"You know the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick." -Gov. Sarah Palin-

"The media are not above the daily test of any free institution." -Barry M. Goldwater-

"America's first interest must be to punish our enemies, then, if possible, please our friends." -Zell Miller-

"One single object...[will merit] the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation." -President Thomas Jefferson-

"Don't get stuck on stupid!" -Lt. Gen. Russel Honore-

"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter." -Isaiah 5:20-

Petition For The FairTax

GOP Bloggers Blog Directory & Search engine Blog Sweet Blog Directory

Directory of Politics Blogs My Zimbio

Righty Blogs Of Virginia

Coalition For A Conservative Majority

A REASON TO TRY available from Barnes & Noble
A REASON TO TRY available from Borders
A REASON TO TRY available from Books-A-Million
A REASON TO TRY available from SeekBooks New Zealand
A REASON TO TRY available from SeekBooks Australia
A REASON TO TRY available from Chapters.indigo.ca Canada's Online Bookstore
A REASON TO TRY available from Amazon.com
A REASON TO TRY available from Amazon UK
A REASON TO TRY available from Amazon Canada

Friday, July 31, 2009

American Chemical Society Revolts Against Their Editor-In-Chief

Hat tip to Watts Up With That? for this one. It looks like the idea of "concensus" that has been touted by the global warming alarmists isn't as solid as they thought.

When Chemical and Engineering News editor-in-chief Rudy Baum wrote an editorial in which he claimed the "concensus views" were "increasingly difficult to challenge" other member of the American Chemical Society had a very negative reaction to it.

Dozens of letter were published on July 27, 2009 opposing Baum's views with some calling for his resignation and replacement.

Here are some of the comments:

“I think it’s time to find a new editor,” ACS member Thomas E. D’Ambra wrote.

Geochemist R. Everett Langford wrote: “I am appalled at the condescending attitude of Rudy Baum, Al Gore, President Barack Obama, et al., who essentially tell us that there is no need for further research—that the matter is solved.”

ACS scientist Dennis Malpass wrote: “Your editorial was a disgrace. It was filled with misinformation, half-truths, and ad hominem attacks on those who dare disagree with you. Shameful!”

ACS member scientist Dr. Howard Hayden, a Physics Professor Emeritus from the University of Connecticut: “Baum’s remarks are particularly disquieting because of his hostility toward skepticism, which is part of every scientist’s soul. Let’s cut to the chase with some questions for Baum: Which of the 20-odd major climate models has settled the science, such that all of the rest are now discarded? [...] Do you refer to ‘climate change’ instead of ‘global warming’ because the claim of anthropogenic global warming has become increasingly contrary to fact?”

Edward H. Gleason wrote: “Baum’s attempt to close out debate goes against all my scientific training, and to hear this from my ACS is certainly alarming to me…his use of ‘climate-change deniers’ to pillory scientists who do not believe climate change is a crisis is disingenuous and unscientific.”

Atmospheric Chemist Roger L. Tanner: “I have very little in common with the philosophy of the Heartland Institute and other ‘free-market fanatics,’ and I consider myself a progressive Democrat. Nevertheless, we scientists should know better than to propound scientific truth by consensus and to excoriate skeptics with purple prose.”

William Tolley: “I take great offense that Baum would use Chemical and Engineering News, for which I pay dearly each year in membership dues, to purvey his personal views and so glibly ignore contrary information and scold those of us who honestly find these views to be a hoax.”

William E. Keller wrote: “However bitter you (Baum) personally may feel about CCDs (climate change deniers), it is not your place as editor to accuse them—falsely—of nonscientific behavior by using insultingly inappropriate language. [...] The growing body of scientists, whom you abuse as sowing doubt, making up statistics, and claiming to be ignored by the media, are, in the main, highly competent professionals, experts in their fields, completely honorable, and highly versed in the scientific method—characteristics that apparently do not apply to you.”

ACS member Wallace Embry: “I would like to see the American Chemical Society Board ‘cap’ Baum’s political pen and ‘trade’ him to either the New York Times or Washington Post.” [To read the more reactions from scientists to Baum's editorial go here and see below.]

Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl, who publishes the Reference Frame website, weighed in on the controversy as well, calling Baum’s editorial an “alarmist screed.”

“Now, the chemists are thinking about replacing this editor who has hijacked the ACS bulletin to promote his idiosyncratic political views,” Motl wrote on July 27, 2009.

Not only did Baum alienate his own by deigning to speak for them, he also quoted from discredited sources:

To “prove” his assertion that the science was “becoming increasingly well established,” Baum cited the Obama Administration’s U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) study as evidence that the science was settled. [Climate Depot Editor's Note: Baum's grasp of the latest “science” is embarrassing. For Baum to cite the June 2009 Obama Administration report as “evidence” that science is growing stronger exposes him as having very poor research skills. See this comprehensive report on scientists rebuking that report. See: 'Scaremongering': Scientists Pan Obama Climate Report: 'This is not a work of science but an embarrassing episode for the authors and NOAA'...'Misrepresents the science' - July 8, 2009 ]

Baum also touted the Congressional climate bill as “legislation with real teeth to control the emission of greenhouse gases.” [Climate Depot Editor's Note: This is truly laughable that an editor-in-chief at the American Chemical Society could say the climate bill has “real teeth.” This statement should be retracted in full for lack of evidence. The Congressional climate bill has outraged environmental groups for failing to impact global temperatures and failing to even reduce emissions! See: Climate Depot Editorial: Climate bill offers (costly) non-solutions to problems that don't even exist - No detectable climate impact: 'If we actually faced a man-made 'climate crisis', we would all be doomed' June 20, 2009 ]

So much for concensus. Now, if we could only get people like Al Gore to listen to real scientists for once.

You can access trhe original blog entry on-line here:

American Chemical Society Members Revolting Against Their Editor For Pro AGW Views
Watts Up With That?
July 30, 2009

The New Democrat Image: A Culture Of Corruptness

Even the most dyed-in-wool Democrat has to admit that the major promise of Nancy Pelosi and company in 2006, that is the promise to rid D.C. of the "culture of corruption," has been utterly and completely broken.

And despite Barack Obama's promise to bring change to D.C., he only brought with him the business as usual Chicago-politics style.

Take for example Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT). He is in deep trouble thanks to some whistle-blowers who have exposed him. But, contrary to the campaign promises of 2006 and 2008, the Dems are taking no action to get rid of the corruption that Dodd represents.

Michelle Malkin has this:

The troubled Democrat is in deep over his sweetheart Countrywide home-loan deals, corporate bailout cash and crony associations. New revelations by Countrywide whistleblower Robert Feinberg confirm what more and more of Dodd's constituents in Connecticut are coming to realize: He's a lying weasel.

Dodd denied knowledge of the special treatment the subprime mortgage company had given him and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad on home loans. (Dodd's were worth more than $800,000.) Feinberg flatly contradicted him in secret testimony on the Hill this week.

And what does Obama do in response to this evidence of corruption? Read on:

"I can't say it any clearer: I will be helping Chris Dodd because he deserves the help," Obama announced in April. "He just has an extraordinary record of accomplishment, and I think the people of Connecticut will come to recognize that."

So far, Obama has not withdrawn his support.

But it isn't just Dodd that is a problem. Many Democrats have their own corruption issues, none of which are being addressed by a president who made a campaign promise to address such things.


Obama progressives should cringe at their president's bear hug of one of the most ethically compromised politicians on Capitol Hill. The Beltway swamp is teeming with Democratic corruption scandals -- Pennsylvania congressman John Murtha's earmark factory and tax-subsidized airports and radars to nowhere; New York Rep. Charlie Rangel's rent-controlled apartment scams and tax scandals; California Rep. Maxine Waters' business ties to a minority-owned bank that received $12 million in TARP money under smelly circumstances, for starters. But Dodd's career epitomizes the most fetid aspects of Washington's culture of corruption. It's a textbook case of nepotism, self-dealing, back scratching, corporate lobbying, government favors and entrenched incumbency.

And let's not forget Tim Geithner who failed to pay taxes.

The Democrats, rather than nobly standing up to the corruption in D.C. (including that within their own party) are instead hypocritically engaging in the very corruption they promised to fight!

Obama, Pelosi, Reid and other Democrats have transformed the "culture of corruption" into their own "culture of corruptness." Dems, instead of draining the cesspool, have jumped in and started splashing around.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Dodd And Obama: Corrupt Birds Of A Feather
Michelle Malkin
July 31, 2009

Thursday, July 30, 2009

No. 3 At Justice OK'd Panther Reversal

Now, you have got to ask the following question: Would Thomas J. Perrelli have done the same thing if, all other things being equal, the three men intimidating voters were white instead of black?

