign promise by President Barack Obama.
The measure would end the subsidized loan program under which private lenders made $56 billion in government-backed loans to more than 6 million students last year, compared with $14 billion in direct loans from the government.
The bill would also shorten the labyrinthine college aid form, which Obama proposed to eliminate altogether when he ran for president.
Republican critics argue it is wrong to put the government in near-total control of student lending.
"Ask yourselves whether another government takeover is what we need right now," said Minnesota Rep. John Kline, senior Republican on the Education Committee.
Many also worry about job losses in their districts. Private lenders employ more than 30,000 people whose jobs depend on the subsidized loan program, and the industry says many would be laid off.
Employees of Sallie Mae, the biggest student lender, have been trying to involve local leaders in the issue and recently held a series of town hall meetings and petition drives in Pennsylvania, Florida, Delaware, New York and Indiana.
The Reston, Va.-based lender has about 8,500 employees in the program and probably would lay off about 30 percent of those workers. It still will have contracts to service federal loans.
Democratic Rep. David Wu of Oregon said lenders still could make all the loans they want. "What will not happen anymore is making those student loans with taxpayer subsidies," he said.
Under the measure, Pell Grants would rise slightly more than inflation over the next decade, increasing on average by about 2.6 percent yearly, according to the bill's sponsors.
However, the grants would still depend on annual spending bills and could rise less than promised, as has happened in the past.
Obama originally proposed to take Pell Grants out of lawmakers' hands entirely, making the program an entitlement like Social Security and Medicare, which would have cost an estimated $117 billion -- more than lawmakers have to spend.
[Hat Tip to Amy Gifford]
Mr. Peanut
According to former President Carter anyone who opposes President Obama's liberal, appeasing agenda is a racist.
Perhaps he has forgotten that he is the white guy who lost 44 states running on a liberal, appeasing agenda to Ronald Reagan in 1980.
Perhaps he has forgotten that he is the white guy who lost 44 states running on a liberal, appeasing agenda to Ronald Reagan in 1980.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
The Ink Is Black, The Page Is White &c.
In the wake of Congressman Joe Wilson's outburst, many network commentators (and Jimmy Carter, of course) are weighing in on the new racism that supposedly explains 1) rising opposition to Obamacare and 2) the president's sinking polls. I think this is a disastrous political move to save a health-care plan that simply has not appealed to a majority of Americans. I suspect it will result in another 5-point poll slide.
To prove their charge, those who allege racism would have to show empirically that the present angry rhetoric eclipses what was said about and done to Bush. It does not yet.We don't see the word "hate" used in mainstream publications like The New Republic and the Guardian, as it was during the Bush years. (Even worse, really unspeakable things were done to Bush in novels and films.)
"You lie" is about on par with the past statements of a Rep. Pete Stark or a Howard Dean ("I hate Republicans"), or the booing Democrats at the 2005 State of the Union. The extremists at the demonstrations are in smaller numbers so far than those who turned out against Bush and the Iraq War.
A senior figure like John Glenn or Al Gore has not called the current president a Nazi or brownshirt. A better explanation than right-wing racism for the Left's exasperation is that in the Bush wilderness years, the Left assumed permanent political marginalization, adopted an ends-justify-the-means strategy of street rhetoric against Bush, then found themselves unexpectedly as the establishment, and now are appalled that anyone might emulate their own past emotional outbursts.
As a political tactic, the accusation of racism makes no sense (especially when someone like Maureen Dowd has to invent the word "boy" to provide the evidence). This week the Internet and Drudge splashed around a number of provocative incidents that could be interpreted as racially polarizing — Kanye West (who has a history of racist accusations) crudely grabbing a mike from a young singer to praise another contestant; Serena Williams (whose father has made a number of racist comments about tennis and its protocols) caught on tape threatening to injure a rather small and meek line judge; and the retread clips of Van Jones accusing whites of polluting black neighborhoods and having a greater propensity to kill en masse in schools.
The elite media take on all that, of course, is that these are pre-selected race-baiting incidents publicized to inflame the Tea Party base.
But others, perhaps a majority of voters, would see that argument as counterintuitive, and instead would worry that the larger society is becoming racially polarized — and that the subtext of Jones, Williams, and West is that a number of prominent figures are expressing a great deal of anger at whites and others.
The voter that Obama needs to keep will look at these incidents far differently than a CNN or MSNBC commentator, and will wonder what might have happened had a Bush White House czar claimed blacks were racial polluters or prone to kill, or had a white-male country-music singer stolen the mike from a small young black woman to praise another white country singer.
So there will be a class distinction in how these incidents are seen, and it will result in the media elite's alleging white racism at exactly the same time that the blue-collar voter draws the exact opposite lesson.Obama himself wisely called West a "jackass" and accepted Wilson's necessary apologies, but the larger question is why the Left is now nearly unhinged about criticism of a black liberal president, when it was silent (well, there was always Harry Belafonte . . .) about the racial implications of the constant and vicious anger directed at Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, not to mention the rather personal, condescending attacks on Alberto Gonzales.
For that matter, the ubiquitous Pete Stark once said some particularly unkind and racist things about former health and human services secretary Louis Sullivan (who is black).
To prove their charge, those who allege racism would have to show empirically that the present angry rhetoric eclipses what was said about and done to Bush. It does not yet.We don't see the word "hate" used in mainstream publications like The New Republic and the Guardian, as it was during the Bush years. (Even worse, really unspeakable things were done to Bush in novels and films.)
"You lie" is about on par with the past statements of a Rep. Pete Stark or a Howard Dean ("I hate Republicans"), or the booing Democrats at the 2005 State of the Union. The extremists at the demonstrations are in smaller numbers so far than those who turned out against Bush and the Iraq War.
A senior figure like John Glenn or Al Gore has not called the current president a Nazi or brownshirt. A better explanation than right-wing racism for the Left's exasperation is that in the Bush wilderness years, the Left assumed permanent political marginalization, adopted an ends-justify-the-means strategy of street rhetoric against Bush, then found themselves unexpectedly as the establishment, and now are appalled that anyone might emulate their own past emotional outbursts.
