Caution: Quagmire Ahead!

The eight year war in Afghanistan looks more and more like the war in Viet Nam.

Unwinnable by military power, yet lacking a comprehensive political strategy for winning support of the Afghan people, the war grinds along, consuming lives and resources, as it wears down the resolve of the Afghans and the patience of Americans. How long can we avoid looking frankly at what is realistically achievable? And that only after we clearly define our logistical goal there. If terrorism is our enemy, we need to coldly assess what is causing it, and stop fueling its growth. Drones and smart bombs are clearly not the answer.

There is still hope for Obama to act for peace. A significant part of his election support was from the peace movement; which has since waited for the change to happen on its own. It won't, without support from those who sent him to change policy. The dreadful resources of the war culture are firmly entrenched in DC, and Obama, if so inclined, can only challenge it with a popular mandate.

A number of well-known antiwar activists have signed onto a statement being circulated by the Campaign for Peace and Democracy, calling for an end to US military intervention in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The statement and a partial list of signers are at http://www.cpdweb.org/stmts/1014/stmt.shtml.

Can Obama Play the Race Card?

To acknowledge racism in ourselves is a strength, not a weakness - for it exists in all of us: black, white, brown, yellow. Fear of those different from ourselves is part of our human condition and, if I were an anthropologist, I would probably understand it as a survival instinct. To bridge the divide this causes requires honest appreciation of the impulse, before useful compensating actions can be devised. Denial of its existence is non-productive. I wish Obama could occasionally acknowledge the racial component, and simply point out that it will be dealt with as we can, without getting bogged down over intent, extent, existence etc. My druthers would not last long in the DC coliseum, so I give him slack in this [as with all I wish he could do], but not to address racism head on, misses a golden opportunity afforded by electing a black man as President.

When will the Left learn?

Libya to Flaunt Lockerbie Bomber at Celebration
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,545100,00.html

Yes. This time it was Scotland. But the strongest objection our Prez could muster up was that the bomber's release was "highly objectionable".
Really? "Highly objectionable"?
Heaven forbid we insult anyone with what we say, our dead citizens and their families excluded.

And what did people think Libya was going to do with this event? Listen to the West and be quiet about it? They will do the same thing that certain Paterson NJ residents did when the twin towers went down: Dance in the streets and throw candy in the air.

Lessons, lessons, lessons...

There is an old Russian saying that goes something like this:
Garbatovo magila ispravet.
Only a grave will straighten out the 'terminally misled'. ("Garbatiy" actually means hunched over.)

We can talk until we're blue in the face. For the far Left, it doesn't matter. The only thing left to do is VOTE when the time comes.

Obama Says to Lower Volume in Health Debate

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/health/policy/16address.html
Now our Prez tells us to shut up. Wonderful. What's next?

For you BO fans… today he’s telling us to shut up. Tomorrow if you don’t like what he’s doing, he’ll tell you to shut up, too. Think about it.

Not that this is ever acceptable in our free speech society, where political speech above all, is the most cherished and protected, but if at least BO would have been right about any one thing that he's said or done in the last 6 months, he might perhaps give some people pause to reconsider their position. Not only is that not the case, but for the President of the United States to tell ANY American citizen to shut up is downright despicable. It should not be tolerated by anyone.

Moving on, let’s look at the stellar examples he gives to support his position for national health care:
"“When President Roosevelt was working to create Social Security, opponents warned it would open the door to ‘federal snooping’ and force Americans to wear dog tags,” Mr. Obama said. “When President Kennedy and President Johnson were working to create Medicare, opponents warned of ‘socialized medicine.’ Sound familiar?”"

Remove the exaggerations, and you’re left with: Social security and Medicare. Yea.
Here are two programs that are going belly up as we speak. Medicare is also cutting back on coverage for seniors. So, modeled after these programs, we are to conclude that our proposed national health care system is going to be broke, won't provide all the services we need, and won’t support the next generation of citizens who are going to pay for it now. BO's example. Not mine.

His other fine example was comparing national health care to the US postal service, and how FedEx and UPS coexist and compete. Well there it is. That’s the closest comparison yet from him. USPS: Long lines, lost mail, and grouchy and belligerent personnel. FedEx and UPS: Take your pick, but they’re both trying to outdo each other in customer service and technology, and most businesses use one or the other, but not the USPS. So substitute USPS with national health care, FedEx with Blue Cross, and UPS with Aetna (or whatever), and there you go. The only other problem is that BO has said on multiple occasions (something he now denies.. another lie) that he ultimately wants a 1-payor system. So in my example, remove FedEx and UPS, and you're left with...

Are we that dumb?

I thought people said BO was intelligent.

Can this get much worse?
I’m afraid to think about the answer.

National Health Care - national disaster

The initiative to get national health care must end. This plan is just insane.
Its good that someone has fully read the plan and outlined it. See below.
You doctors, and the AMA who are for it, prepare to be nationalized! Your educations, residencies, salaries, work environments, businesses... all of it... nationalized. Still want to be doctors? Who would?
If this goes through, this country will take a huge turn for the worst. I'm not trying to dramatize. This is quite real. It doesn't only affect healthcare. These regulations affect doctors' education and livelihoods. They affect all businesses, particularly small ones that fuel our economy. They affect (more like squash) insurance, pharma and medical device companies. They will drive down innovation. They will control your life, and more importantly, your death. They will require more money and more people to operate than anyone has calculated to date. And as for the level of care, it must, and will, be rationed.

You think I'm far off on this? Okay. Here’s a perfect example of a well planned and executed government program. This one was quite small and easy: Cash for Clunkers. Less than a week into it, the program is bust, and Congress is scrambling to find new sources of funding. What, on God’s green earth, leads you to believe that national healthcare will be any different?
http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/30/autos/cash_for_clunkers_suspended/?postversion=2009073108

Folks, stop the craziness. This is far, far, worse than anything your archenemy GW Bush did, or even could have done. You want to help people, say NO to government health care.




Obama Health Care Details HR 3200
currently under consideration in the House of Representatives

Pg 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Govt will audit the books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure!!

Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get

Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill - YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED!!!

Pg 42 of HC Bill - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your benefits for you. You have no choice!

Pg 50 Section 152 in HC bill - HC will be provided to ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise

Pg 58HC Bill - Govt will have real-time access to individual’s finances & a National ID Health care card will be issued!

Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Govt will have direct access to your banks accts for electronic funds transfer.

Pg 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in Unions & community orgs (ACORN).

Pg 72 Lines 8-14 Govt is creating an HC Exchange to bring priv HC plans under Govt control.

Pg 84 Sec 203 HC bill - Govt mandates ALL benefit packages for private Health Care plans in the Exchange

Pg 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs for of Benefit Levels for Plans = The Govt will ration your Healthcare!

Pg 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill - Govt mandates linguistic appropriate services. Example - Translation for illegal aliens.

Pg 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18 The Govt will use groups i.e., ACORN & Americorps to sign up individuals for Govt HC plan

Pg 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs of Ben Levels 4 Plans. #AARP members - Your Health Care WILL be rationed

Pg 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill - Medicaid Eligible Individual will be automat.enrolled in Medicaid. No choice.