From the Washington Times:

Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli, the No. 3 official in the Obama Justice Department, was consulted and ultimately approved a decision in May to reverse course and drop a civil complaint accusing three members of the New Black Panther Party of intimidating voters in Philadelphia during November's election, according to interviews.

The department's career lawyers in the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division who pursued the complaint for five months had recommended that Justice seek sanctions against the party and three of its members after the government had already won a default judgment in federal court against the men.

First, the case was delayed in April after Assistant Attorney General Loretta King discussed her concerns with Mr. Perrelli about the case.

There is no word about how high in the government this decision came from.

Does anyone here think this reversal would have happened if the men in the above picture were white?

You can access the complete article on-line here:

EXCLUSIVE: No. 3 At Justice OK'd Panther Reversal
Jerry Seper
The Washington Times
July 30, 2009

Poll Numbers: Obama Not Doing So Hot

Well, what did you expect? As a general rule, people do not like promises being made and then broken. People do not like being lied to. People do not like being falsely accused of racism.

Put all of that together, and you have the latest tracking poll from Scott Rasmussen:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 28% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -12. That’s the lowest rating yet recorded for President Obama.


Overall, 48% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. That is the lowest level of total approval yet recorded for this President. Fifty-one percent (51%) now disapprove. A plurality of voters now believe the President views American society as unfair and discriminatory.


Just 23% believe health care costs will go down if health care reform is passed. Most (53%) expect prices would rise and 50% expect the quality of care would decline.

You also have to remember that Rasmussen polls likely voters while Gallup simply polls adults. Many of Obama's supporters (especially those in their early 20's) are now not likely to vote for him again.

You can access the complete report on-line here:

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Rasmussen Reports
July 30, 2009

Birther Conspiracy: A Leftist False Flag?

It amazes me how libs will put something out in the press or on the Internet and then expect everyone to be stupid enough to believe it without question.

Take for example leftist blogger Mike Stark. He put together a video that seemed to show eleven Republican members of Congress as being Birthers, that is people who don't believe that Obama is a natural born citizen.

But, Jillian Bandes exposes Stark for being the pathetic liar that he is:

A closer look at the video reveals that much of the seemingly incriminating footage is the result of selective video editing, falsification of identities, and outright mischaracterization.

For example, Rep. Dave Reichert (R-Was.) was put in the video for 25 seconds, giving an unclear answer to the question posed by Stark as to whether or not Obama is a citizen.

"If we're in America and we are free, and we allow people to say - I mean, people stand on the sidewalk, and this gentleman gets to show" - Reichert gestured towards a protester on the sidewalk where the filming was taking place - "gets to stand for what he believes in in the way he decides to, because we're in America."

However, Stark's unedited interview with Reichert lasted almost 5 minutes, during which he gave a definitive answer as to whether or not he believes Obama is a citizen: "I believe he is, because I haven't seen any proof that says that he's not."

Well, that's what leftists like Stark do. They lie and they cheat all in the name of advancing some idiotic political agenda.

It is amazing that anyone would consider Mike Stark or any of his ilk to be the least bit trustworthy in what they report on. The libs don't seem to understand that Freedom of the Press is not a license to libel.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Liberal Bloggers Perpetuate Birther Conspiracy
Jillian Bandes
July 30, 2009

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

The Fight To Limit Federal Power Begins (First Shots Fired At Montana And Tennessee)

The Founders were very wise to include the Tenth Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Specifically, the Tenth Amendment states:

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

This clearly says that the only powers the Federal Government should ever have are those powers specifically defined in the Constitution.

But the Federal Government has been overstepping its powers in recent years, going all the way back to the 1930s. Today, with at least 36 states declaring sovereignity under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, the fight for power, a fight between the Statists of Federal Government and the people of the United States who want as little government interference as possible, has begun.

Two of the states that made their declarations are Tennesee and Montana. Both states have essentially said that under the Tenth Amendment, and re-inforced by the Heller vs. Washington D.C. decision, they will not allow Federal gun control laws to override duly passed state laws.

Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act

Montana Firearms Freedom Act

Well, an unelected bureaucrat named Carson W. Carroll of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has decided that he has somehow been empowered to overturn these two state legislatures all by himself.

He has put out two open letters to the states of Montana and Tennessee essentially saying that his bureaucracy can trump state law and the Tenth Amendment be damned.

An excerpt:

The passage of the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act, H.B. 1796, 106th Leg. (Tenn. 2009) 1796 (”Act”), effective June 19, 2009, has generated questions from industry members as to how this State law may affect them while engaged in a firearms business activity. The Act purports to exempt personal firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition manufactured in the State, and which remain in the State, from most Federal firearms laws and regulations. However, because the Act conflicts with Federal firearms laws and regulations, Federal law supersedes the Act, and all provisions of the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act, and their corresponding regulations, continue to apply.

The letter to Montana is similarly worded, almost an exact copy.

This does not bode well. If unelected Federal bureaucrats feel that they can trample on the Constitution anytime they wish, then we will no longer be a Republic. The Oath of Office for the President states that he will "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Where is Barack Obama now? Allowing an unelected bureaucrat to do something like this is a violation of that oath. As I wrote before, the politicians in D.C. ignore this at the peril of the Union.

We cannot allow the Federal Government to intrude this deep into our lives. The more power they take for themselves, the fewer and smaller our freedoms become.

You can access the letter to Tennessee on-line here:

Open Letter To All Tennessee Federal Firearms Licencees

And you can access the letter to Montana on-line here:

Open Letter To All Montana Federal Firearms Licensees

Read The Bill Before Voting, Congress!

One good thing about all those AIG bonuses that caused such a major stir earlier this year was that it highlighted the fact the most (if not all) members of Congress don't even read the bills they are voting on.

In the Stimulus package was an amendment (known as the Dodd Amendment) that allowed the AIG bonuses to be specifically exempted from any regulation. When Barack Obama put the presidential signature on that bill, it became the law of the land. Later, when the AIG bonuses became public, many of those who vote "Yea" on this measure became indignant that such bonuses would be paid out by a firm that took bailout money.

So, if those people had simply read the bill, or at least demanded a chance to see what was being inserted into the bill at 4:00 a.m., they would have known what they were voting for and wouldn't have ended up looking like the fools they are. Well, that's my theory anyway.

Now, with socialized health care on the horizon, it is once again looking like the Dem leadership is going to force a vote before the legislation can be thoroughly read and understood by those voting on it.

From the Washington Times:

President Obama is pushing Congress to pass health care legislation that could nationalize as much as 10 percent of the economy. Most members of Congress will vote on this bill with no idea what's in it.

Rep. John Conyers Jr., Michigan Democrat, disparaged lawmakers for even pretending to read the laws they pass. "I love these members, they get up and say, 'Read the bill,' " he said last week at the National Press Club. "What good is reading the bill if it's a thousand pages and you don't have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you've read the bill?"

The good, Mr. Conyers, is that Senators and Representatives will know exactly what they are voting for if they happen to be voting "Yea." Knowing what is in legislation will save Congress from being embarrassed (as in the above AIG example) and save the American people for having to admit that their Congress is a remake of the Keystone Kops.


Mr. Conyers might think it's an antiquated notion that congressmen actually read legislation, but it is the most fundamental responsibility of elected representatives to know and understand laws and how they will affect the lives of their constituents.

That is especially the case with such a gargantuan bill. The House version creates 53 new federal bureaucracies with everything from a Health Choices Administration to a Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund to a Health Benefits Advisory Committee. Thirty-three entitlement programs are created or expanded.

The notion is put to rest that government might cooperate with doctors and patients to work out what is best for providing care. The health care bill uses the assertive word "shall" 1,683 times. These passages are government mandates that force doctors, consumers and others in the health care profession to do what Congress orders. The word "penalty" is used 156 times for those who don't follow orders. "Tax" is referred to 172 times.

This legislation is so sweeping and so draconian that if it fails to produce as advertised (and I am betting it will spectacularly fail to do so), members of Congress who voted "Yea" are going to run and hide behind the tired and lame excuse that they "didn't know what was in the bill."

It happened with the AIG bonuses. It will happen with the socialized medicine bill.

You can access the original editorial on-line here:

Read The Bill, Congressmen
Washington Times
July 29, 2009

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

10 Questions For Supporters Of ObamaCare

I am actually going to write these into a letter and send them to my two Senators, Jim Webb and Mark Warner.