As a political tactic, the accusation of racism makes no sense (especially when someone like Maureen Dowd has to invent the word "boy" to provide the evidence). This week the Internet and Drudge splashed around a number of provocative incidents that could be interpreted as racially polarizing — Kanye West (who has a history of racist accusations) crudely grabbing a mike from a young singer to praise another contestant; Serena Williams (whose father has made a number of racist comments about tennis and its protocols) caught on tape threatening to injure a rather small and meek line judge; and the retread clips of Van Jones accusing whites of polluting black neighborhoods and having a greater propensity to kill en masse in schools.
The elite media take on all that, of course, is that these are pre-selected race-baiting incidents publicized to inflame the Tea Party base.
But others, perhaps a majority of voters, would see that argument as counterintuitive, and instead would worry that the larger society is becoming racially polarized — and that the subtext of Jones, Williams, and West is that a number of prominent figures are expressing a great deal of anger at whites and others.
The voter that Obama needs to keep will look at these incidents far differently than a CNN or MSNBC commentator, and will wonder what might have happened had a Bush White House czar claimed blacks were racial polluters or prone to kill, or had a white-male country-music singer stolen the mike from a small young black woman to praise another white country singer.
So there will be a class distinction in how these incidents are seen, and it will result in the media elite's alleging white racism at exactly the same time that the blue-collar voter draws the exact opposite lesson.Obama himself wisely called West a "jackass" and accepted Wilson's necessary apologies, but the larger question is why the Left is now nearly unhinged about criticism of a black liberal president, when it was silent (well, there was always Harry Belafonte . . .) about the racial implications of the constant and vicious anger directed at Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, not to mention the rather personal, condescending attacks on Alberto Gonzales.
For that matter, the ubiquitous Pete Stark once said some particularly unkind and racist things about former health and human services secretary Louis Sullivan (who is black).
The OTHER Joe Wilson
The House of Representatives voted to reprimand Congressman Joe Wilson, not of "Valerie Plame" fame, rather of "YOU LIE!" fame. The good news is he gets to keep his lunch money, parking privilages and will still be allowed dessert after dinner. Republicans claim political stunt; dems claim otherwise. Our government at work, looking out for and serving YOU!
The "Honorable Whitehouse"
Senator Whitehouse,
The modicum of respect you garnered from these quarters, as a former Attorney General of this great state, has been squandered by your single vote to undermine investigative inquiry with regard to the scandalous actions by Acorn.
Have you no morality, Sir?
One may be okay with underage prostitution, as apparently your vote suggests. One may be just fine with importing underage illegal aliens, regardless of purpose, as your vote suggests. Further, one may even be willing to look the other way when a citizen-subsidized organization instructs other non-citizens, or citizens for that matter, in the ways and means to defraud other citizens of the United States of America out of their income.
Please explain in 500 words or less why you deserve the respect of this state. And you should include for extra credit why you believe Senator Reed was wrong in his opposing view.
Sen. Reed is, afterall, our senior Senator.
Your vote disgusts and is not helpful to the nation. The fact that only seven members of the Senate think the same way as you is truly revealing.
Very Truly yours,
You Owe It To Your Country
The modicum of respect you garnered from these quarters, as a former Attorney General of this great state, has been squandered by your single vote to undermine investigative inquiry with regard to the scandalous actions by Acorn.
Have you no morality, Sir?
One may be okay with underage prostitution, as apparently your vote suggests. One may be just fine with importing underage illegal aliens, regardless of purpose, as your vote suggests. Further, one may even be willing to look the other way when a citizen-subsidized organization instructs other non-citizens, or citizens for that matter, in the ways and means to defraud other citizens of the United States of America out of their income.
Please explain in 500 words or less why you deserve the respect of this state. And you should include for extra credit why you believe Senator Reed was wrong in his opposing view.
Sen. Reed is, afterall, our senior Senator.
Your vote disgusts and is not helpful to the nation. The fact that only seven members of the Senate think the same way as you is truly revealing.
Very Truly yours,
You Owe It To Your Country
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Slippery Slope To Seven
It probably comes as no surprise, but it is important for all Americans to know. Seven senators voted to continue funding ACORN. The Senate voted 83-7 to cease all funding of ACORN. A rare moment of clarity for Congress.
The Seven senators you need to know have no shame:
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE [Rhode Island- Democrat]
Contact your RI Senator HERE
PATRICK LEAHY [Vermont-D]
BERNIE SANDERS [Vermont-I]
DICK DURBIN [Illinois-D]
ROLAND BURRIS [Illinois-D]
KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND [New York-D]
ROBERT CASEY [PA-D]
Shocker two from Illinois, home of ACORN. Whitehouse should be ashamed. Please contact your senators to voice your outrage with their decision.
The Seven senators you need to know have no shame:
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE [Rhode Island- Democrat]
Contact your RI Senator HERE
PATRICK LEAHY [Vermont-D]
BERNIE SANDERS [Vermont-I]
DICK DURBIN [Illinois-D]
ROLAND BURRIS [Illinois-D]
KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND [New York-D]
ROBERT CASEY [PA-D]
Shocker two from Illinois, home of ACORN. Whitehouse should be ashamed. Please contact your senators to voice your outrage with their decision.
Falling Acorns
Senate Votes. . .
to defund ACORN. It's about time. How such a corrupt organization and associated fauna grew so darkly to such high levels of government is truly remarkable. The Senate did the right thing.
to defund ACORN. It's about time. How such a corrupt organization and associated fauna grew so darkly to such high levels of government is truly remarkable. The Senate did the right thing.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Rhode Island Republicans
We just invited many to this site in an attempt to let people around the country know that there is hope for the state of Rhode Island. Enjoy or rant!
Perspective
Let us always remember how lucky we are for our freedom. We too often take it for granted.
From a Romanian Newspaper
We rarely get a chance to see another country's editorial about the USA.
Read this excerpt from a Romanian Newspaper. The article was written by Mr. Cornel Nistorescu and published under the title 'C'ntarea Americii, meaning 'Ode To America ') in the Romanian newspaper Evenimentulzilei 'The Daily Event' or 'News of the Day'.
An Ode to America
Why are Americans so united? They would not resemble one another even if you painted them all one color! They speak all the languages of the world and form an astonishing mixture of civilizations and religious beliefs.
On 9/11, the American tragedy turned three hundred million people into a hand put on the heart. Nobody rushed to accuse the White House, the Army, or the Secret Service that they are only a bunch of losers. Nobody rushed to empty their bank accounts. Nobody rushed out onto the streets nearby to gape about.