Pg 124 lines 24-25 HC No company can sue Govt on price fixing. No “judicial review” against Govt Monopoly.

Pg 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill - Doctors/ #AMA - The Govt will tell YOU what you can make.

Pg 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into public opt plan. NO CHOICE

Pg 126 Lines 22-25 Employers MUST pay for HC for part time employees AND their families.

Pg 149 Lines 16-24 ANY Emplyr w payroll 400k & above who does not prov. pub opt. pays 8% tax on all payroll

Pg 150 Lines 9-13 Biz w payroll btw 251k & 400k who doesnt provide public opt pays 2-6% tax on all payroll

Pg 167 Lines 18-23 ANY individual who doesnt have acceptable HC according to Govt will be taxed 2.5% of income.

Pg 170 Lines 1-3 Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay).

Pg 195 Officers & employees of HC Admin (GOVT) will have access to ALL Americans financial and personal records.

Pg 203 Line 14-15 HC - “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax” Yes, it says that.

Pg 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor affected.

Pg 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill - Doctors, doesnt matter what specialty you have, you’ll all be paid the same.

Pg 253 Line 10-18 Govt sets value of Dr’s time, prof judg, etc. Literally value of humans.

Pg 265 Sec 1131Govt mandates & controls productivity for private HC industries.

Pg 268 Sec 1141 Fed Govt regulates rental & purchase of power driven wheelchairs.

Pg 272 SEC. 1145. Treatment of certain cancer hospitals – Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!

Page 280 Sec 1151 The Govt will penalize hospitals for what Govt deems preventable readmissions. (Incentives for hospital to not treat and release.)

Pg 298 Lines 9-11 Drs, treat a patient during initial admission that results in a readmission-Govt will penalize you.

Pg 317 L 13-20 PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Govt tells Drs. what/how much they can own.

Pg 317-318 lines 21-25,1-3 PROHIBITION on expansion- Govt is mandating hospitals cannot expand.

Pg 321 2-13 Hospitals have opportunity to apply for exception BUT community input required. Can you say ACORN?!!

Pg335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339 - Govt mandates established of outcome based measures. HC the way they want. Rationing.

Pg 341 Lines 3-9 Govt has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans (Part B), HMOs, etc. Forcing people into Govt plan.

Pg 354 Sec 1177 - Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs people!

Pg 379 Sec 1191 Govt creates more bureaucracy - Telehealth Advisory Committee. HC by phone/Internet?

Pg 425 Lines 4-12 Govt mandates Advance [Death] Care Planning Consult. Think Senior Citizens end of life.

Pg 425 Lines 17-19 Govt will instruct & c onsult regarding living wills, durable powers of atty. Mandatory!

Pg 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Gov’t provides approved list of end of life resources, guiding you in death.

Pg 427 Lines 15-24 Govt mandates program for orders for end of life. The Gov’t has a say in how your life ends.

Pg 429 Lines 1-9 An “adv. care planning consult” will be used frequently as patients health deteriorates.

Pg 429 Lines 10-12 “adv. care consultation” may incl an ORDER for end of life plans. AN ORDER from GOV

Pg 429 Lines 13-25 - The govt will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order.

PG 430 Lines 11-15 The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life

Pg 469 - Community Based Home Medical Services=Non profit orgs. Hello, ACORN Medical Svcs here!!?

Pg 472 Lines 14-17 PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORG. 1 monthly payment to a community-based org. Like ACORN?

Pg 489 Sec 1308 The Govt will cover Marriage & Family therapy. They will insert Government into your marriage.

Pg 494-498 Govt will cover Mental Health Svcs including defining, creating, rationing those svcs

PG 502 Sec 1181 Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research Established. – Hello Big Brother – Literally.

Pg 503 Lines 13-19 Gov’t will build registries and data networks from YOUR electronic med records.

<>Pg 503 lines 21-25 Gov’t may secure data directly from any depart or agency of the US including your data.

Pg 504 Lines 6-10 The “Center” will collect data both published & unpublished (that means public & your private info)

PG 506 Lines 19-21 The Center will recommend policies that would allow for public access of data.

PG 518 Lines 21-25 The Commission will have input from HC consumer reps – Can you say unions & ACORN?

PG 524 18-22 Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund set up. More taxes for ALL.

PG 621 Lines 20-25 Gov’t will define what Quality means in HC. Since when does Gov’t know about quality?

Pg 622 Lines 2-9 To pay for the Quality Standards, Govt will transfer $$ from to other Govt Trust Funds. More Taxes.

PG 624 “Quality” measures shall be designed to assess outcomes & functional status of patients.

PG 624 “Quality” measures shall be designed to profile you including race, age, gender, place of residence, etc

Pg 628 Sec 1443 Gov’t will give “Multi-Stake Holders” Pre-Rule Making input into Selection of “Quality” Measures.

Pg 630 9-24/631 1-9 Those Multi-stake holder groups incl. Unions & groups like ACORN deciding HC quality.

Pg 632 Lines 14-25 The Gov’t may implement any “Quality measure” of HC Services as they see fit .

PG 633 14-25/ 634 1-9 The Secretary may issue non-endorsed “Quality Measures” for Physician Services & Dialysis Services.

Pg 635 to 653 Physicians Payments Sunshine Provision – Gov’t wants to shine sunlight on Docs but not Govt.

Pg 654-659 Public Reporting on Health Care-Associated Infections – Looks okay.

PG 660-671 Doctors in Residency – Gov’t will tell you where your residency will be, thus where you’ll live.

Pg 676-686 Gov’t will regulate hospitals in EVERY aspect of residency programs, incl. teaching hospitals.

Pg 686-700 Increased Funding to Fight Waste, Fraud, and Abuse. You mean like the Gov’t with an $18 million website?

PGs 701-704 Sec 1619 If your part of HC plan isn’t in Gov’t HC Exchange but you qualify for Fed aid, no payment.

PG 705-709 SEC. 1128 If Secr gets complaints (ACORN) on HC provider or supplier, Gov’t can do background check.

PG 711 Lines 8-14 The Secretary has broad powers to deny HC providers/suppliers admittance into HC Exchange. Your doctor could be thrown out of business.

Pg 719-720 Sec 1637 ANY Doctor who orders durable med equip or home med services MUST be enrolled in Medicare.

PG 722 Sec 1639 Gov’t MANDATES Doctors must have face to face with patient to certify patient for Home Health Svcs.

PG 724 23-25 PG 725 1-5 The same GovE2t certifications will apply to Medicaid & CHIP (your kids)

PG 724 Lines 16-22 Gov’t reserves rt to apply face to face certification for patient to ANY other HC service.

Pg 735 lines 16-25 For law enforce. proposes the Secretary-HHS will give Atty General access to ALL data.

PG 740-757 Gov’t sets guidelines for subsidizing the uninsured (Thats your tax dollars people)

Pg 757-762 Fed gov’t will shift burden of payments to Disproportionate Share Hospitals (DSH) to States. (Taxes)

Pg 763 1-8 No DS/EA hospitals will be paid unless they provide services without regard to national origin

Pg 765 Sec 1711 Gov’t will require Preventative Services including vaccines. (Choice?)