From Dennis Prager at Town Hall:

1. President Barack Obama repeatedly tells us that one reason national health care is needed is that we can no longer afford to pay for Medicare and Medicaid. But if Medicare and Medicaid are fiscally insolvent and gradually bankrupting our society, why is a government takeover of medical care for the rest of society a good idea?

2. President Obama reiterated this past week that "no insurance company will be allowed to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing medical condition." This is an oft-repeated goal of the president's and the Democrats' health care plan. But if any individual can buy health insurance at any time, why would anyone buy health insurance while healthy? Why would I not simply wait until I got sick or injured to buy the insurance?

3. Why do supporters of nationalized medicine so often substitute the word "care" for the word "insurance?"

4. No one denies that in order to come close to staying within its budget health care will be rationed. But what is the moral justification of having the state decide what medical care to ration?

5. According to Dr. David Gratzer, health care specialist at the Manhattan Institute, "While 20 years ago pharmaceuticals were largely developed in Europe, European price controls made drug development an American enterprise. Fifteen of the 20 top-selling drugs worldwide this year were birthed in the United States." Given how many lives -- in America and throughout the world – American pharmaceutical companies save, and given how expensive it is to develop any new drug, will the price controls on drugs envisaged in the Democrats' bill improve or impair Americans' health?

6. Do you really believe that private insurance could survive a "public option"? Or is this really a cover for the ideal of single-payer medical care? How could a private insurance company survive a "public option" given that private companies have to show a profit and government agencies do not have to – and given that a private enterprise must raise its own money to be solvent and a government option has access to others' money -- i.e., taxes?

7. Why will hospitals, doctors, and pharmaceutical companies do nearly as superb a job as they now do if their reimbursement from the government will be severely cut?

8. Given how many needless procedures are ordered to avoid medical lawsuits and how much money doctors spend on medical malpractice insurance, shouldn't any meaningful "reform" of health care provide some remedy for frivolous malpractice lawsuits?

9. Given how weak the U.S. economy is, given how weak the U.S. dollar is, and given how much in debt the U.S. is in, why would anyone seek to have the U.S. spend another trillion dollars?

10. Contrary to the assertion of President Obama -- "we spend much more on health care than any other nation but aren't any healthier for it" -- we are healthier. We wait far less time for procedures and surgeries. Our life expectancy with virtually any major disease is longer. And if you do not count deaths from violent crime and automobile accidents, we also have the longest life expectancy. Do you think a government takeover of American medicine will enable this medical excellence to continue?

Question #2 is a great one.

I would ask one further question: If this socialized medicine package is so great, then why is Congress exempting itself from it? Shouldn't Congress limit itself to only those choices that Joe and Jane Average American will have?

You can access the complete column on-line here:

10 Questions For Supporters Of 'ObamaCare'
Dennis Prager
July 28, 2009

Crowley-Gates Incident: Maybe Obama Should Teach Himself

It's not easy dealing with an infant suffering from Reactive Airway Disease. I've spent the last three days taking care of my seven-month-old son. But, I'm back to make a small contribution here.

The arrest of professor Louis Henry Gates has been all over the news recently. Everyone knows the story and everyone knows how Obama reacted during a nationally televised press conference designed to push socialized medicine.

But Obama also refers to this as a "teachable moment." Yes, the president who promised us a "post-racial" America and made a major gaffe in criticizing the Cambridge police before he even knew all the facts, wants to teach us something.

Well, I've learned that Obama is nothing even resembling "post-racial" and perhaps he needs to teach that to himself.

Pat Buchanan writing for Town Hall has this:

Sunday, professor Louis Henry Gates retreated from his threat to sue Sgt. James Crowley. Friday, President Obama retreated from his charge that the Cambridge cops "acted stupidly."

As Crowley has not budged an inch -- his arrest of Gates was correct, and there will be no apology -- there is no doubt who won this face-off. Game, set, match, Crowley and the Cambridge cops.

Gates and Obama can try to spin this all they want, but it is clear that they were trying to use this incident to somehow stick it to "whitey." What we are really seeing here is how well Obama listened during the twenty years he sat in the pews and listened to the racist and anti-American sermons of Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Here is what happened:

Answering a 911 call about a break-in in progress, Crowley encountered the professor inside the house. According to Crowley's report, his request for Gates' I.D. was initially rebuffed, and he was accused of hassling Gates because he was black. The professor made a slurring reference to Crowley's "mama."

The professor then raised such a ruckus Crowley arrested and cuffed him.

Once in the street, Gates bellowed, "This is what happens to a black man in America." Gates then called Crowley a "rogue cop."

Gov. Deval Patrick declared Gates' arrest "every black man's nightmare." Obama said the Cambridge cops had "acted stupidly" and went on to elaborate, on nationwide TV, on the sad history of racial profiling of blacks and Hispanics by police.

Thus the two most powerful black elected officials in the U.S., with no hard knowledge of what happened, came down on the side of a black professor, their buddy, against a white cop and his department, implying racial motivation in the arrest of Gates.

Teachable moment? Yes. We need to teach that the reactions of Gates, Obama and Deval Patrick were the wrong reactions to have.

Here is some eveidence that you will not hear Obama, Patrick or Gates ever mention (lest they make fools of themselves):

Crowley's partner in the arrest was a black officer who said he stands "100 percent" behind Crowley and that Gates acted "strange."

Sixteen years ago, Crowley gave CPR to an unconscious Boston Celtics star, Reggie Lewis, in an attempt to save his life. The memory of his failure caused Crowley to break down in tears and haunts him to this day.

Crowley was selected by a black police lieutenant to teach fellow officers about racial profiling. He has been doing this for five years.

And watching TV coverage for a week, this writer has yet to hear one cop anywhere condemn Crowley's handling of the incident.

Teachable moment? Yes. We need to teach that minorities screaming "racism" when no racism is present devalues the word and makes it easier to ignore true instances of racism.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Sgt. Crowley, A Cop In Full
Pat Buchanan
July 28, 2009

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Fact Checking Obama's Socialized Health Care Claims

Again, here is something that you will not see on CNN, ABC, NBC or CBS. It is also highly unlikely that you will read anything like this in the Washington Post or the New York Times.

According to the Associated Press:

OBAMA: "We already have rough agreement" on some aspects of what a health care overhaul should involve, and one is: "It will keep government out of health care decisions, giving you the option to keep your insurance if you're happy with it."

THE FACTS: In House legislation, a commission appointed by the government would determine what is and isn't covered by insurance plans offered in a new purchasing pool, including a plan sponsored by the government. The bill also holds out the possibility that, over time, those standards could be imposed on all private insurance plans, not just the ones in the pool.

Indeed, Obama went on to lay out other principles of reform that plainly show the government making key decisions in health care.


He addressed some of the nuances under questioning. "Can I guarantee that there are going to be no changes in the health care delivery system?" he said. "No. The whole point of this is to try to encourage changes that work for the American people and make them healthier."

He acknowledged then that the "government already is making some of these decisions."

Whoa! If there were to be no government intervention on health care decisions, then why do we need a government appointed commission to determine what is and is not covered? And what decisions are being made by the government right now? If there is to be no government intervention, why are those decisions being made?

How much worse does this get? Pretty bad. Read on:

OBAMA: "I have also pledged that health insurance reform will not add to our deficit over the next decade, and I mean it."

THE FACTS: The president has said repeatedly that he wants "deficit-neutral" health care legislation, meaning that every dollar increase in cost is met with a dollar of new revenue or a dollar of savings. But some things are more neutral than others. White House Budget Director Peter Orszag told reporters this week that the promise does not apply to proposed spending of about $245 billion over the next decade to increase fees for doctors serving Medicare patients. Democrats and the Obama administration argue that the extra payment, designed to prevent a scheduled cut of about 21 percent in doctor fees, already was part of the administration's policy, with or without a health care overhaul.

Beyond that, budget experts have warned about various accounting gimmicks that can mask true burdens on the deficit. The bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget lists a variety of them, including back-loading the heaviest costs at the end of the 10-year period and beyond.

Even the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office reported that the program costs would run into the trillions and make health care more expensive, not less.

OBAMA: "You haven't seen me out there blaming the Republicans."

THE FACTS: Obama did so in his opening statement, saying, "I've heard that one Republican strategist told his party that even though they may want to compromise, it's better politics to 'go for the kill.' Another Republican senator said that defeating health reform is about 'breaking' me."

Of course, Obama wants this to be about Obama and not about the best policies for the American people. He probably figures that the more he deflects from the real issues (like the fact that even Democrats don't know what is in these health care proposals) the less likely the American people are going to educate themselves about the whole mess before a Congressional vote.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

FACT CHECK: Obama's Health Care Claims Adrift?
Calvin Woodward and Jim Kuhnhenn with Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar
Associated Press via TownHall.com
July 23, 2009

Congressional Democrats 'Baffled' By Obamacare

This is a major reason why we must oppose Obamacare. Nobody knows what's in the plan!