Instead the Americans volunteered to donate blood and to give a helping hand. After the first moments of panic, they raised their flag over the smoking ruins, putting on T-shirts, caps and ties in the colors of the national flag. They placed flags on buildings and cars as if in every place and on every car a government official or the president was passing.
On every occasion, they started singing: 'God Bless America !' I watched the live broadcast and rerun after rerun for hours listening to the story of the guy who went down one hundred floors with a woman in a wheelchair without knowing who she was, or of the Californian hockey player, who gave his life fighting with the terrorists and prevented the plane from hitting a target that could have killed other hundreds or thousands of people.
How on earth were they able to respond united as one human being? Imperceptibly, with every word and musical note, the memory of some turned into a modern myth of tragic heroes. And with every phone call, millions and millions of dollars were put into collection aimed at rewarding not a man or a family, but a spirit, which no money can buy.
What on earth can unite the Americans in such a way? Their land? Their history? Their economic Power? Money?
I tried for hours to find an answer, humming songs and murmuring phrases with the risk of sounding commonplace, I thought things over, I reached but only one conclusion... Only freedom can work such miracles.
Cornel Nistorescu
GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!
From a Romanian Newspaper
We rarely get a chance to see another country's editorial about the USA.
Read this excerpt from a Romanian Newspaper. The article was written by Mr. Cornel Nistorescu and published under the title 'C'ntarea Americii, meaning 'Ode To America ') in the Romanian newspaper Evenimentulzilei 'The Daily Event' or 'News of the Day'.
An Ode to America
Why are Americans so united? They would not resemble one another even if you painted them all one color! They speak all the languages of the world and form an astonishing mixture of civilizations and religious beliefs.
On 9/11, the American tragedy turned three hundred million people into a hand put on the heart. Nobody rushed to accuse the White House, the Army, or the Secret Service that they are only a bunch of losers. Nobody rushed to empty their bank accounts. Nobody rushed out onto the streets nearby to gape about.
Instead the Americans volunteered to donate blood and to give a helping hand. After the first moments of panic, they raised their flag over the smoking ruins, putting on T-shirts, caps and ties in the colors of the national flag. They placed flags on buildings and cars as if in every place and on every car a government official or the president was passing.
On every occasion, they started singing: 'God Bless America !' I watched the live broadcast and rerun after rerun for hours listening to the story of the guy who went down one hundred floors with a woman in a wheelchair without knowing who she was, or of the Californian hockey player, who gave his life fighting with the terrorists and prevented the plane from hitting a target that could have killed other hundreds or thousands of people.
How on earth were they able to respond united as one human being? Imperceptibly, with every word and musical note, the memory of some turned into a modern myth of tragic heroes. And with every phone call, millions and millions of dollars were put into collection aimed at rewarding not a man or a family, but a spirit, which no money can buy.
What on earth can unite the Americans in such a way? Their land? Their history? Their economic Power? Money?
I tried for hours to find an answer, humming songs and murmuring phrases with the risk of sounding commonplace, I thought things over, I reached but only one conclusion... Only freedom can work such miracles.
Cornel Nistorescu
GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Thar She Doesn't Blow
Friends, do you remember that crazy period we had for a while where people said that George W. Bush and the Republican party were responsible for hurricanes? We had hurricanes all around us, and it was because we evil GOP-ers refused to do anything about global warming, which was causing these hurricanes and subjecting us to something like divine wrath.
Indeed, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. had a piece in The Huffington Post after Hurricane Katrina: “For They That Sow the Wind Shall Reap the Whirlwind.” You may be shocked to be reminded what people were saying, because it has been four years: almost four years exactly since Katrina, although the nuttiness about Bush and hurricanes lasted well beyond Katrina.
Why am I bringing all this up? This morning, I saw a headline from the AP: “Hurricane season has been a dud — so far.” The article is here. And it points out that “only two hurricanes have formed in the Atlantic over the past three months, and neither hit the U.S. — a somewhat unusual lull.”
That Barack Obama: He may not have lowered the oceans yet — has he? — but he has certainly stopped the hurricanes.
What a crazy country we are, sometimes. As George Gilder pointed out recently, the real threat to us is not the Islamists or the ChiComs or anybody else: It’s us.
Indeed, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. had a piece in The Huffington Post after Hurricane Katrina: “For They That Sow the Wind Shall Reap the Whirlwind.” You may be shocked to be reminded what people were saying, because it has been four years: almost four years exactly since Katrina, although the nuttiness about Bush and hurricanes lasted well beyond Katrina.
Why am I bringing all this up? This morning, I saw a headline from the AP: “Hurricane season has been a dud — so far.” The article is here. And it points out that “only two hurricanes have formed in the Atlantic over the past three months, and neither hit the U.S. — a somewhat unusual lull.”
That Barack Obama: He may not have lowered the oceans yet — has he? — but he has certainly stopped the hurricanes.
What a crazy country we are, sometimes. As George Gilder pointed out recently, the real threat to us is not the Islamists or the ChiComs or anybody else: It’s us.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Corruption in the White House: Chicago Style
Why was there neither rhyme nor reason as to which dealerships of the Chrysler Corporation were to be closed? Roll the clock back to the weeks just before Chrysler declared bankruptcy. Chrysler, like GM, was in dire financial straights and federal government graciously offered to "buy the company" and keep them out of bankruptcy and "save jobs." Chrysler was, in the words of Obama and his administration, "Too big to fail," same story with GM. The feds organized their "Automotive Task Force" to fix Chrysler and GM. Obama, in an act that is 100% unconstitutional, appointed a guy named Steve Rattner to be the White House's official Car Czar- literally, that's what his title is. Rattner was the liaison between Obama, Chrysler, and GM. Initially, the national media reported that Chrysler had made this list of dealerships. That is not true. The Washington Examiner, Newsmax, Fox News and a host of other news agencies discovered that the list of dealerships was put together by the "Automotive Task Force" headed by no one other then Mr. Steve Rattner.
Now the plot thickens.