Pg 768 Sec 1713 Gov’t – Nurse Home Visitation Svcs (Hello union paybacks)

Pg 769 11-14 Nurse Home Visit Svcs include-economic self-sufficiency, employ adv, school-readiness.

Pg 769 3-5 Nurse Home Visit Services - “increasing birth intervals between pregnancies.” Govt ABORTIONS anyone

Pg 770 SEC 1714 Fed Gov’t mandates eligibility for State Family Planning Services. Abortion & State Sovereign.

Pg 789-797 Gov’t will set, mandate drug prices, controlling which drugs brought to market. Bye innovation.

Pgs 797-800 SEC. 1744 PAYMENTS for graduate medical education. The government will now control Drs’ education.

PG 801 Sec 1751 The Go vt will decide which Health care conditions will be paid. Say RATION!

Pg 810 SEC. 1759. Billing Agents, clearinghouses, etc req. to register. Gov’t takes over private payment sys.

Pg 820-824 Sec 1801 Govt will identify individ. ineligible for subsidies. Will access all personal financial information.

Pg 824-829 SEC. 1802. Govt Sets up Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund. Another tax black hole.

PG 829-833 Gov’t will impose a fee on ALL private health ins. plans incl. self insured to pay for Trust Fund!

PG 835 11-13 fees imposed by Gov’t for Trust Fund shall be treated as if they were taxes.

Pg 838-840 Gov’t will design & implement Home Visitation Program for families with young kids & families expect kids.

PG 844-845 This Home Visitation Prog. includes Gov’t coming into your house & telling you how to parent!!!

Pg 859 Gov’t will establish a Public Health Fund at a cost of $88,800,000,000. Yes that’s Billion.

Pg 865 The Gov’t will MANDATE the establishment of a National Health Service Corps.

PG 865 to 876 The NHS Corps is a program where Drs. perform mandatory HC for 2yrs for part loan repayment.

PG 876-892 The govt takes over the education of our Med students and Drs.

PG 898 The Govt will establish a Public Health Workforce Corps to ensure supply of public health prof.

PG 898 The Public health workforce corps shall consist of civilian employees of the U.S. as Secretary deems.

PG 898 The Public health workforce corps shall consist of officers of Regular & Reserve Corps of Service.

PG 900 The Public Health Workforce Corps includes veterinarians.

PG 901 The Public Health Workforce Corps WILL include commissioned Regular & Reserve Officers. HC Draft?

PG 910 The Govt will develop, build & run Public Health Training Centers.

PG 913-914 Govt starts a HC affirmative action program thru guise of diversity scholarships.

PG 915 SEC. 2251. Govt MANDDATES Cultural & linguistic competency training for HC professionals.

Pg 932 The Govt will estab Preventative & Wellness Trust fund- initial cost of $30,800,000,000-Billion.

PG 935 21-22 Govt will identify specific goals & objectives for prevention & wellness activities. Control YOU!!

PG 936 Govt will develop “Healthy People & National Public Health Perform. Standards” Tell me what to eat?

PG 942 Lines 22-25 More Gov’t? Offices of Surgeon General -Public Health Svc, Minority Health, Women’s Health

PG 950- 980 BIG GOV’T core pub health infrastructure including workforce capacity, lab systems; health info sys, etc

PG 993 Gov’t will establish school based health clinics. Your kids won’t have a chance.

PG 994 School Based Health Clinic20will be integrated into the school environment. Say GOVT Brainwash!

PG 1001 The Govt will establish a National Medical Device Registry. Will you be tracked?

Hutzpa, soap, and respect for law enforcement

The recent arrest of professor Henry Gates of Harvard by Sergeant Crowley of the Cambridge police department is, indeed, a very teachable moment. So many things to teach:

1) Being smart enough to recognize when it is racism, and when it isn't.
Sgt. Crowley’s not the racist. I’m not so sure about the eh steamed professor.
Indeed, Crowley is a police instructor on race relations. (Makes this story even better.)

2) Having some respect for law enforcement, and some humility.
The Harvard professor wasn’t smart enough to figure out that the police were called to the scene to investigate a possible crime. And he’s the cause of it by trying to brake into his own home. (I know. It can happen. But one should realize the cosmetics of ones actions, and ride out the aftermath, being apologetic and grateful for the help.) The police are the ones who will determine when it’s safe, and when the investigation is over. Not him.

3) Soap.
An education good enough to make you a professor at Harvard: Hundreds of thousands of dollars.
A bar of soap: $1.75
Washing il professore’s foul mouth out with it: Priceless.
Hey, professor, is cursing and screaming at police a class you teach at Harvard? Or have you learned it in the ‘60’s, and kept applying it to the present day?

4) HUTZPA!
Here’s the biggie that no one seems to talk about.
Gates knows the President of the United States. Gates breaks into his own house (forgot his key; couldn’t get the door open; whatever. Stupid.) The police show up and investigate. He thinks the cop is a racist because the cop is white and asking questions, and he’s black and has to answer, so he begins creaming and cursing at the cop, to the point that he does get arrested. (Just think about the tuition a family pays so that their child can get lectured to by this idiot.) Okay. Whatever. But now, this wise and worldly Harvard professor, decides to call his buddy Barack, and elevate his perceived race problem, together with his foul mouth and stupid behavior, to the level of a national matter, above anything and everything else that the President of the United States has to deal with. Now THAT’S HUTZPA. Racism and arrogance-fueled hutzpa.

But guess what? Our President has nothing better to do with his time, and is quick to jump on the racism bandwagon without all the facts – because his buddy told him so!

Now is that a teachable moment? You’re damn right it is!
Watch, think and learn.

Then there’s BO’s choice of words, and his pseudo-unapology.

And hey, Korea, Iran, nukes, wars, terrorism, national health care, bailouts… all that dumb stuff can wait while he takes some time to enjoy a beer with the good professor and his arresting officer.


BILL KRISTOL, EDITOR, "THE WEEKLY STANDARD": I think the president spoke stupidly on Wednesday night. But I don't want to give the impression that I'm maligning the president when I say that. Maybe I should calibrate that statement more carefully.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,534955,00.html

Touché!

"Now is not the time to slow down" and think

Obama rejected calls to give the legislation more time.
"Now's not a time to slow down," he said at a hastily arranged White House event on Friday, which was followed by an announcement via Twitter that he will hold a Wednesday night news conference.

Well, I ask, what hell is the rush!? Even the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office is saying this thing is outrageously expensive, and there's no articulated solution in sight.

Frankly, I'm getting extremely sick and tired of this "the sky is falling" approach from BO. Not to mention all these social programs, bailouts and takeovers. Per BO, there's no time to slow down, think, read the proposed legislation, deliberate, and determine if it makes sense. No. It's at least ONE TRILLION DOLLARS over 10 years, meant to go into a system that is already unsustainable because of piss poor government management, but don't you worry. BO says its okay, so it must be fine. WAKE UP PEOPLE, and start thinking for yourselves! This is not a cult!

$787 Billion stimulus - No time to waste! We must pass it now, or the country will collapse! Remember that one? Well, most of that money hasn't been spent yet, and we haven't collapsed. (Although I'm sure all the earmarks are being spent first.)