From CNN:

As the prospects for passing health reform by the time Congress leaves for its August recess look bleaker, Democratic grumbling about President Obama is growing louder.

One Democratic senator tells CNN congressional Democrats are “baffled,” and another senior Democratic source tells CNN members of the president’s own party are still “frustrated” that they’re not getting more specific direction from him on health care.

“We appreciate the rhetoric and his willingness to ratchet up the pressure but what most Democrats on the Hill are looking for is for the president to weigh in and make decisions on outstanding issues. Instead of sending out his people and saying the president isn’t ruling anything out, members would like a little bit of clarity on what he would support – especially on how to pay for his health reform bill,” a senior Democratic congressional source tells CNN.

The Democratic leadership had hoped the work going on behind closed doors for months could bear fruit in time for the president’s news conference Wednesday night. But multiple Democratic sources tell CNN that’s looking very unlikely, and one senior Democratic source tells CNN there is some frustration among Democratic leaders that Senate negotiators have, "repeatedly missed deadlines."

No member of Congress should ever be voting for any bill if they have not read it all the way through and completely understand what is in it.

We should also hold the Democrats to their promise of openess and transparency and demand that they stop negotiating behind closed doors.

You can access the original entry on-line here:

Senator: Democrats 'Baffled' By President's Health Care Stance
Dana Bash
CNN Blogs
July 21, 2009

Congressional Report Exposes Fraud And Corrpution With ACORN

Most of us have known that the voter-fraud organization known as ACORN is among the most corrupt entities being given access to Capitol Hill by the Democrats. Now, a new report coming out of Congress shows that the corruption runs deeper than we first thought.

From Fox News:

[T]he report offers the first detailed account of the allegations that have dogged the organization in recent months.

The executive summary of the report says ACORN provided contributions of financial and personnel resources to indicted former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown and candidate Obama, among others, in what the report calls a scheme to use taxpayer money to support a partisan political agenda, which would be a clear violation of numerous tax and election laws.

"Both structurally and operationally, ACORN hides behind a paper wall of nonprofit corporate protections to conceal a criminal conspiracy on the part of its directors, to launder federal money in order to pursue a partisan agenda and to manipulate the American electorate," an executive summary of the report reads.

Of course, ACORN is denying all charges. But they cannot deny the facts in the case:

The report accuses ACORN, after receiving more than $53 million in federal funds since 1994, of blurring the legal distinctions among 361 tax-exempt and non-exempt entities to divert that money into partisan political activities.

Evidence found in the report relies in part on documents provided by former ACORN employees.

"Operationally, ACORN is a shell game played in 120 cities, 43 states and the District of Columbia through a complex structure designed to conceal illegal activities, to use taxpayer and tax-exempt dollars for partisan political purposes, and to distract investigators," the report read.

"Structurally, ACORN is a chess game in which senior management is shielded from accountability by multiple layers of volunteers and compensated employees who serve as pawns to take the fall for every bad act."

These are very serious findings that we Americans should take note of and demand accountability from our elected representatives.

Here's why:

It would be up to the chairman of the oversight panel to hold hearings on the ACORN report and up to the Justice Department to pursue a criminal investigation. Likewise, the census director will determine whether ACORN remains a partner with the U.S. Census Bureau to assist with the recruitment of the 1.4 million temporary workers needed to go door-to-door to count every person in the United States.

Do we want an organization that actively engages in voter fraud and other corrupt activities to be involved in something so important as a Constitutionally mandated census?

No. We do not. ACORN should be dissolved and their leaders arrested and frog-marched to prison.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

GOP Congressional Report Accuses ACORN Of Political Corruption, Widespread Fraud
July 22, 2009

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Obamacare Would Give Preference To Illegals Over American Citizens

Here is another example of how Barack Obama and the Democrats puts the needs of America secondary to their political ambitions with non-Americans. If the socialized health care package currently being created by the Senate Finance Committee goes through, millions of illegals will be given preference over legitimate American citizens when it comes to receiving and having to pay for health care.

From Michelle Malkin at Town Hall:

Last week, the House Ways and Means Committee defeated an amendment that would have prevented illegal aliens from using the so-called "public health insurance option." Every Democrat on the panel voted against the measure.

Nevada GOP Rep. Dean Heller's measure would have enforced income, eligibility and immigration verification screening on all Obamacare patients.

And she asks a very good question:

If the congressional majority are truly committed to President Obama's quest to wring cost savings from the system, why won't they adopt the same anti-fraud checks imposed on other government health and welfare beneficiaries? Maybe an intrepid reporter could ask the president at his next Obamacare show to explain.

But given that Obama scripts all of his press conferences and tells reporters what questions they can or cannot ask, don't count on it.

And despite the fact that the Dems claim coverage for illegals is "too politicaly explosive" to happen, reality is bearing out differently:

Obama lit the fuse in February when he signed the massive expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. That law loosened eligibility requirements for legal immigrants and their children by watering down document and evidentiary standards -- making it easy for individuals to use fake Social Security cards to apply for benefits with little to no chance of getting caught. In addition, Obama's S-CHIP expansion revoked Medicaid application time limits that were part of the 1996 welfare reform law. Immigration activists see the provisions as first steps toward universal coverage for illegals.


[T]he Senate Finance Committee plan creates a new preference for illegal aliens by exempting them from the mandate to buy insurance.

That's right. Law-abiding, uninsured Americans would be fined if they didn't submit to the Obamacare prescription. Law-breaking border-crossers, visa-overstayers and deportation fugitives would be spared.

And if that wasn't enough, many illegals are adding insult to injury like illegal alien Jose Lopez:

"I'm just mad," illegal alien Jose Lopez told the Los Angeles Times last year after receiving two taxpayer-subsidized liver transplants while impatiently awaiting approval for state health insurance.

Now, multiply that sense of entitlement by 12 million to 20 million illegal immigrants. Welcome to the open-borders Obamacare nightmare.

And despite the claims of immigration amnesty advocates that illegals are not already getting free health care, one need only look at the fiscal crisis in California and the fact that they are cutting staff and closing clinics due to the cost of providing free non-emergency care to illegals. Texas paid $1.3 billion for illegals in 2006 and Medicaid for illegals rose 28% in North Carolina.

Socialized health care was supposed to reduce costs for Americans, not increase them.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Obamacare For Illegal Aliens
Michelle Malkin
July 22, 2009

Mayo Clinic Calls House Plan 'Bad Medicine'

Love these little news nuggets that ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN deliberately ignore. It is stories like this that illustrate why blogs like mine are so important.

Barack Obama once pointed to the Mayo clinic as an example of how quality health can be achieved. But that same organization is now criticizing the efforts of Obama and the Democrats in Congress to bring about socialized health care.

From the Washington Times:

Minnesota's not-for-profit Mayo Clinic, which Mr. Obama has repeatedly hailed as offering top quality care at affordable costs, blasted the House Democrats' version of the health care plan as lawmakers continue to grapple with several bills from each chamber and multiple committees.

The Mayo Clinic said there are some positive elements of the bill, but overall "the proposed legislation misses the opportunity to help create higher quality, more affordable health care for patients."

"In fact, it will do the opposite," clinic officials said, because the proposals aren't patient-focused or results-oriented. "The real losers will be the citizens of the United States."

Anyone who has seen the following flow chart can see that the Mayo Clinic criticism is dead on target.

Can you find the Doctor-Patient relationship in this thing?

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Mayo Clinic Calls House Plan Bad Medicine
Christina Bellantoni and Jennifer Haberkorn
The Washington Times
July 21, 2009

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Another Broken Obama Promise: No Transparency In Health Care Legislation Deals

This is how desperate Barack Obama is getting.

From Sharon Theimer of the Associated Press via Town Hall:

In cutting deals with hospitals and drugmakers, President Barack Obama is giving a private inside track to special interests that's at odds with his promise to make policy in the open.

Obama promised Americans he would hold special interests at arm's length _ that it would no longer be business as usual in Washington. He pledged to open government and let the public and press hold his administration accountable.

And just over two months before the 2008 election, Obama promised before an audience in Chester, Va., to hash out a health care overhaul in public. "We'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies," he said then.

That didn't happen.

Again, we have to ask why Obama does not want this stuff out in public. Because he does not want the public to analyze what this socialized health care package really means, what it will really costs and what it would do to the quality of health care we receive now under private insurance.