Remember earlier we said that there was neither rhyme nor reason why certain dealerships were closed? Actually there's a very interesting pattern as to who was closed down. Again, on May 27, 2009, The Washington Examiner and Newsmax exposed the connection. Amazingly, of the 789 dealerships closed by the federal government 788 had donated money, exclusively, to Republican political causes, while contributing nothing to Democratic political causes. The only "Democratic" dealership on the list was found to have donated $7,700 to Hillary's campaign, and a bit over $2,000 to John Edwards. This same dealership, reportedly, also gave $200.00 to Obama's campaign. Does that seem a little odd to you? Steve Rattner, the guy who put the list together. Well he happens to be married to a woman named Maureen White. Maureen happens to be the former national finance chairman of the Democratic National Committee. As such,she would have access to campaign donation records from everyone in the nation, Republican or Democrat. But of course, this is just a wacky coincidence, we're certain.
Then comes another really wacky coincidence. On that list of dealerships being closed down, a weird thing happened in Arkansas, North Louisiana, and Southern Missouri . It seems that Bill Clinton's former White House Chief of Staff, Mack McClarty, owns a chain of dealerships in that region, partnered with a fellow by the name of Robert Johnson. Johnson happens to be founder of Black Entertainment Television and was a huge Obama supporter and financier. These guys own a half dozen Chrysler stores under the company title of RLJ-McClarty-Landers. Interestingly, none of their dealerships were ordered closed - not one- while all of their competing Chrysler/Dodge and Jeep dealership were! Eight dealerships located near the dealerships owned by McClarty and Johnson were ordered shut down. Thus, by pure luck, these two major Obama supporters now have virtual monopoly on Chrysler sales in their zone. Isn't that amazing?
Go look in The Washington Examiner, the story's there, and it's in a dozen or so other web-based news organization, this isn't being made up. Now if you thought Chrysler was owned by Fiat, you are truly mistaken. Under the federal court ruling, 65% of Chrysler is now owned by the federal government and the United Auto Worker's union- Fiat owns 20%.The other 15% is still privately owned and presumably will be traded on the stock market. Obama smiles and says he doesn't want to run the auto industry. As horrifying as this is to comprehend, and seeing as how this used to be the United States of America, it would appear that the president has the power to destroy private businesses and eliminate upwards of 100,000 jobs, just because they don't agree with his political agenda. This is Nazi Germany stuff, and it's happening right here, right now, in your back yard.
There are voices in Washington demanding an explanation, but the "Automotive Task Force" has released no information to the public or any of the senators demanding answers for what has been done. Keep your ear to the ground for more on this story. If you've ever wanted to make a difference about anything in your life, get on the phone to your national senator or representative in the House and demand an investigation on this. Benjamin Franklin had it right when he said, "All that's necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Car Czar No More. An amazing thing happened as this story was going to press. Obama's Car Czar, Steve Rattner, resigned on July 13 and was promptly replaced by former steel workers union boss Ron Bloom. According to CBS News, Rattner left "to return to private life and spend time with his family." Treasure Secretary Tim Geithner said, "I hope that he takes another opportunity to bring his unique skills to government service in the future." By the way, Rattner is under investigation for a multi-million dollar pay-to-play investment bank scandal in New York . Uh-oh! But, we're certain that had nothing to do with his resignation. And, according to several news sources out there, there are rumors he's being investigated for what could be pay-to-play scandal involving the closing of Chrysler and GM dealerships. Really? Again, that couldn't have anything to do with his resignation- that's ridiculous! Like CBS said, this guy just wants to spend more quality time with his family. Obama has thirty-two personally appointed "czars" that answer to no one but him, all of whom are a citing without any Constitutional authority.
Now the plot thickens.
Remember earlier we said that there was neither rhyme nor reason why certain dealerships were closed? Actually there's a very interesting pattern as to who was closed down. Again, on May 27, 2009, The Washington Examiner and Newsmax exposed the connection. Amazingly, of the 789 dealerships closed by the federal government 788 had donated money, exclusively, to Republican political causes, while contributing nothing to Democratic political causes. The only "Democratic" dealership on the list was found to have donated $7,700 to Hillary's campaign, and a bit over $2,000 to John Edwards. This same dealership, reportedly, also gave $200.00 to Obama's campaign. Does that seem a little odd to you? Steve Rattner, the guy who put the list together. Well he happens to be married to a woman named Maureen White. Maureen happens to be the former national finance chairman of the Democratic National Committee. As such,she would have access to campaign donation records from everyone in the nation, Republican or Democrat. But of course, this is just a wacky coincidence, we're certain.
Then comes another really wacky coincidence. On that list of dealerships being closed down, a weird thing happened in Arkansas, North Louisiana, and Southern Missouri . It seems that Bill Clinton's former White House Chief of Staff, Mack McClarty, owns a chain of dealerships in that region, partnered with a fellow by the name of Robert Johnson. Johnson happens to be founder of Black Entertainment Television and was a huge Obama supporter and financier. These guys own a half dozen Chrysler stores under the company title of RLJ-McClarty-Landers. Interestingly, none of their dealerships were ordered closed - not one- while all of their competing Chrysler/Dodge and Jeep dealership were! Eight dealerships located near the dealerships owned by McClarty and Johnson were ordered shut down. Thus, by pure luck, these two major Obama supporters now have virtual monopoly on Chrysler sales in their zone. Isn't that amazing?
Go look in The Washington Examiner, the story's there, and it's in a dozen or so other web-based news organization, this isn't being made up. Now if you thought Chrysler was owned by Fiat, you are truly mistaken. Under the federal court ruling, 65% of Chrysler is now owned by the federal government and the United Auto Worker's union- Fiat owns 20%.The other 15% is still privately owned and presumably will be traded on the stock market. Obama smiles and says he doesn't want to run the auto industry. As horrifying as this is to comprehend, and seeing as how this used to be the United States of America, it would appear that the president has the power to destroy private businesses and eliminate upwards of 100,000 jobs, just because they don't agree with his political agenda. This is Nazi Germany stuff, and it's happening right here, right now, in your back yard.