Meanwhile, while we have not yet recovered from the recession, and the $787 billion has not yet begun to be repayed:
$1 Trillion for health care - No time to waste! We must pass it now, or, or, or... we must pass it now! You gotta wonder what this agenda is all about. It's just irrational, and keeps smelling more and more like a totalitarianism. Frankly, for our President to even run so roughshod over so many people's concerns about the finances of this thing is so reckless and disrepectful, its disgusting. But then, its becoming a pattern. It's not about us. It's about him.

Obama must have gotten the full terrorist briefing now

Check this out:
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/630.html

He condemns the Bush administartion, but is out to do one better (or worse).

I don't know how this can be reconciled with his anti-Bush, 'let the detainees go' position. Nor how his followers can all just sit by and nod.

Before, we had Gitmo detainees. And now we're going to have... Gitmo detainees. Hmm. Maybe Bush wasn't so bad after all?

I don't know about involving our Constitution into this, but hey, if I would have heard this speech during the campaign, and if there were more like it, I probably would have voted for BO. :)

Iranian Cleric: Protesters at War With God

http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-06-26-voa14.cfm
Oh, man...

Hundreds arrested. Uncounted numbers killed. Forced confessions of guilt. No reporters allowed.

Hey, on that last point, I recall the world outrage when Israeli forces in Gaza kicked out reporters. Well where's the outrage, now?

And what's with this God business? Did God elect Ahmadinejad? Or is Ahmadinejad God?
And now that Obama has criticized Iran, is the US at war with God, too? (You'd better believe they think so.)

You have got to be kidding me. This is so absurd. These people are seeking to get nukes, and we are going to try to talk them out of it? They already know the outcome. Just look at North Korea. That's turning out well. Why would we handle Iran any differently?

How about we take bets on when Israel will bomb Iran's nuclear facilities (Syrian style.)

Hope, Change, Hypocracy and Just Plain Dumb

So these are the people who we now have in charge of our government (, banking industry, automotive industry, and soon - healthcare industry.) Wow. How... nauseating.
While they were all ranting and railing against Bush and the Republicans, one could almost begin to believe that if they were to take office, they'd actually live up to what they were preaching, and be honest, fair and transparent. Be, as they said, better.
Turns out they're nothing but a bunch of closed-minded, obtuse, embarrasing, mobster-like thugs and bullies.
It's reverse McCarthyism in 2009. Whatever the Dems may have had to be proud of before the election, has gone done the toilet. And so quickly, too.


Fired IG Calls White House Explanation 'Baseless,' Says He's Being Targeted
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/17/fired-ig-calls-white-house-explanation-baseless-says-hes-targeted/
Bush was criticized for firing AGs who he had an absolute right to fire. BO fires IGs who he does NOT have a right to fire, and on top of that, breaks the rules he set on how to go about removing them. If that's not enough, this particular IG is a senior citizen, and one who is sharper than many of us put together. And the main reason for his firing: BO protects his own.

OBAMA ADMITS SMOKING GAFFES
http://www.nypost.com/seven/06232009/news/nationalnews/obama_admits_smoking_gaffes_175728.htm
Hey, Mr. President, as the leader of the free world, you can't sneak a fag in the rose garden and believe that your daughters won't find out that you smoke. What a great example for our youth.
How about being open and honest with them, together with the rest of us?
Besides, haven't you heard of those laser treatments? They work wonders. How about publicly signing up for one of those and making a positive role model of yourself?
Now did you cop any sigs while working on that tough tobacco legislation you just pushed through?

Kansas Teacher With Conservative Views Gets Job Back
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,528484,00.html
Supporting a woman in politics only works if she's a Democrat.
Now you can get fired for your political views.
And how in the hell can you possibly be "too patriotic"? Moreover, why is that offensive? And in a public school, of all places.
Where are the screaming politicians? Where's the ACLU? Where are all the mainstream media, except for Fox?
Think about it.

Last but certainly not least:
Obama extends flame-grilled olive branch to Iran
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/02/obama-iran-independence-day
This one is just f-ink brilliant. Hey dummies - what the hell are hot dogs and hamburgers made of? And you want the Iranians to come and sample these culinary delights, or are you going to serve vegi-burgers, too?
Perhaps you'll offer them some milk products, such as cheese on the burger, while you're at it. Mmm. We Americans love cheeseburgers!
Hey, maybe you'll offer better quality hot dogs? I'm sure they'll go for Hebrew National!
And while you're hobnobbing over the BBQ delights, I'm sure you'll enjoy a refreshing chat about how the protester shootings are going. What's the headcount up to now?
I'm certain this shindig will disarm the Iranians from their nukes. I'm certain of it.

U.S. grapples with idea of permanent nuclear N.Korea

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE54S3XY20090529

We're too late. The UN is too late. But if there is still time, let's sit and think (or sht and stink) some more, to make sure it will be too late. Because it seems the only time that some of us can justify force is only after we've been hit. Otherwise we will appear aggressive and intimidating, and won't be able to live with ourselves or with the world's perception of us. So tell you what, for all those who think that way, if we are to be hit first, they should volunteer to be in the bullseye. The rest of us don't want to die, and will fight like hell afterwards.

Note to BO: This is what inaction ultimately leads to. History is replete with such examples.

Now substitute Iran for N. Korea in the title. Coming soon. At this rate, real soon.

A New Beginning for Israel

The Obama administration seems to be holding its ground, insisting that Israel cease building of settlements in the West Bank. This is a good first step.

Another would be supporting having Israel move the "security wall" out of the West Bank and into Israel.

Another would be restricting Israel's use of American military aid to defensive purposes.

Ideas like these are no-brainers - but have been off the table in the past; any public figure broaching these topics is given the AIPAC treatment, any media outlet that even writes about them in other than derisive terms is assailed as anti-Israel or soft-on-terror.

What is hopeful for Israel in this new approach, is that if forced to abandon the old crutches of aggression and intimidation, she may learn to take real steps toward independent citizenship in the world community.

The US is being forced to take more responsibility for its actions in the current economic climate, and must discontinue dead-end policies. The days of unquestioned acquiescence by the US to Israel are over, by economic necessity more than progressive politics. The long term results for Israel will be positive.

Sotomayor for USSC - Not

So, to mayor or not to mayor.
I say: Not.

We know that every nomination to the USSC is politically driven. It begins with which President makes the nomination, and revolves around whether the candidate will be a strict constructionist, the way Conservatives would have it, or a flaming revisionist, as favored by Liberals.

But beyond that, and much to the chagrin of many Libs, the Supreme Court is supposed to represent blind justice. I emphasize BLIND.

For all those who flunked civics, the Supreme Court is not a representative body of government. And selecting a Justice is not an ethnic popularity contest. It is not about diversity, skin color, gender, race, or any nonsense of the sort. And it is certainly not about legislating (or for those who will jump to correct me, setting "policy", either. Setting judicial "precedent" is far different from setting "policy", which is reserved for the legislature, not the courts.) It is about finding a person with the deepest and truest of intellect. An awe-inspiring mind; not an awe(ful)-inspiring agenda.