[T]he administration's multibillion-dollar deals with hospitals and pharmaceutical companies have been made in private, and the results were announced after the fact. Both industries promised Obama cost savings in return for an expanded base of insured patients; beyond that, the public is in the dark about details.


"There's beginning to be a little bit of, 'Where are all these deals getting us?'" E. Neil Trautwein, chief health care lobbyist for the National Retail Federation, said recently, referring to business concerns that the hospital and drug company pacts would force employers to pay more for workers' medical benefits. "Is this going to add to the process or subtract from it?"

The White House had no immediate comment.

Nor will they until after the fact. Obama is hell-bent on forcing this package through Congress before the general public can figure out what Washington is trying to force down our throats.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

PROMISES, PROMISES: Private Deals On Health Care
Sharon Theimer
Associated Press via TownHall.com
July 21, 2009

Health Care Lies From The Obama White House

It's no secret that Barack Obama is getting desperate to pass a nationalized health care bill. With many Blue-Dog Democrats lining up against the measure, time is clearly running out for Obama, Pelosi and Reid. But what time-frame are we talking about?

We are talking about the time-frame in which Congress and the President can pass this disastrous bill before too many more Americans read what is in it and discover what it is really all about.

Writing for Town Hall, David Limbaugh notes several inaccuracies and outright lies in the arguments made for this socialized medicine package:

--Despite White House-generated hysteria about the urgency of reform, the only urgency is in preventing this fiasco because it would destroy America's economy and liberty. Doing nothing -- even given the many problems that exist under the present system -- is far preferable to adopting this monster.

--Proponents claim the present system leaves 47 million people without insurance and unable to get it. Bull. Almost half of these uninsured could afford coverage but choose not to obtain it; almost half only remain uninsured for four months; and millions are noncitizens. Moreover, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that 17 million would remain uninsured after the plan is implemented.

--Obama says his plan is not socialized medicine because he's just providing a "public option" to make the private insurers more competitive. Well, he's stacking the deck with mandated coverage -- which, by definition, reduces competition -- and subsidizing the public option. He would provide incentives to businesses to move employees to the public plan. Also, once you lose your insurance, your coverage choices would no longer be grandfathered, and you'd be forced to buy a plan that includes Big Brother's mandates -- meaning most would gravitate toward the government plan. A single-payer system is virtually inevitable.

--The plan is being sold as a necessary element of reviving the economy. No one, including the Congressional Budget Office, believes this bill would improve our economy, and most believe it would exacerbate our problems. The bill, with its taxes on successful small businesses and its Draconian regulations, would destroy job creation, as would increases to the deficit and debt the bill would cause.

--Health care costs would not be reduced, but increased -- and shifted. Studies show that preventive care measures would not reduce costs. More importantly, the CBO says that even with the planned confiscatory taxes on higher-income earners (which no one can deny constitute real costs to them) and the penalties on employers who don't provide coverage, the plan would fall $239 billion short of covering its initial cost estimates of $1 trillion. And that's assuming everything goes well. But cost estimates for government programs are always understated. The actual costs for Medicare Part A were $67 billion, seven times higher than the government's 1965 projections of $9 billion. Even worse, the Medicaid special hospitals subsidy was $11 billion, more than 100 times the government's projection of $100 million in 1987, just years earlier. The only efforts at cost containment would come from artificial price controls, which would result in rationing -- most likely for the elderly.

--The quality of socialized health care would not be improved as promised, but would necessarily deteriorate, as it has in all countries that have tried it and in our own government-run experiments of veterans care, Medicaid and Medicare. It's inescapably true -- as noted by Dr. Thomas Sowell -- that price controls would reduce quality care because they would reduce the incentive to provide quality.

--Health care choices would not be expanded, but essentially eliminated, by government mandate. The White House isn't even denying it would force taxpayer-subsidized abortions.

The longer it takes to get this abomination through Congress, the more time people have to study it and learn about the points Limbaugh made in the above excerpt.

Socialized health care has been a disaster in every single country it has ever been tried in. So much so that countries like Great Britain and Switzerland had to bring back privatized care in order to achieve the universal coverage that was so woefully missing from their nationalized systems.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

More Health Care Lies
David Limbaugh
July 21, 2009

Star Parker: Government Health Care Plantation Looms

I love reading Star Parker's columns. She seems to have a way of looking at things, not necessarily from an opposite direction, but just enough of a different direction that things tend to become clearer. Her latest column concerning socialized medicine does just that.

From Town Hall:

Rather than moving dysfunctional America off the welfare state, as we did with welfare reform in 1996, we are now moving the free, functioning, and once prosperous part of our nation onto the welfare state.

Bills out of committees in both the House and the Senate contain all the elements of President Obama's dream to get as many Americans onto the government health care plantation as possible.

That's right. Instead of getting people off of a dependence on the government, socialized health care is an attempt to get people dependent on the government.


We've got creation of the new government run insurance plan that supposedly will create new competition. We've got fines on employers who don't provide insurance and fines on individuals who don't buy it.

And we've got the trillions of dollars in new spending to subsidize insurance purchases for low to middle income Americans and expand Medicaid to get more low income Americans into it.

And, of course, we've got the massive new government bureaucracy to oversee it all.

You read that right. More fines and more taxes. Health care reform was supposed to make things less expensive but the fines and taxes are going to make it more expensive for us. And why is Obama so hell bent on fining someone who chooses not to buy health insurance?

Here's some more insight you won't read about in Old Media:

Obama continues to tell the many millions of Americans currently insured through their employer not to worry, that "If you like your health care plan you can keep that..."

But we know this is a slight of hand. Many employers will gladly pay the fine and purge their employees into the government plan. And how will private plans possibly compete with the government plan when politicians can reach into taxpayer pockets anytime they want to keep on subsidizing it?

The Lewin Group estimates that a hundred twenty million Americans may be driven into the government plan.

120 million Americans. (140 if you count the 20 million illegals who will be eligible for taxpayer-funded health care.) And how are we going to pay for health care for all of them? New taxes. If you are one of the top 5% earners who happens to live in the state of Maryland, then you will be paying over 50 cents on every dollar you work to earn if the new taxes to pay for other people's health care goes through.

And about that promise to keep private insurance companies "honest?" Let's look at the government's track record on that:

Harvard's Malcom Sparrow, a specialist in health-care fraud, estimates annual Medicare fraud at $85 billion.

The Government Accountability Office estimates Medicaid fraud at around $33 billion annually.

So that's $120 billion a year in government health care fraud! This is who will keep private companies "honest?"

This socialized health care plan is a disaster waiting to happen, just as it happened in every other country it has been tried in.

We need to stop it before it wrecks the entire health system.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Government Health Care Plantation Looms
Star Parker
July 20, 2009

Star Parker is the author of Uncle Sam's Plantation:

Uncle Sam's Plantation on amazon.com

Monday, July 20, 2009

Geithner Travels Globe Essentially Begging For Money To Finance U.S. Debt

I know. The actual headline of the referenced article reads "pitching U.S. debt" but we all know what this really amounts to. It is a vindication of Margaret Thatcher when she said: "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."

Unfortunately for Obama and his Democrat cronies, it happened much sooner than they expected. So now, Secretary Geithner must go abroad and seek new infusions of funds to support what amounts to a socialist agenda.

From the Associated Press:

Timothy Geithner, architect of bank, auto and economic rescue plans, has another high-stakes job these days: traveling bond salesman.


Geithner, who traveled last week to the Middle East and Europe, has to convince foreign investors to keep buying Treasury bills, notes and bonds; they hold nearly half of the government's roughly $7 trillion in publicly traded debt.

But all of this comes with very grave dangers to the U.S. economy. Not just selling the debt but the deficit spending which drives the debt up even further.

Read on:

If foreign demand for U.S. debt sags, that could drive up interest rates and spell big trouble for an economy hobbled by 9.5 percent unemployment. Higher rates would make it more expensive for consumers to buy homes and cars, and for businesses to finance their operations.

In the worst case scenario, a rush by foreigners to sell their U.S. debt could send the dollar crashing and inflation soaring.

Although some analysts say that this would never happen, don't pretend that the possibility isn't there. After all, the analysts were convinced that the Japanese would never be able to attack Pearl Harbor.

But there are some very telling signs about how the rest of the world feels about our government's current spending spree:

Last month, [Geithner] visited China, the largest foreign holder of U.S. Treasuries. That trip was marked by an extra dose of drama. In March, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao said his country was concerned about the "safety" of the large amounts of money it had lent to the United States.


The deficit-cutting proposals the administration has so far revealed would fall far short of what is needed.