There are voices in Washington demanding an explanation, but the "Automotive Task Force" has released no information to the public or any of the senators demanding answers for what has been done. Keep your ear to the ground for more on this story. If you've ever wanted to make a difference about anything in your life, get on the phone to your national senator or representative in the House and demand an investigation on this. Benjamin Franklin had it right when he said, "All that's necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Car Czar No More. An amazing thing happened as this story was going to press. Obama's Car Czar, Steve Rattner, resigned on July 13 and was promptly replaced by former steel workers union boss Ron Bloom. According to CBS News, Rattner left "to return to private life and spend time with his family." Treasure Secretary Tim Geithner said, "I hope that he takes another opportunity to bring his unique skills to government service in the future." By the way, Rattner is under investigation for a multi-million dollar pay-to-play investment bank scandal in New York . Uh-oh! But, we're certain that had nothing to do with his resignation. And, according to several news sources out there, there are rumors he's being investigated for what could be pay-to-play scandal involving the closing of Chrysler and GM dealerships. Really? Again, that couldn't have anything to do with his resignation- that's ridiculous! Like CBS said, this guy just wants to spend more quality time with his family. Obama has thirty-two personally appointed "czars" that answer to no one but him, all of whom are a citing without any Constitutional authority.
Obama: The Least Presidential
Perhaps I'm stating the obvious here, but having observed President Obama at a rally in Minneapolis today I must say he may be the most "fired up" and the least Presidential President I have ever seen. I've never aside the remarks inciting his Obots 'to get into people's faces' and essentially fight for him and his radical makeover of this great land.
I've always kept every little remark and detail about the man's background in the old memory banks. With each passing day there is new concern, new affirmation, a new reason to be gravely concerned about the man leading this great nation.
With a majority of Americans out there fighting the good fight for American, patriotic values how is it he can roll over what they want? I'll tell you, because he doesn't care about the majority of Americans. He never did care about you. He knew how to implement his charisma and glaze over the truth to get his foot in the door. He's there now and the question is what are you and I going to do about it? He's "fired up" people, but so are you! Enough is enough!
I've always kept every little remark and detail about the man's background in the old memory banks. With each passing day there is new concern, new affirmation, a new reason to be gravely concerned about the man leading this great nation.
With a majority of Americans out there fighting the good fight for American, patriotic values how is it he can roll over what they want? I'll tell you, because he doesn't care about the majority of Americans. He never did care about you. He knew how to implement his charisma and glaze over the truth to get his foot in the door. He's there now and the question is what are you and I going to do about it? He's "fired up" people, but so are you! Enough is enough!
Obamacare Will Put Planned Parenthood Clinics Inside Public Schools
More food for thought concerning the economic and social decaying of America.
As America processes the president’s health care reform speech last night, the American Family Association is drawing attention to a little-noticed provision in H.R. 3200, the House version of ObamaCare, which will put Planned Parenthood clinics inside America’s public schools.
Under the provisions of section with the innocuous-sounding title, “School-Based Health Clinics” (pp. 993-1001 of the bill), a “non-profit health agency” such as Planned Parenthood will be authorized to serve as a “sponsoring facility” for school-based health clinics that will operate during school hours.
Although the bulk of the health care bill is scheduled to go into effect in 2013, this particular provision is slated to go into effect next summer, in time for clinics to appear in public schools by next fall.
Said Tim Wildmon, AFA’s president, “These Planned Parenthood clinics will not be accountable either to parents or school authorities. They will answer only to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, who is radically pro-abortion, and who was a vocal supporter of late-term abortionist George Tiller."
“For the death merchants from Planned Parenthood to have unrestricted access to our schoolchildren during school hours is totally unacceptable, but that’s exactly what will happen under this bill."
“Because the bill orders these clinics to protect ‘patient privacy and student records,’ parents will never know what kind of counsel and treatment their children receive by the time they get home from school."
“America’s parents should be outraged at this stealth attack on their children’s sexual health.”
Added Bryan Fischer, AFA’s Director of Issue Analysis, “Planned Parenthood’s grossly misnamed ‘safe sex’ message has been responsible for a tragic loss of sexual innocence among America’s youth and untold unwanted pregnancies and widespread sexually-transmitted diseases.
“No rational society should allow purveyors of such a destructive message to set up shop on public school property, but that’s exactly what the President and the Democrats in Congress are proposing. It’s time for America’s families to rise up and say “No” to ObamaCare.”
American Family Association is a pro-family advocacy organization with over 2.5 million online supporters.
As America processes the president’s health care reform speech last night, the American Family Association is drawing attention to a little-noticed provision in H.R. 3200, the House version of ObamaCare, which will put Planned Parenthood clinics inside America’s public schools.
Under the provisions of section with the innocuous-sounding title, “School-Based Health Clinics” (pp. 993-1001 of the bill), a “non-profit health agency” such as Planned Parenthood will be authorized to serve as a “sponsoring facility” for school-based health clinics that will operate during school hours.
Although the bulk of the health care bill is scheduled to go into effect in 2013, this particular provision is slated to go into effect next summer, in time for clinics to appear in public schools by next fall.
Said Tim Wildmon, AFA’s president, “These Planned Parenthood clinics will not be accountable either to parents or school authorities. They will answer only to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, who is radically pro-abortion, and who was a vocal supporter of late-term abortionist George Tiller."
“For the death merchants from Planned Parenthood to have unrestricted access to our schoolchildren during school hours is totally unacceptable, but that’s exactly what will happen under this bill."
“Because the bill orders these clinics to protect ‘patient privacy and student records,’ parents will never know what kind of counsel and treatment their children receive by the time they get home from school."
“America’s parents should be outraged at this stealth attack on their children’s sexual health.”
Added Bryan Fischer, AFA’s Director of Issue Analysis, “Planned Parenthood’s grossly misnamed ‘safe sex’ message has been responsible for a tragic loss of sexual innocence among America’s youth and untold unwanted pregnancies and widespread sexually-transmitted diseases.
“No rational society should allow purveyors of such a destructive message to set up shop on public school property, but that’s exactly what the President and the Democrats in Congress are proposing. It’s time for America’s families to rise up and say “No” to ObamaCare.”
American Family Association is a pro-family advocacy organization with over 2.5 million online supporters.
Obamacare and Why It Won't Work
Take a gander at the 53 new agencies, panels, and committees tasked with health-care “reform” courtesy of Nancy Pelosi, President Obama, and H.R. 3200.