For BO, a former professor of Constitutional Law, nominating Sotomayer, a judge who does not appear to stand out within the jurisprudential fabric of the bar, but who is otherwise a woman of Puerto Rican descent, this is not only pathetic pandering and race playing, but an affront to the Constitution to prop up someone who will advance BO's result-oriented, policy-setting, jurisprudence on the highest bench in our land.

Here's one of the more insightful statements she's made about herself:
"[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."

Really? I dont' remember learning that in law school. That would have made for a terrifically fun class.

She should be kicked off the second circuit for crap like this; not elevated to the Supreme Court. And if she were a white male, and the words reversed, she would be. What hypocrites!

Note to BO: A Supreme Court decision should not be based on the racial, ethnic or gender characteristics of either party before the Court. Nor should it be based on the same characteristics in a Supreme Court justice.
Why?
BECAUSE ALL DECISIONS MUST BE BASED ON THE CONSTITUTION!
Why?
Because this is the bedrock that forms the basis for our laws and our society. If this is replaced with any changing criteria, such as a judge's personal view based on their heritage or any other crap, or on how a pending decision may appear through the eyes of a particular litigant (which BO says should be taken into account before a decision is handed down), then WE'RE HEADING TOWARD LAWLESSNESS. There will be no predictability, nor stability, in our laws and our society. The law will become tyranny's flavors of the day, which will change with the justices' moods, as well as with the physical characteristics of the litigants before the Court. And anytime a white man goes up against a woman or a person of any color, he'll know that he'll never win with Sotomayor.

The Constitution? We don't need no stinkin' Constitution!

It's a complete freakin' disaster. We go to the Supreme Court for a decision on where we stand relative to the Constitution; not relative to a Puerto Rican woman, or a black man, or anyone else.

Fortunately, if she's confirmed, one Lib justice will be replaced with another, and the make-up of the Court will not change... this time. But what about next time? With this kind of direction, where are we headed!?

Iran-backed Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon have set up cells in Latin America AND Venezuela and Bolivia are supplying Uranium to Iran

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,521731,00.html

According to Israeli intelligence, Venezuela and Bolivia supply Iran with Uranium. Meanwhile, Iran-backed Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon have set up cells in Latin America.
Wonderful. BamBam's policies are working!
How is BamBam going to deal with this issue? Apologize for American imperialism again?

And then there's North Korea...

Hey! Wake up!! The UN is powerless. If we don't protect ourselves (and this goes for Israel), no one else will. There will come a point when it will be too late.

Obama's Plan to Destroy Israel

At Konny's request I will post this on the blog for future reference

Daniel Greenfield - May 5, 2009

If there's one thing that the Carter Administration can be given credit for, it's creating the new wave of Islamist terrorism, both Sunni, operating out of Afghanistan, and Shiite, operating out of Iran. The Carter Administration cracked down on Israel and put its "faith" in Muslim terrorists, who then went on to wage war on America, even while Carter was in office.

28 years after Carter was removed from office, we're in reruns again with the Obama Administration, which is not only following the Carter line, but whose plans greatly exceed it. 28 years ago, Wahhabi Sunni and Shiite terrorists were generally an afterthought when compared to the standard USSR backed Marxist terrorist groups, such as the PLO.

Today, thanks in part to the Carter Administration, they control several countries and have designs on several more. From Pakistan to Afghanistan, from Gaza to Lebanon, from the Middle East to Southeast Asia, the threat is very real and bigger than ever particularly as the race by both Sunni and Shiite groups to build and deploy nuclear weapons continues.

Like Carter before him, Obama has chosen to cut backdoor deals with the Mullahs in Iran, offering them power over Iraq and Afghanistan, in exchange for quieting things down enough to let him hang up a Mission Accomplished banner and pull the troops out. "Peace with honor", preferably before the next election. The rape law for Shiites in Afghanistan, the push for a US funded Hamas/Fatah Unity government in the territories and the rising expansion of the Taliban are all fruits of this arrangement.

If Iran is to be our new best friend under this arrangement, Israel is to be our new best enemy.

Obama stacked the deck by deploying Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State in a position that gave her an important title, but absolutely no power to go with it, while stacking the National Security Council and even the Pentagon with oil appointees in the pockets of the Saudis or his own left wing radical friends.

Israel electing a conservative government really put the ball into play, freeing up even more resources for attacking Israel. The strategy runs something like this.

The Obama Administration has broken down the Israel problem into two subsections, Israel itself, and American Jews.

Obama's people have studied the problem and understand where Carter went wrong. Obama does not want to have the same image problems as Carter in the Jewish community. Should that happen, the Beloved Leader and his lapdog press are fully prepared to unleash a Chavez style hate-on targeting American Jews. But that would be inconvenient and messy. Even with the changing face of America, there are significant differences between the average American and European or Venezuelan, and what kind of ugliness they are willing to tolerate. So Obama's people have split their attention in handling the two factors as two different problems.

American Jews - Obama has been clever about putting his Jewish appointees front and center. Like many minorities, some American Jews suffer from self-esteem problems that are soothed when they see a seeming acceptance. Of course what they fail to realize is that exploitation is not acceptance. And that Obama's appointees are creatures of his backers, Nazi collaborators like Soros, who have nothing but contempt for Jews, individually or collectively.

While outwardly courting Jews, Obama's people have also been quietly shoving Jewish organizations and their leaders into a corner. Within the Jewish organizational world there has been a silent but deadly takeover of major Jewish groups by left wing radicals. Former alumni of the far left wing and anti-Israel groups like Breira or Coname in the 70's have been elevated to key positions in such organizations as the UJA Federation. Behind the scenes any Jewish leaders who expressed even doubts about Obama during the primaries were intimidated and silenced.

Much as with conservatives, a list has been drawn up of those figures who can be won over, and those who cannot. The ones who can be won over are described as "moderates", the ones who cannot be won over are described as "extremists".

Meanwhile a bevvy of left wing Jewish In Name Only groups have been organized to play their part. Key among them is the Soros funded J Street, a group created as an anti-Israel lobby meant to eventually replace AIPAC. Meanwhile AIPAC itself has been kept on the ropes with such things as the well timed Harman leak. The message once again is fairly clear, cooperate and keep quiet, or we'll destroy you.

The multi-layered approach to American Jews can then be summed up as follows;

1.) Co-opt existing Jewish organizations and swing them to the left using old school 70's leftists.

2.) Create new "progressive" organizations to appeal to a younger generation of ethnically Jewish youth detached from any actual identity. Have these organizations generate attacks on the Israeli government and pro-Israel Jews, while creating phony polls indicating that most American Jews are behind them and Obama.

3.) Silence and intimidate remaining Jewish organizations and leaders behind the scenes.

The overall idea is to keep a happy face pasted on American Jewry while the knives are out in the dark.

Israel - The basic understanding in the Obama Administration is that Israel Must Go. In the worldview of the more moderate Obama appointees, Israel is a destabilizing factor in the Middle East. To the more left wing Obama advisors, Israel is a Western imperialist colonialist state that must be destroyed in the name of revolutionary justice. To the Islamist mindset, Israel is a Kufir state that has no right to exist in the Dar Al Islam.