"If the Obama administration has a credible plan to bring the deficits down, they are keeping it a deep secret at the moment," said Michael Mussa, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute and former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund.

With nearly three months left in the budget year, the Obama administration forecasts that this year's deficit will total $1.84 trillion, more than four times the size of last year's record tally.


When Geithner told a packed auditorium at Peking University that Chinese investments in the U.S. were safe, his comment was greeted by laughter.

That should have been a huge eye-opener to Geithner, Obama and the Democrats who continue to call for spending like drunken sailors.

It should be a huge eye-opener for the rest of us as well.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Geithner Travels Globe, Pitching U.S. Debt
Associated Press via MSNBC
July 19, 2009

That's One Small Step For Man ...

... one giant leap for mankind." -Neil Armstrong, July 20, 1969.

Happy Anniversary, Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Mike Collins!

While Neil and Buzz took a stoll on the lunar surface, Astronaut Mike Collins was orbiting in the Apollo 11 Command Module making sure that the other two would be able to make it home safely.

BTW, for all the conspiracy theorists who point to a "waving" flag on an airless moon as proof of a fake landing, you should know that the American flag on the moon had wire mesh in its fabric. This is precisely because in an airless environment, the flag would simply hang limp and show up in photos as nothing more than a swatch of fabric.

How Does The Flag Wave On the Moon?
August 13, 2006

Friday, July 17, 2009

Congressional Budget Office: Nationalized Health Care Will Increase Costs, Not Reduce Them

So, the CBO has finally admitted what we Conservatives have known for many, many years. Nationalized health care will be more expensive, not less expensive as promised by the leftist Dems.

From David Clarke and Edward Epstein of CQ Politics:

The health care overhauls released to date would increase, not reduce, the burgeoning long-term health costs facing the government, Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf said Thursday.

That is not a message likely to sit well with congressional Democrats or the Obama administration ...

But, for a Democrat-controlled Congress that has engaged in more out-of-control spending than their Republican predecessors, why is this an issue?

Read on:

The Democrats and President Obama have cited two goals in their overhaul proposals — expanding coverage to the estimated 47 million Americans who currently lack it and bringing down long-term costs because the growth in Medicare and Medicaid spending threatens to swamp the federal budget in coming years.

Under questioning from Chairman Kent Conrad , D-N.D., Elmendorf told the Senate Budget Committee that the congressional proposals released so far do not meet that second test.

“In the legislation that has been reported, we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount and, on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs,” he said

Welcome back to Planet Earth, Democrats.

Does anyone here think that drafting these bills behind closed door (thereby directly breaking the Dem promise of openness and transparancy) was a good idea?

You can access the complete article on-line here:

CBO Chief: Health Bills To Increase Federal Costs
David Clarke and Edward Epstein
CQ Politics
July 16, 2009

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Florida The Latest State To Consider Sovereignty

From the Tenth Amendment Center:

State Senator Carey Baker (R-Eustis) has introduced a memorial in the Florida Senate reaffirming the principles of the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The memorial, awaiting an official Senate number, urges “Congress to honor the provisions of the Constitution of the United States and United States Supreme Court case law which limit the scope and exercise of federal power.”

“Now more than ever, state governments must exercise their Constitutional right to say no to the expansion of the federal government’s reckless deficit spending and abuse of power,” Senator Baker said. “With this resolution, our Legislature can send a message to Washington that our state’s rights must be respected.”

Those who ignore or dismiss such proceedings do so at the peril of the Union.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Florida Senate To Consider State Sovereignty
Michael Boldin
The Tenth Amendment Center
July 16, 2009

The New 'Web Of Bureaucracy' In Democrats' Socialized Medicine Plan

You won't see this on ABC, NBC, CBS, or CNN. A report from Fox News:

House Democrats' health care reform bill would create a mind-boggling "web of bureaucracy," Republican critics charged Wednesday as they sought to block Democrats from hastily passing a costly and sweeping health package on orders from President Obama.

Stressing his point, House Minority Leader John Boehner unveiled a dizzying flow chart that he said would represent how health care coverage would look under the plan being pushed by House Democrats.

The chart shows the president and Congress at the top, with dozens of agencies and officials responsible for various slices of the health care program underneath.

"On orders from President Obama." Interesting line. No concern for what the American people want. Just blindly follow the orders of the President. I seem to remember a time just a few years ago when the Dems railed against people who "blindly followed orders."

Here is the chart:

And here is what it means:

"What this is going to do is ration care, limit the choices that patients and doctors have and really decrease the quality of our health care system."

Estimates of the House Democrats' plan range from $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion over 10 years, with much of the cost offset by a surtax on the wealthy.

If the Dems pass this abomination, then, when health care quality takes a nose dive like it did under the socialized systems of Great Britain and Canada, then the Dems are the ones who will have to take the blame.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Republicans Warn Of 'Web Of Bureaucracy' In Democrats' Health Care Plan
July 15, 2009

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Obama Rewrites Cold War History To Appease Our Enemies

Appeasement only works in the fantasy world of leftist minds. Out here in reality, it has never worked and only resulted in more devasting conflicts.

Read the following Liz Cheney column from the Wall Street Journal:

There are two different versions of the story of the end of the Cold War: the Russian version, and the truth. President Barack Obama endorsed the Russian version in Moscow last week.

Speaking to a group of students, our president explained it this way: "The American and Soviet armies were still massed in Europe, trained and ready to fight. The ideological trenches of the last century were roughly in place. Competition in everything from astrophysics to athletics was treated as a zero-sum game. If one person won, then the other person had to lose. And then within a few short years, the world as it was ceased to be. Make no mistake: This change did not come from any one nation. The Cold War reached a conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years, and because the people of Russia and Eastern Europe stood up and decided that its end would be peaceful."

The truth, of course, is that the Soviets ran a brutal, authoritarian regime. The KGB killed their opponents or dragged them off to the Gulag. There was no free press, no freedom of speech, no freedom of worship, no freedom of any kind. The basis of the Cold War was not "competition in astrophysics and athletics." It was a global battle between tyranny and freedom. The Soviet "sphere of influence" was delineated by walls and barbed wire and tanks and secret police to prevent people from escaping. America was an unmatched force for good in the world during the Cold War. The Soviets were not. The Cold War ended not because the Soviets decided it should but because they were no match for the forces of freedom and the commitment of free nations to defend liberty and defeat Communism.

It is irresponsible for an American president to go to Moscow and tell a room full of young Russians less than the truth about how the Cold War ended. One wonders whether this was just an attempt to push "reset" -- or maybe to curry favor. Perhaps, most concerning of all, Mr. Obama believes what he said.

Mr. Obama's method for pushing reset around the world is becoming clearer with each foreign trip. He proclaims moral equivalence between the U.S. and our adversaries, he readily accepts a false historical narrative, and he refuses to stand up against anti-American lies.

The approach was evident in his speech in Moscow and in his speech in Cairo last month. In Cairo, he asserted there was some sort of equivalence between American support for the 1953 coup in Iran and the evil that the Iranian mullahs have done in the world since 1979. On an earlier trip to Mexico City, the president listened to an extended anti-American screed by Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega and then let the lies stand by responding only with, "I'm grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for the things that occurred when I was 3 months old."

Asked at a NATO meeting in France in April whether he believed in American exceptionalism, the president said, "I believe in American Exceptionalism just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." In other words, not so much.

The Obama administration does seem to believe in another kind of exceptionalism -- Obama exceptionalism. "We have the best brand on Earth: the Obama brand," one Obama handler has said. What they don't seem to realize is that once you're president, your brand is America, and the American people expect you to defend us against lies, not embrace or ignore them. We also expect you to know your history.

Mr. Obama has become fond of saying, as he did in Russia again last week, that American nuclear disarmament will encourage the North Koreans and the Iranians to give up their nuclear ambitions. Does he really believe that the North Koreans and the Iranians are simply waiting for America to cut funds for missile defense and reduce our strategic nuclear stockpile before they halt their weapons programs?

The White House ought to take a lesson from President Harry Truman. In April, 1950, Truman signed National Security Council report 68 (NSC-68). One of the foundational documents of America's Cold War strategy, NSC-68 explains the danger of disarming America in the hope of appeasing our enemies. "No people in history," it reads, "have preserved their freedom who thought that by not being strong enough to protect themselves they might prove inoffensive to their enemies."

Perhaps Mr. Obama thinks he is making America inoffensive to our enemies. In reality, he is emboldening them and weakening us. America can be disarmed literally -- by cutting our weapons systems and our defensive capabilities -- as Mr. Obama has agreed to do. We can also be disarmed morally by a president who spreads false narratives about our history or who accepts, even if by his silence, our enemies' lies about us.