1. Health Benefits Advisory Committee (Section 123, p. 30)
2. Health Choices Administration (Section 141, p. 41)
3. Qualified Health Benefits Plan Ombudsman (Section 144, p. 47)
4. Program of administrative simplification (Section 163, p. 57)
5. Retiree Reserve Trust Fund (Section 164(d), p. 70)
6. Health Insurance Exchange (Section 201, p. 72)
7. Mechanism for insurance risk pooling to be established by Health Choices Administration Commissioner (Section 206(b), p. 106)
8. Special Inspector General for the Health Insurance Exchange (Section 206(c), p. 107)
9. Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund (Section 207, p. 109)
10. State-based Health Insurance Exchanges (Section 208, p. 111)
11. "Public Health Insurance Option" (Section 221, p. 116)
12. Ombudsman for "Public Health Insurance Option" (Section 221(d), p. 117)
13. Account for receipts and disbursements for "Public Health Insurance Option" (Section 222(b), p. 119)
14. Telehealth Advisory Committee (Section 1191, p. 380)
15. Demonstration program providing reimbursement for "culturally and linguistically appropriate services" (Section 1222, p. 405)
16. Demonstration program fo r shared decision making using patient decision aids (Section 1236, p. 438)
17. Accountable Care Organization pilot program (Section 1301, p. 443)
18. Independent patient-centered medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302, p. 462)19. Community-based medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302(d), p. 468)
20. Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research (Section 1401(a), p. 502)
21. Comparative Effectiveness Research Commission (Section 1401(a), p. 505)
22. Patient ombudsman for comparative effectiveness research (Section 1401(a), p. 519)
23. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1412(b)(1), p. 546)
24. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for nursing facilities (Section 1412 (b)(2), p. 548)
25. Special focus facility program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1413(a)(3), p. 559)
26. Special focus facility program for nursing facilities (Section 1413(b)(3), p. 565)
27. National independent monitor pilot program for skilled nursing facilities and nursing facilities (Section 1422, p. 607)
28. Demonstration program for approved teaching health centers with respect to Medicare GME (Section 1502(d), p. 674)
29. Pilot program to develop anti-fraud compliance systems for Medicare providers (Section 1635, p. 716)
30. Medical home pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1722, p. 780)
31. Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund (Section 1802, p. 824)
32. "Identifiable office or program" within CMS to "provide for improved coordination between Medicare and Medicaid in the case of dual eligibles" (Section 1905, p. 852)
33. Public Health Investment Fund (Section 2002, p. 859)
34. Scholarships for service in health professional needs areas (Section 2211, p. 870)
35. Loan repayment program for service in health professional needs areas (Section 2211, p. 873)
36. Program for training medical residents in community-based settings (Section 2214, p. 882)
37. Grant program for training in dentistry programs (Section 2215, p. 887)
38. Public Health Workforce Corps (Section 2231, p. 898)
39. Public health workforce scholarship program (Section 2231, p. 900)
40. Public health workforce loan forgiveness program (Section 2231, p. 904)
41. Grant program for innovations in interdisciplinary care (Section 2252, p. 917)
42. Advisory Committee on Health Workforce Evaluation and Assessment (Section 2261, p. 920)
43. Prevention and Wellness Trust (Section 2301, p. 932)
44. Clinical Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 941)
45. Community Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 947)
46. Grant program for community prevention and wellness research (Section 2301, p. 950)
47. Grant program for community prevention and wellness services (Section 2301, p. 951)
48. Grant program for public health infrastructure (Section 2301, p. 955)
49. Center for Quality Improvement (Section 2401, p. 965)
50. Assistant Secretary for Health Information (Section 2402, p. 972)
51. Grant program to support the operation of school-based health clinics (S ection 2511, p. 993)
52. National Medical Device Registry (Section 2521, p. 1001)
53. Grants for labor-management programs for nursing training (Section 2531, p. 1008)
President Obama will try to convince the American public that injecting more government into health care will spur competition, enhance quality, and lower costs.
I can think of 53 good reasons why it won’t work.
1. Health Benefits Advisory Committee (Section 123, p. 30)
2. Health Choices Administration (Section 141, p. 41)
3. Qualified Health Benefits Plan Ombudsman (Section 144, p. 47)
4. Program of administrative simplification (Section 163, p. 57)
5. Retiree Reserve Trust Fund (Section 164(d), p. 70)
6. Health Insurance Exchange (Section 201, p. 72)
7. Mechanism for insurance risk pooling to be established by Health Choices Administration Commissioner (Section 206(b), p. 106)
8. Special Inspector General for the Health Insurance Exchange (Section 206(c), p. 107)
9. Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund (Section 207, p. 109)
10. State-based Health Insurance Exchanges (Section 208, p. 111)
11. "Public Health Insurance Option" (Section 221, p. 116)
12. Ombudsman for "Public Health Insurance Option" (Section 221(d), p. 117)
13. Account for receipts and disbursements for "Public Health Insurance Option" (Section 222(b), p. 119)
14. Telehealth Advisory Committee (Section 1191, p. 380)
15. Demonstration program providing reimbursement for "culturally and linguistically appropriate services" (Section 1222, p. 405)
16. Demonstration program fo r shared decision making using patient decision aids (Section 1236, p. 438)
17. Accountable Care Organization pilot program (Section 1301, p. 443)
18. Independent patient-centered medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302, p. 462)19. Community-based medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302(d), p. 468)
20. Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research (Section 1401(a), p. 502)
21. Comparative Effectiveness Research Commission (Section 1401(a), p. 505)
22. Patient ombudsman for comparative effectiveness research (Section 1401(a), p. 519)
23. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1412(b)(1), p. 546)
24. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for nursing facilities (Section 1412 (b)(2), p. 548)
25. Special focus facility program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1413(a)(3), p. 559)
26. Special focus facility program for nursing facilities (Section 1413(b)(3), p. 565)
27. National independent monitor pilot program for skilled nursing facilities and nursing facilities (Section 1422, p. 607)
28. Demonstration program for approved teaching health centers with respect to Medicare GME (Section 1502(d), p. 674)
29. Pilot program to develop anti-fraud compliance systems for Medicare providers (Section 1635, p. 716)
30. Medical home pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1722, p. 780)
31. Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund (Section 1802, p. 824)
32. "Identifiable office or program" within CMS to "provide for improved coordination between Medicare and Medicaid in the case of dual eligibles" (Section 1905, p. 852)
33. Public Health Investment Fund (Section 2002, p. 859)
34. Scholarships for service in health professional needs areas (Section 2211, p. 870)
35. Loan repayment program for service in health professional needs areas (Section 2211, p. 873)
36. Program for training medical residents in community-based settings (Section 2214, p. 882)
37. Grant program for training in dentistry programs (Section 2215, p. 887)
38. Public Health Workforce Corps (Section 2231, p. 898)
39. Public health workforce scholarship program (Section 2231, p. 900)
40. Public health workforce loan forgiveness program (Section 2231, p. 904)
41. Grant program for innovations in interdisciplinary care (Section 2252, p. 917)
42. Advisory Committee on Health Workforce Evaluation and Assessment (Section 2261, p. 920)
43. Prevention and Wellness Trust (Section 2301, p. 932)
44. Clinical Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 941)
45. Community Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 947)
46. Grant program for community prevention and wellness research (Section 2301, p. 950)
47. Grant program for community prevention and wellness services (Section 2301, p. 951)
48. Grant program for public health infrastructure (Section 2301, p. 955)
49. Center for Quality Improvement (Section 2401, p. 965)
50. Assistant Secretary for Health Information (Section 2402, p. 972)
51. Grant program to support the operation of school-based health clinics (S ection 2511, p. 993)
52. National Medical Device Registry (Section 2521, p. 1001)
53. Grants for labor-management programs for nursing training (Section 2531, p. 1008)
President Obama will try to convince the American public that injecting more government into health care will spur competition, enhance quality, and lower costs.