While intractably hostile to Israel, the Obama Administration wants to avoid the kind of public confrontations that marked the Carter and Bush Sr administrations. Instead they would much rather model the way that the Clinton Administration waged a quiet war against Israel, removing one government, and forcing extensive concessions to terrorists, all the while keeping a happy face pasted on the whole affair.

On the one hand that means avoiding harsh public attacks on Israel, but keeping the pressure up for Israel to make extensive far reaching one sided concessions, to accept Saudi and Arab League "peace plans", to legitimize Hamas as the new government of the Palestinian Authority, and to insure that Israel does not reply to any rocket or terrorist attacks.

There are two forms of quiet leverage that the United States has on Israel, the first is financial and the second is military.

On the financial side, the goal will be to bring down the Netanyahu government coalition by destabilizing Israel economically. This is the surest and most direct path to bringing down Israel's conservative government and replacing it with a left of center coalition. The Obama Administration has a wide variety of tactics at its disposal for doing so, from the overt, such as targeting Israeli exports and imports, to the covert, that would involve targeting the Shekel. Additionally fundraising in the US could be investigated and groups such as the Jewish National Fund, prevented from raising money in the US. All of these have been in play before at one time or another.

On the military side, Obama's people will make their non-existent efforts to stop Iran's nukes conditional on more concessions to terrorists. Since Israel will never be able to make enough concessions and since Obama is working with Iran, rather than working to stop Iran's nukes, this is a hollow charade.

Furthermore while Israel has already been locked out of the military technology pipeline for anything cutting edge, it still remains dependent on US military equipment for parts and supplies. The decades of US foreign aid have also served to create dependency. Unlike many other countries, including even Sweden, Israel does not have its own jet fighter. Israel's Air Force is heavily dependent on US weapons, parts and equipment. Cutting Israel off, would leave the Israeli military dangerously vulnerable in the case of a war. This is an effective chokehold that has been used before to prevent Israel from attacking Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War, as well as preventing Israel from carrying out a preemptive strike against its enemies before the Yom Kippur War.

The overall Obama policy will be to push Israel to the brink, using financial and military blackmail against the Netanyahu government, while maintaining control over American Jews to prevent any protests or backtalk.

The more Israel will offer, the more the Obama Administration will tighten the screws. No offer will be good enough, and Israel will be blamed for every breakdown in talks and every bit of violence that takes place. The media will portray Israel and particularly Netanyahu as extremist and intransigent. Hamas will be slowly whitewashed in the media, the same way that Arafat's goons were, (assuming that they prove more willing to cooperate in creating a positive media image of themselves than Ahmadinejad is.)

The plan is to destroy Israel, and to do it by pushing Israel to the edge of the cliff and then over the cliff. Israel's enemies will be getting top of the line US military equipment. Israel will not. Israel will be squeezed economically until the Netanyahu government collapses, leaving a weak left wing leader like Livni in charge of Israel, and in charge of acceding to the new Pharaoh's demands.

Meanwhile so-called American Jewish groups will support Obama all the way, some because they were created precisely for that purpose, e.g. J-Street, and others because they have been hijacked, cowed or subverted.  

That is the game plan and some of it's coming. The rest is already here.

When Barry Met Bibi

The Obama-Netanyahu meeting seems to have been a chilly affair:

There was a conspicuous lack of praise for his 59-year-old Israeli visitor, whom he said had the "benefit of having served" previously as prime minister and for having "both youth and wisdom".

The meeting overran to two hours, suggesting that the two sides had struggled to find a way of presenting a unified face to the watching world.

It's in the grand tradition of delusional leaders to inflict ever goofier "linkage" on the Zionist Entity: Only solve the Palestinian problem and [INSERT CRISIS DU JOUR HERE] will go away! This time round the Israelis are being told that another go-round of the ol' "two-state solution" two-step will so entrance Iran that the nuke program will be mothballed.

This makes even less sense than the previously confident "linkage" that a Palestinian state would eventually make al-Qaeda beat their suicide bombs into plowshares. Iran has no interest in the Palestinian "peace process." The lack-of-peace process has enabled its proxies to annex Gaza and a big chunk of Lebanon. The only relevant linkage here is that Teheran's destabilization of the Palestinian Authority, Lebanon and beyond is a good indicator of where the broader region will head once the mullahs have gone nuclear.

It's interesting to watch how smoothly and painlessly first Europe and now Washington have accepted the inevitability of a nuclear Iran. Alas, it's a little harder to digest not only for Israel but also for the Sunni Arab despots. Yet it seems to be only the hapless Jews the administration is pressuring. An Iranian nuclear regional hegemon will destabilize everything, from Egypt to the Gulf monarchies. And those "pro-American" states that have no particular desire to live under Teheran's umbrella will observe that Washington let it happen, reach their own conclusions about the so-called superpower, and make their dispositions accordingly.

Strange to see Obama lecturing Netanyahu about the iniquity of the "settlements": In a hundred days, he seems to have mastered perfectly the exquisite European technique of having attitudes rather than policies.

Withholding Torture Photos Could Make U.S. Weaker

President Obama's decision to stop publication of photos showing torture of prisoners by U.S. service personnel was reached by a calculus of greater complexity than the factors I perceive, so I do not oppose it now, but only raise cautionary issues, reserving judgment.

Mr. Obama's main stated reason against releasing the photos - stirring up anti-American hatred - paradoxically also contains a very good argument in favor of publishing them. Are we about torture or not? If not, there are no photos to discuss. But there are photos, so either we ARE about torture, or "a few bad apples" are ruining the whole bushel. The best way to prove it's the "apples," is to publish the photos along with a public adjudication of the perpetrators' deeds. Our moral authority in the world is restored, and the photos serve as evidence of justice for all [and not just them].

The photos will be published, and the only question is by whom. If a newspaper does not get hold of and publish them, eventually the Supreme Court will order their release. Under those circumstances, and especially if, by that time, no official responsibility for the torture is ascertained through prosecution, "truth commission," or other means, the photos will forever correlate to complicity between the torturers and the government.

We like to think of America in terms of our freedoms, and the idea of transparency in our governance is attractive. But free speech, to talk about reality television shows and which medications we want our doctor to think are right for us, is not so radical or precious. Free speech is only remarkable if it remains free in the face of danger and turmoil. During our history, America has experienced shameful instances where that freedom was curtailed, usually out of fear. In retrospect, it has seemed cowardly, and political operatives have skillfully manipulated those fears to advance their programs. Post 9/11 America has many such examples, which got us into war, cost us our privacy, and in the current context, has us defending policies of torture as necessary expedience.

Lack of courage by Democrats, as the opposition party in 2002 and 2003, haunts them today, as Republicans use it as a smoke screen to avoid reckoning for their transgressions while in power. Hope that the Republicans learned from the Democrats' error, and will provide a legitimate and reasoned opposition, seems faint, as the main message from their visionaries still plies our fears - abandoning torture will make us vulnerable.

Freedom is not absolute, and there are extraordinary cases, where we must accede to the government's greater understanding of world politics. We need to see solid evidence of those circumstances soon, or the surrender of our freedom of speech will become just ordinary.

Crossing party lines to disappoint everyone

Greg Aharonian, well known in patent circles for his PATNEWS blog, who is also a Democrat and BO supporter (at least up until BO got sworn in), now writes the below about the next possible Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, David Kappos, the man currently in charge of IBM's intellectual property.