That column hits the nail right on the head.

You can access the orginal column on-line here:

Obama Rewrites The Cold War
Liz Cheney
Wall Street Journal
July 13, 2009

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Mario Diaz: Sotomayor Stands Alone

This is a fantastic column by a Latino about Sonia Sotomayor:

“Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.” — Judge Sonia Sotomayor, October 26, 2001 speech at the University of California–Berkley.

Really? So now judges are supposed to ignore facts because they don’t comport with their heritage? As a Hispanic, I can proudly say Judge Sotomayor’s views do not represent my views or those of the Hispanic community in which I participate. Do you want to know what we believe in? We believe in justice, fairness, freedom, and equality. I have never met a Latino who thinks he is wiser than a white person because he is a Latino. Sotomayor stands alone on that one.

Although I proudly join her in celebrating her heritage, I strongly disagree with her judicial philosophy. I believe judges must look away from personal heritage and look to the rule of law. Judge Sotomayor’s own words indicate that she is incapable of doing this. Therefore, senators should not confirm her to the Supreme Court.

The idea that personal experience instead of facts and law should determine the outcome of cases runs counter to the underlying premise upon which our judicial system is founded: Equal Justice Under the Law. President Obama and Judge Sotomayor have apparently proposed a new system: Justice According to Race, Gender or Sexual Preference. They propose we rip the blindfold from Lady Justice, destroying the very foundation of the ideals we strive for.

One need look no further than the Ricci and Maloney opinions to understand why everyone, including Latinos, should be concerned about Judge Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy.

Sotomayor’s opinion in Ricci is just the latest example of her judicial philosophy in which she chooses to ignore facts to advance a cause in which she believes. Apparently discrimination against certain kinds of people is okay with Sotomayor, no matter what the law says. Reversing her decision, the very Supreme Court to which she aspires was clear in its disagreement with such a stance, stating, “[t]he City made its employment decision because of race. [It] rejected the test results solely because the higher scoring candidates were white. … [A]fter the tests were completed, the raw racial results became the predominant rationale for the City’s refusal to certify the results.”

In Maloney, Judge Sotomayor ruled that “[i]t is settled law … the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right.” She based her ruling on a case that dated back to 1886, before the Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights applies to the states. In Judge Sotomayor’s view, every amendment in the Bill of Rights, except the Second Amendment, represents a fundamental right. Why? Because she says so.

Ironically, while Judge Sotomayor believes that gun ownership is not a fundamental right, she believes that the right to have an abortion is fundamental.

No matter your heritage, Americans should be concerned about a judge who believes that the “court of appeals is where policy is made.” The bench is not the place to create, make, or advance personal preferences on public policy and impose them on the American people.

An activist ruling by the Supreme Court comes with dire consequences. In examining Judge Sotomayor’s record, senators must look past her Latina heritage and directly at her judicial philosophy. A Justice of the Supreme Court, regardless of his or her heritage, must be able to uphold Constitutional principles for all people, not just the ones that look like me.

Says it all, doesn't it?

You can access the original column on-line here:

Sotomayor Stands Alone
Mario Diaz
July 13, 2009

Jetliner Fuselage Fails; Could There Be Connection With Mechanics Who Can't Read Or Speak English?

I'm sure everyone is aware of this story:

Passengers Pray As Jetliner Pops A Hole
Shawn Nottingham and Stephanie Gallman
July 14, 2009

From which we read:

Southwest Flight 2294 made an emergency stop in Charleston, West Virginia, on Monday after a football-sized hole in its fuselage caused the cabin to depressurize, an airline spokeswoman said.

There were no injuries aboard the Boeing 737, which was traveling at about 34,000 feet when the problem occurred, Southwest spokeswoman Marilee McInnis told CNN.


"About 45 minutes into the flight, there was a loud pop. No one really knew what it was," passenger Steve Hall told CNN Radio.

Well, I can't say what caused this accident, but I do remember posting the following blog entry back in May:

Airlines Are Hiring Mechanics Who Can’t Speak English Or Even Read The Maintenance Manuals
May 20, 2009

From which we learned:

Aircraft repair requires even experienced mechanics to frequently consult manuals that are written in English and leave a detailed record of what repairs they have made, according to WFAA-TV.

Still, hundreds of mechanics working in the more than 236 FAA-certified aircraft repair stations in Texas were not familiar enough with the English language to even read the manuals that coincide with the kinds of planes they were expected to fix, WFAA reported.

“There are people [where I work] who do not know how to read maintenance manuals as they are spelled out, because they don’t have a clue,” one Texas aircraft mechanic told the station.

But hiring a certified mechanic in Texas costs upwards of $25 an hour, compared to the less than $10 technicians who can’t speak English will do the work for.

Is the fact that airlines have been hiring illegals who cannot read or speak English to do aircraft maintenance related to the Southwest Airlines accident? I don't know. Can we dismiss the possibility that they may be related? Absolutely not.

What is it going to take, people?

Sotomayor Defends 'Wise Latina' Remark; Wants To Be Held To A Different Standard

Can you imagine if a white, Republican male said, "I can make better decisions than a Latina woman without similar experiences" what the reaction from Old Media and the leftist Democrats would be? Such a man would be run out of town and his political or legal career would be over. Period.

But, when a Latina woman makes the reverse statment, Old Media and the leftist Dems fall in love with her.

Whatever happened to Obama's promise of a "post-racial" America? He broke it when he nominated Sotmayor to the Supreme Court. Of course, the Dems in the Senate will validate the broken promise by rubber-stamping Obama's nomination, but the rest of America has taken note of this.

Here is Sotmayor's attempt at garnering sympathy for her own miscue:

"I want to state upfront, unequivocally and without doubt: I do not believe that any racial, ethnic or gender group has an advantage in sound judging. I do believe that every person has an equal opportunity to be a good and wise judge, regardless of their background or life experiences," Sotomayor declared.

Except when refering to herself as a "wise Latina." Then she seems to be all about racial identity.

It even showed in her decision against the white firefighters of New Haven, Connecticut. She and two other judges ruled that it was okay to toss out promotion exam results because not enough "non-white" firefighters scored high enough to get promotions. That was clearly a racial decision and thankfully, the Supreme Court overturned her.

Even though the Dems are going to force the confirmation, the Republicans are going to make sure that the public knows as much about her as possible, especially those things that Old Media and the Dems don't want you to know.

[T]he GOP made clear, despite the Democrats' Senate majority that makes her confirmation likely, it would not let Sotomayor's hearings pass without raising questions about her impartiality. By extension, Republicans also are attacking Obama for what they see as a double standard in calling for her quick confirmation after he voted against President George W. Bush's two high-court appointees.

The thrust of the Republican case against Sotomayor stems from a variation of a line she used on several occasions between 1994 and 2003 in which she talked about personal experience and judging.

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life," Sotomayor said in a speech at 2001 at the University of California, Berkeley, law school.

The Dems are going to hold her to a lower standard but the Republicans will try to hold her to the same standard that the Dems would hold for a white male.

You should also read about Sotomayor's relationship with the vote-fraud organization known as ACORN:

Sotomayor And ACORN Joined At The Hip
Rick Moran
The American Thinker
July 3, 2009

Sotomayor will be confirmed. And I will make the prediction that in her rulings on the Supreme Court, she will inject the racial and prejudicial character of her previous speeches and her left-wing outlook into her decisions. I doubt she will be anything that she is proclaiming before the Senate and everything that the leftist, socialist Obama wants her to be.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Sotomayor Defends 'Wise Latina' Remark
Mark Sherman
July 14, 2009

For The First Time In History, We Have A $1 Trillion Deficit

For all of you libs out there who are constantly repeating like trained parrots that George W. Bush brought us a $1 trillion deficit, the truth has come out. The honor of the first $1 trillion deficit goes to Barack Obama.

From Martin Crutsinger of the Associated Press:

Nine months into the fiscal year, the federal deficit has topped $1 trillion for the first time.

The imbalance is intensifying fears about higher interest rates and inflation, and pressuring the value of the dollar.

There’s also concern about trying to reverse the deficit — by reducing government spending or raising taxes — in the midst of a harsh recession.

The Treasury Department said Monday that the deficit in June was $94.3 billion, pushing the total since the budget year started in October to nearly $1.1 trillion.

The Dems and Obama could have prevented this by cutting spending, but they didn't.

The deficit has been propelled by the huge sum the government has spent to combat the recession and financial crisis, combined with a sharp decline in tax revenues.