I can think of 53 good reasons why it won’t work.
The Obama Gates Scandal Revisited
Did you know a 12 person panel has been formed to investigate the Cambridge police officer? I didn't. I thought the Beer Summit took care of smoothing things over? Clearly Gates was in the wrong. Clearly Obama was wrong to inject himself and make it about race. The Beer Summit was forged to make Obama look like a good guy since he stepped in it. Gates and Obama were both injecting race into a police call. So why is the police officer being investigated?
The injustice and assault continues on average Americans.
The injustice and assault continues on average Americans.
Friday, September 11, 2009
9/11
In memory of the day America was attacked by Muslim fanatics eight years ago this day. In memory of the innocent fellow Americans who died that day. In memory for those who lost their loved ones.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
ACORN: Obama's Campaign Arm Is At It Again
Is there a news cycle that goes by without one of Obama's corrupt friends making the headlines? It's like a bad dream with this guy in charge of our country. Be sure to check here for the latest. Now, remember your tax payer dollars funds these people thanks to Obama. He loves Acorn. You would too if you had them out their committing voter fraud to get you elected in key state's pre-election. They get billions of dollars of out money. Acorn has fired two top-shelf employees. Somehow I don't think that has cleansed the community-based organization that is clearly rotten to the core. It's doubtful any tree will grow from that outfit. Acorn isn't performing any nationwide searches for its talent and why should they? They are in Obama's back pocket. Once again, Obama is looking out for you. Will impeachment proceedings ever happen against this man? The entire administration is simply corrupt to its very fiber. We elect these people. What happened to American standards?
ABC recently interviewed Obama and asked him if he was ever distracted by Glen Beck or other stories surrounding Van Jones and other issues? The reporter didn't ask a single question of him on why he would hire Van Jones. I suppose that's why he continues to grant interviews to those cheerleaders, because they aren't in the business of journalism. What a shame.
ABC recently interviewed Obama and asked him if he was ever distracted by Glen Beck or other stories surrounding Van Jones and other issues? The reporter didn't ask a single question of him on why he would hire Van Jones. I suppose that's why he continues to grant interviews to those cheerleaders, because they aren't in the business of journalism. What a shame.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
The Economics Of Healthcare
*
Let's talk about specifics. In his Times op-ed, the president argues that the Democrats' proposals "will finally bring skyrocketing health-care costs under control" by "cutting . . . waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid and in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies . . . ."
*
First, ask yourself whether the government that brought us such "waste and inefficiency" and "unwarranted subsidies" in the first place can be believed when it says that this time it will get things right.
*
I couldn't agree more. But I would go further. Many years ago, Austrian economists Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek won the debate over the feasibility of socialism and central planning in particular.
*
They argue that central planning wasn't possible and that the free market is the only price mechanism. They argue that:
*
[W]ithout the information provided by market prices socialism lacks a method to rationally allocate resources. Those who agree with this criticism argue it is a refutation of socialism and that it shows that a socialist planned economy could never work. The debate raged in the 1920s and 1930s, and that specific period of the debate has come to be known by economic historians as the The Socialist Calculation Debate.
*
Mises wrote, for instance, "that the pricing systems in socialist economies were necessarily deficient because if government owned the means of production, then no prices could be obtained for capital goods as they were merely internal transfers of goods in a socialist system and not "objects of exchange," unlike final goods. Therefore, they were unpriced and hence the system would be necessarily inefficient since the central planners would not know how to allocate the available resources efficiently."
*
In spite of the end of true socialism, this truth still applies today. Because of poor feedback mechanisms, modern government just can't calculate profit and losses in the way entrepreneurs do it. It limits the government's ability to allocate resources rationally and therefore it will be bound to create wastes, fraud, and abuses. This inability also explains why the government often makes decisions based on politics rather than economics.
*
More importantly, this inability to calculate losses and profits makes the government unable to undertake health-care reform, in particular if the reform is meant to put in place a single-payer system. In fact, it explains why the government is likely to fail when trying to supply most goods and services.
*
Back to Palin:
*
We often hear such overblown promises from Washington. With first principles in mind and with the facts in hand, tell them that this time we're not buying it.
Read her article here.*
For more on the socialist calculation debate, you can read this very good piece here.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
The Perspective Of A Russian Immigrant
By SVETLANA KUNIN Posted Thursday, August 20, 2009 4:20 PM PT
In the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, I was taught to believe individual pursuits are selfish and sacrificing for the collective good is noble.
In kindergarten we sang songs about Lenin, the leader of the Socialist Revolution. In school we learned about the beautiful socialist system, where everybody is equal and everything is fair; about ugly capitalism, where people are exploited and treat each other like wolves in the wilderness.
Life in the USSR modeled the socialist ideal. God-based religion was suppressed and replaced with cult-like adoration for political figures.