As time goes on and situations present themselves, it's becoming more evident to more people, that BO was a wolf in sheep's clothing. Today the Democrats in the patent community; yesterday the financial backers of Chrysler who also voted for BO. Tomorrow, who's next? More importantly, what's next?

From the May 6, 2009 PATNEWS by Greg Aharonian:
Second, some emails going around has that one of the candidates for PTO Director, James Pooley, has confirmed this week his nomination as Deputy Director General of the World Intellectual Property Organization. This pretty much puts him out of the running, leaving Todd Dickinson and David Kappos as the two frontrunners (Michael Kirk is a conservative Republican the examiner corps is not overly thrilled to have back).

Third, President Obama has upset high tech CEOS by promising to end tax breaks for U.S. companies that "create a job in Bangalore, India (rather than) one in Buffalo, New York". Does President Obama know that David Kappos' IBM has twice filed patent applications for methods to automate outsourcing U.S. jobs (retracting both apps in embarassment)? The latest app is 2009/083107. IBM India in 2002 had 4900 employees. Now? In 2008, IBM India had 98,000 employees. I ask President Obama, how many of these 98,000 employees were outsourced from "Buffalo" by IBM using technology in their patent applications managed by David Kappos?

Fourth, the PatentlyO blog points out two very disturbing Kappos comments that sound too similar to some of Jon Dudas' contempts: that "people no longer innovate individually" and that "many new innovations require investments of unprecedented size". Both are nonsense. In fact, someone tell President Obama that some of the best innovations in renewable and green technologies are coming from individuals and small teams spending their limited hard-earned dollars. I should know, for some of the best of this stuff I am asked to do patentability searches for. Yet, President Obama, once these true American inventors are ready to share their knowledge with the world in return for a patent, they face a patent examination pipeline clogged by IBM patents such as making reservations on an airplane to use the toilet. I find it hard to believe that Kappos won't carry these biases with him into the PTO, and act upon them. What message does President Obama send to the renewable/green entrepreneurs to
appoint a PTO Director who doesn't think such entrepreneurs even exist?

Hillary for US Supreme Court Justice

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/05/04/2009-05-04_dems_court_outsider_tell_bam_not_to_pick_fed_judge_for_justice_souters_job.html

President Obama Advises Not To Replace David Souter with Judge

The theme from the Administration is that the Supreme Court needs to better represent the people... the downtrodden... How about another woman, a Latino, or another black person?


WELL, HOW ABOUT SOMEONE WHO IS BEST QUALIFIED TO APPLY THE CONSTITUTION TO THE CASES BEFORE THE COURT?! The Supreme Court is NOT a representative body of government!


But all this con law baggage is a drag to our Prez. Let's stick with representation. And let's put Hillary on the bench! She's the best pick to be US Supreme Court Justice.


Oh, is there no end...?

You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1
You have to watch this video.

Sorry. But this is too damn easy. The facts are as plain as day.
So today we have Barney's Frank and Shmucky Shumer leading the charge to blame the Bush administration for this mess, AND calling for the banks to give more lending to low-qualifying people. If this weren't for real, I'd be having a great belly laugh.

They must think we're complete, blind, idiots. And they're right.
NO ONE calls them out on this. And no one is stopping this lunacy of spending money to do the things that led us here in the first place.

The wheels are coming off this administration's bus, and we'd better pull over and fix all this before we go over a cliff.

Obama's Health Plan

If he can do it with the banks and with the auto manufacturers, what makes you think he can't do it with your healthcare and your life? Read his own words. It's no exaggeration.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/01/obamas-health-care-rationing/
Bureaucrats will decide when to pull the plug

BO said: "And part of what I think government can do effectively is to be an honest broker in assessing and evaluating treatment options."

Are you serious!?

[BO] stated that "the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here." For them, he said, "I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels."

Are you sh!tin' me!?

The time to really worry about your health is when a government bureaucrat, not your personal doctor, tells you what treatment you can have. Yet that's exactly the scenario endorsed by Mr. Obama. This position clearly leads to health care rationing. Nobody in the government or in any "political channels" should tell individuals how to make decisions about "the end of their lives." The only conversations happening should be personal, not democratic. It's not up to government to pull the plug.


Government healthcare is expensive. So not only is BO going to get the government (politicians and statisticians) involved in end of life decisions for the elderly who are on government health care, but he's going to expand this unsustainable, government controlled health care system to all of Americans. And we get to flip the bill.

Stop dreaming and listen carefully to what he's saying about your health and your life. "Democratic conversation"!? The country making decisions through political channels!?

Just imagine that conversation. Your elderly parent is on Medicaid and receiving care without which your parent will die. In walks a BO government official and has a statistical and economic discussion with you and your parent about how it will be better overall if they pull the plug and your parent drops dead.

This is some really scary stuff. I'm thoroughly disgusted with our President at this point. You thought GW was bad. This is beyond stupid.
Enough is enough.

Instant Digital Representative Democracy

I just read the article, below, and thought of something. We are in a digital age of immediate information. A growing number of people feel dissassociated from their representatives and the government. We vote to elect individuals, and if provided a referendum, vote on that. But otherwise, we have to resort to town hall meetings, blogs, e-mails, phone calls and other venues to try to vent and get our point across to our legislators - the people who are supposed to be trying to do what WE want, not what THEY want. When we vote them into office, we hope they make the right decisions based on their prior records and/or what they tell us at the time. But after that, it's practically a crap shoot. The sense is that they're in control and not us. I listen to the news media and think, I don't really care or want to know what the politicians think, I want to know what the American people think. There's a lot of chatter, but no metric.

Well, call me crazy, but why can't there be one federal website where the major issues of legislative debate are posted, and the entire American public can vote their will online? (The same can be done for States as well as municipalities.) It is a representative democracy, is it not? It would be similar to a gallop poll, or any other poll, but would be open to the entire country, and run on a controlled but reasonable timetable. All issues and results would be visible to everyone. It would certainly be easier to then compare which politicians are representing us, and which are representing themselves. This would also provide our politicians with our collective views before they vote on a legislative measure.

This is not meant to be partisan in any way.

Thoughts?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/30/republican-leaders-launch-outreach-initiative-revive-party-image/

Spinning The Torture Debate

The uproar over the release of Justice Department memos, detailing the Bush administration's torture policy, is being used to shift attention away from the clearly illegal action of the Justice Department, to a debate over the effectiveness of the prescribed torture.

Those successfully distracted from the central issue of whether our government is accountable, are given a generous dose of anxiety, to help digest the mantra that we cannot survive as a nation unless we torture.

Although it is entertaining trying to unravel the cross currents of we said/they said, and red herring is the catch of the day, the entire discussion is irrelevant. The end does not justify the means. Torture is torture, and we are not allowed to do it. They did it, and must be held accountable. The dubious and unsupported claims of torture having worked matter not at all.

Should Congressional enablers also answer? Most definitely - and this is the trump card that the torturers hope will immobilize the investigation - by making the pool of accomplices before, during, and after the fact, too big to prosecute [like banks that are too big to fail].