I learned back in the 4th grade that one cannot spend more money than one makes. Companies go bankrupt, families lose homes and businesses close when that type of money mismanagement occurs. But the danger here is that the dollar might very well collapse and cause our entire economy to crash down around us.

You have to wonder if the Dems realize this, or do they live in a fantasy world where they believe that spending like drunken sailors is a good thing?

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Budget Deficit Tops $1 Trillion For First Time
Martin Crutsinger
Associated Press via KansasCity.com
July 13, 2009

Holy War In Virginia: Islamic School Wants To Expand

Right in our backyard in Fairfax County. A Saudi-owned Islamic school is trying to expand its campus and a group of local residents are trying to stop it.

From Fox News:

The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing Monday night to consider a proposal to expand the campus of the Islamic Saudi Academy, a Saudi-owned college preparatory school.

Critics of the plan point to former students of the school who have been convicted in a plot to assassinate former President Bush, and more recently, arrested for trying to board an airplane with a seven-inch kitchen knife.

That is the end result of Wahabbism: young terrorists. And this is a Wahabbi school.

But, there are other issues here as well:

"We're opposed to the operation of the Islamic Saudi Academy because it teaches and practices Shariah law," said James Lafferty, chairman of the Virginia Anti-Shariah Task Force (VAST).


Lafferty said his organization is a coalition with roughly 10 other groups that oppose the land-use expansion. By teaching Shariah law, Lafferty says, the school replaces the U.S. Constitution with a "very backward and barbaric" rule of law.

"Shariah law advocates rights via gender and religion," Lafferty told FOXNews.com. "They allocate rights by gender and religion. If you are a male who is Islamic, you have rights. If you're not, you have no rights."

That alone is reason enough for this school to lose any accreditation at the very least.

But, I wonder how the government would respond if this were a Catholic School, or a Protestant Christian Academy, or a Jewish School. Would there even have been a debate? Or would the government simply have told the school "No" and be done with it?

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Coalition Fights Expansion Of Islamic Saudi Academy In Virginia
Joshua Rhett Miller
Fox News
July 13, 2009

Monday, July 13, 2009

As The Cap And Trade Energy Tax Heads To The Senate, We Must Look At Who Will Profit From It

One of the principles of ethics that should govern politicians and their dealings with the private sector is that politicians should not be voting on legislation that directly involves their own personal investments. Ideally, politicians shouldn't be investing in the market at all since they can vote to influence the market in their favor. If they do have investments in the private sector, then they should recuse themsleves from voting on any legislation that would influence the profitability of those investments.

The Cap and Trace Energy Tax recently passed by the House of Representatives is a good case in point. Several lawmakers will enjoy direct financial benefits from the legislation should it become law. Among these are Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

From Mark Tapscott at the Washington Examiner:

How much money will Pelosi make if the measure (Obama-Waxman-Markey (OWM)) becomes law, as seems quite likely?

Pelosi, of course, is not the only member of Congress to own significant shares of energy companies. Senators and representatives from all over the country do, not just the "oilies" from energy states like Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana.

But as House Speaker, Pelosi's ownership of an unknown number of shares in the Clean Energy Fuels Corp. (CLNE) valued at between $15,000 and $50,000, may deserve particular attention.


Pelosi will profit because OWM will boost the price of natural gas on the market. This is because natural gas burns with significantly less carbon emissions than other fossil fuels. For companies trying to get under OWM limits for greenhouse gases emissions, burning more natural gas instead of, say coal, will be a no-brainer. That will drive up demand for natural gas, which in turn will create upward price pressures.

Pelosi claims that her husband handles the stocks and that she has no knowledge of what stocks he is purchasing. This is an irrelevent cop-out. Mr. Pelosi knows very well what legislation his wife is working on and whether or not it is likely to be passed. He further knows what effect such legislation would have on the stocks he will be purchasing. That is the same thing as insider trading and that makes it every bit as unethical as it would be if Speaker Pelosi purchased the stocks herself.

Rather than fulfill her 2006 promise of ridding D.C. of the culture of corruption, Pelosi and her fellow Dems simply claimed the cess pool as their own, jumped in and began splashing around.

You can access this story on on-line here:

Pelosi Will Profit From Obama-Waxman-Markey Cap-And-Trade Energy Bill
Mark Tapscott
Washington Examiner
June 24, 2009

And who else stands to make bank from this legislation? Al Gore and Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) for two. Markey holds between $51,000 and $115,000 in investments in Firsthand Technology Value Fund (solar-evergy manufacturers) and Al Gore has $6 million in the Venture Capital Group (CO2 emmissions tracking software), both of which will make very nice profits under the cap-and-trade tax. Profits that will come from fleecing the American people through higher taxes.

Before this gets voted on in the Senate, we should seriously look into which members of Congress will make a profit off of it and how they voted or intend to vote.

Saturday, July 11, 2009

Book Review: COMMON SENSE By Glenn Beck

The out-of-control government spending we are witnessing right now began under George W. Bush. That much is true. But, just because Bush did it does that mean that it is okay for Obama and the Dems to accelerate it? No, absolutely not. If Bush was wrong for running up a $2 trillion debt, then Obama is five and a half times as wrong for wanting to run up an $11 trillion debt. (For those of you who don't understand the math, here is the equation: 11/2 = 5 1/2.)

That basically sums up Glenn Beck's thesis in his #1 bestseller Common Sense. Taking some inspiration from Thomas Paine, the author of the original Common Sense, Glenn has built up an argument that shows us why we, as a nation, are on the wrong path, what will likely happen as a result of going down this path and why we should hold those in power (both Democrat and Republican) accountable for what they've done.

The Founding Fathers who wrote the U.S. Constitution knew what dangers there were in a government that over-reaches its powers. Glenn reminds us of this throughout the book with passages such as the following:

Thomas Jefferson knew that government debt was not only bad economic policy but also morally unacceptable because it effectively makes your children responsible to pay for what you bought. He said, "The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale." If that wasn't clear enough, he also said that politicians should consider themselves "unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay them ourselves ..."

I am not aware of any other commentator who even knows about that quote from Jefferson much less actually reminds us of it. But, since most of us don't know the numbers or don't seem to care enough about what those numbers mean, we simply let it go and expect someone else to handle the problem for us.

That is not possible in the current situation. Here's why: Our interest payment to service our debt stands at $26 billion per month. That's right, per month. That's money that is sent to our creditors rather than going to upgrade schools or roads here in the U.S. Multiply that by 12 and you get $312 billion per year. If the government taxed away the total profits of Exxon-Mobil, General Electric, Wal-Mart and IBM, we wouldn't even have enough to pay one-third of the interest payment on the debt much less pay down the debt! Where is the rest of this money going to come from? Small businesses? Higher taxes on the middle class? (As I write this, the Dems in Congress are already working on several new plans that will raise taxes and depress our economy even further which means even less ability to pay down the debt.)

With this type of insanity going on in Washington D.C., Glenn asks another very important question: "Why do we keep sending these bozos back to Congress?" Therein lies the crux of the title of this book. Sending the current crop of politicians back to D.C. defies common sense.

And here is another good excerpt:

President Obama announced that his 2009 budget was projected to produce a $1,700,000,000,000 deficit. If you break that down you find that we're spending $4,657 billion every day for a year, which breaks down to $53,906.64 per second.

Our government is spending in one second what most Americans don't even make in a year! How sustainable is that? It isn't, which is why all of this fiscal madness is only going to bring us to economic disaster and ruin.

And this brings us to one of the most poignant questions any commentator has ever asked:

Borrowed money has to be paid back - but it won't be us who will have to do it. Our children will question our sanity for spending money we did not have on "bridges to nowhere," skateboard parks, tattoo removel, and other pork-laden projects that politicians stuffed into "must pass" legislation. They will wonder why we tolerated such reckless behavior from our elected leaders instead of holding them accountable.

How will we respond?

Indeed, how will we respond? More specifically, how will you respond if your child or grand-child comes up to you after they've turned 18 and asks why they are working to pay off a debt that they didn't vote to incur and from which they are getting no benefit at all?

I doubt anyone will have a good answer to that question. I know I don't.

I highly recommend this book to all Americans whether Democrat, Republican, Lbertarian or otherwise. The issues brought up by Glenn Beck are not political so much as they are national concerns that will touch every single one of us in very negative ways.

Each of us has a choice. Either a) stand up and finally tell Congress to bring spending under control or risk losing their next elections, or b) just sit back, do nothing and wait until the dollar collapses and our children wake up to find themselves up to their foreheads in a debt that they did not incur but will be held responsible for.

I'm sure that you can see choosing the latter will mean that you waited too long to become active.