The government-assigned salary of the proletariat (blue-collar worker) was 30%-50% higher then any professional. Without incentive to improve their life, professionals drank themselves to oblivion. They — engineers, lawyers, doctors, teachers — earned a government-determined salary that barely covered the necessities, mainly food.
Raising children was a hardship. It took four to six adults (parents and grandparents) to support a child. The usual size of the postwar family was one or two children. Every woman had the right to have an abortion and most of them did, often without anesthesia.
There is a comparative historical reality that plays out the consequences of two competing ideologies: life in the USSR and in America. When the march to the worker's paradise — the Socialist Revolution — began in 1917, many people emigrated from Russia to the U.S.
In the USSR, economic equality was achieved by redistributing wealth, ensuring that everyone remained poor, with the exception of those doing the redistributing. Only the ruling class of communist leaders had access to special stores, medicine and accommodations that could compare to those in the West.
The rest of the citizenry had to deal with permanent shortages of food and other necessities, and had access to free but inferior, unsanitary and low-tech medical care. The egalitarian utopia of equality, achieved by the sacrifice of individual self-interest for the collective good, led to corruption, black markets, anger and envy.
Government-controlled health care destroyed human dignity.
Chairman Nikita Khrushchev released facts about Stalin and his purges. People learned of the horrific purge of more than 20 million citizens, murdered as enemies of the state.
Those who left Russia found a different set of values in America: freedom of religion, speech, individual pursuits, the right to private property and free enterprise. The majority of those immigrants achieved a better life for themselves and their children in this capitalist land.
These opportunities let the average immigrant live a better life than many elites in the Soviet Communist Party. The freedom to pursue personal self-interest led to prosperity. Prosperity generated charity, benefiting the collective good.
The descendants of those immigrants are now supporting policies that move America away from the values that gave so many immigrants the chance of a better life. Policies such as nationalized medicine, high tax rates and government intrusion into free enterprise are being sold to us under the socialistic motto of collective salvation.
Socialism has bankrupted and failed every society, while capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system.
There is no perfect society. There are no perfect people. Critics say that greed is the driving force of capitalism. My answer is that envy is the driving force of socialism. Change to socialism is not an improvement on the imperfections of the current system.
The slogans of "fairness and equality" sound better than the slogans of capitalism. But unlike at the beginning of the 20th century, when these slogans and ideas were yet to be tested, we have accumulated history and reality.
Today we can define the better system not by slogans, but by looking at the accumulated facts. We can compare which ideology leads to the most oppression and which brings the most opportunity.
When I came to America in 1980 and experienced life in this country, I thought it was fortunate that those living in the USSR did not know how unfortunate they were.
Now in 2009, I realize how unfortunate it is that many Americans do not understand how fortunate they are. They vote to give government more and more power without understanding the consequences.
Svetlana Kunin, Stamford, Conn.
Mrs. Kunin, an IBD subscriber, is a retired software developer. In the Soviet Union, she was a civil engineer.
In the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, I was taught to believe individual pursuits are selfish and sacrificing for the collective good is noble.
In kindergarten we sang songs about Lenin, the leader of the Socialist Revolution. In school we learned about the beautiful socialist system, where everybody is equal and everything is fair; about ugly capitalism, where people are exploited and treat each other like wolves in the wilderness.
Life in the USSR modeled the socialist ideal. God-based religion was suppressed and replaced with cult-like adoration for political figures.
The government-assigned salary of the proletariat (blue-collar worker) was 30%-50% higher then any professional. Without incentive to improve their life, professionals drank themselves to oblivion. They — engineers, lawyers, doctors, teachers — earned a government-determined salary that barely covered the necessities, mainly food.
Raising children was a hardship. It took four to six adults (parents and grandparents) to support a child. The usual size of the postwar family was one or two children. Every woman had the right to have an abortion and most of them did, often without anesthesia.
There is a comparative historical reality that plays out the consequences of two competing ideologies: life in the USSR and in America. When the march to the worker's paradise — the Socialist Revolution — began in 1917, many people emigrated from Russia to the U.S.
In the USSR, economic equality was achieved by redistributing wealth, ensuring that everyone remained poor, with the exception of those doing the redistributing. Only the ruling class of communist leaders had access to special stores, medicine and accommodations that could compare to those in the West.
The rest of the citizenry had to deal with permanent shortages of food and other necessities, and had access to free but inferior, unsanitary and low-tech medical care. The egalitarian utopia of equality, achieved by the sacrifice of individual self-interest for the collective good, led to corruption, black markets, anger and envy.
Government-controlled health care destroyed human dignity.
Chairman Nikita Khrushchev released facts about Stalin and his purges. People learned of the horrific purge of more than 20 million citizens, murdered as enemies of the state.
Those who left Russia found a different set of values in America: freedom of religion, speech, individual pursuits, the right to private property and free enterprise. The majority of those immigrants achieved a better life for themselves and their children in this capitalist land.
These opportunities let the average immigrant live a better life than many elites in the Soviet Communist Party. The freedom to pursue personal self-interest led to prosperity. Prosperity generated charity, benefiting the collective good.
The descendants of those immigrants are now supporting policies that move America away from the values that gave so many immigrants the chance of a better life. Policies such as nationalized medicine, high tax rates and government intrusion into free enterprise are being sold to us under the socialistic motto of collective salvation.
Socialism has bankrupted and failed every society, while capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system.
There is no perfect society. There are no perfect people. Critics say that greed is the driving force of capitalism. My answer is that envy is the driving force of socialism. Change to socialism is not an improvement on the imperfections of the current system.
The slogans of "fairness and equality" sound better than the slogans of capitalism. But unlike at the beginning of the 20th century, when these slogans and ideas were yet to be tested, we have accumulated history and reality.
Today we can define the better system not by slogans, but by looking at the accumulated facts. We can compare which ideology leads to the most oppression and which brings the most opportunity.
When I came to America in 1980 and experienced life in this country, I thought it was fortunate that those living in the USSR did not know how unfortunate they were.
Now in 2009, I realize how unfortunate it is that many Americans do not understand how fortunate they are. They vote to give government more and more power without understanding the consequences.
Svetlana Kunin, Stamford, Conn.
Mrs. Kunin, an IBD subscriber, is a retired software developer. In the Soviet Union, she was a civil engineer.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