A word of warning to President Obama: Ford [as in Gerald Ford, who most assuredly would have been elected in 1976, had he not pardoned Nixon's crimes before he was even charged]. Nobody expects Mr. Obama to clean up the whole Bush economic disaster in just four years, and nobody is expecting miracles in the Mideast either, after eight years of botched military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and mangled diplomacy in Palestine. But if he lets down the many who took a chance on an inexperienced young man because he inspired the hope of a return to moral and ethical governance, he will not, and should not, be re-elected.

Bush Legacy of Torture and War Coming to Light

Two of the more egregious accomplishments of George W. Bush's administration are being examined in public forums lately: the legitimacy of the Iraq war, and the torture of suspected enemies. Still waiting in the wings are his domestic surveillance program, and assorted political retaliations, i.e. firing federal prosecutors, outing Valerie Plame etc.

Arguments were heard in federal court in Newark yesterday, in a lawsuit claiming that the Iraq War is unconstitutional. Plaintiffs are not seeking to unring the bell by halting the war in progress, but want a ruling on how the war powers are to be used in the future. Congress sought to evade responsibility in 2002, by writing Bush a blank check. In retrospect, that seems to have been a bad idea. This case could help us to get it right next time.

The American Civil Liberties Union succeeded in getting four memos released, which detailed the Bush administration's rationale for torturing people thought to have links to terrorism. This is the first step in what must be a comprehensive public exposure of the entire sorry mess. Cheney, and others seeking to cover their a$$, are loudly proclaiming the success of torture in preventing terrorist attacks, and issuing dire warnings to those who want to talk about it. There will be terrorist attacks, and an institutional torture program will not prevent them. Meanwhile, it's time to acknowledge our sins, and renounce future torture, to salvage our self respect.

There are many crises demanding immediate, decisive action by President Obama - to turn our economy around, and address international human tragedies in progress. There will be entrenched constituencies that will point to these demands, and attempt to derail efforts to hold those in the Bush administration accountable for their actions. The process to examine the Bush years must not be abandoned or allowed to wither. There were legitimate arguments against moving forward with impeachment during his presidency, one being that there would be time enough after he left office. Now it may be tempting to simply look ahead, and consign the whole sorry Bush mess to the dustbin of history. Such expediency would be negligent and irresponsible, and would impose dire consequences on our children and those of the next generation, who would be sent to kill and die in more unnecessary wars, or left to live under conditions of poverty, disease, discrimination and oppression also left unaddressed.


The seeds of today's involvement in Iraq were planted during Vietnam, allowed to sprout during the '70's Mideast wars, were cultivated during Iran/contra, and flourished in the failure to root out terrorists in the 90's. The chain could have been broken through responsible and transparent statesmanship, but wasn't. Our disastrous response to 9/11 was another link in the chain, and we now have another opportunity to break it.

The 2008 election campaign illustrated the improper historical association of events such as 9/11 and Iraq, the folly of our country's attempts to conduct international affairs unilaterally, and our failure to confront the moral consequences of "American Exceptionalism".

Mistakes were made during the Bush years, and more will be made by Obama going forward. They are an inevitable result of leadership initiatives. But to shroud those mistakes under phony security concerns invites careless decision making and corrupt influences. Each time we are driven by fear to surrender our judgment, without benefit of the facts, our democracy is weakened.

We must insist on a transparent process for evaluating and reporting on the causes and effects of the disasters that comprised the Bush presidency. Neglect of this critical step would certainly insure a repeat of this process, as well as inhibit the rebuilding of America's moral stature in the world community.

A different approach to foreign policy

Alright. On the premise that Bush was evil, and the US a meddling imperialist, we're going to try a softer, friendlier, warm and fuzzy approach to foreign policy. Enter a Constitutional law professor with zero foreign policy experience.

Let's shake hands and chat over cocktails. Why can't we all just get along? Cumbaya...

I'm glad this is occurring because I think BO will get a fast lesson in world politics and history. It is naive to think that people like Chavez, Morales, Castro, Ahmadinejad and others, together with their constituents, who have harbored their anti-semitic, anti-US views for so long, are simply going to melt and transform into cute tribbles (Star Trek reference) upon the handshake of BO. They're not going to change at all. The Change we elected, is not the change they seek (unless our new national spending and debt outright crushes us.)
So now what?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8008850.stm
In quotes: Ahmadinejad speech
Diplomats have walked out of a UN conference on racism during a speech by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/20/concerns-brewing-obamas-warm-embrace-chavez/
Handshake With Obama Belies Chavez's Contempt for America
But some veteran diplomats said Chavez would wield the gracious grasp as an important symbol to help consolidate his growing power in Venezuela.
"What he's going to say is that what he has been doing in Venezuela now has the seal of approval of the United States," said Otto Reich, who was ambassador to Venezuela under President Reagan. "He sees it as a green light to continue dismantling democracy in Venezuela."
Reich said Chavez is already using the handshake as propaganda and called the summit a missed opportunity by the Obama administration.

Holy hell! And so it begins...

What the hell is this?!
http://wnd.com/images/dhs-rightwing-extremism.pdf
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Assessment
(U///FOUO) Rightwing Extremism:
Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment

I'm no fan of skin heads or the Tim McVey's of the world, but I've got 3 big points to make here:
1) Why is the government referring to this as "Rightwing Extremism"? How about just "Extremism", instead? After all, the notion of right wing is a political one, just like left wing. And left wing extremists have been known to be violent, also.
Does this mean that anyone who is left wing can never pose a threat?
I doubt the government knows, in fact, the political leanings of each person they're targeting, here. More importantly, that's not a dispositive factor in whether they can resort to violence. How about the left-wing abortion nuts that killed doctors? Are they excluded?
Its no coincidence that all opposition to BO has been labeled the "right wing", and now vilified. Note how they describe "Rightwing extremism" in the footnote on page 2.
Reverse McCarthyism anyone?
This is very disturbing.

2) In the document, the government admits that it has "no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence".
So what's the basis for all this? Suspicion? Or political opposition?

3) The Left Wing railed against "profiling" and "suspicion" by the government under Bush. Now the left is in charge, and profiling and suspicion are in vogue?

There are numerous articles being written about this. Here are some examples:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/15/protest-grows-report-right-wing-radicalization/

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/14/confirme-the-obama-dhs-hit-job-on-conservatives-is-real/

Michael Savage has even filed a lawsuit:
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=95244

Folks, this is getting really scary, very quickly. I don't care if you're a Dem or Rep. You have to be getting worried about where this administration is heading. And incidentally, the recent Tea Parties included Democrat participants.

Fascinating statistic from NJ

FROM the 04-16-09 New Jersey Law Journal's Daily Briefing e-mail:

N.J. UNEMPLOYMENT RATE INCREASES SLIGHTLY IN MARCH
New Jersey's labor market continued to tighten in March as employment fell for the 14th consecutive month, the state Department of Labor and Workforce Development reported Wednesday. The unemployment rate moved up to 8.3 percent in March, from February's 8.2 percent. According to preliminary estimates from a monthly survey of employers, nonfarm wage and salary employment in the Garden State decreased by 17,200 jobs in March, to a total of 3,956,100. All losses were in the private sector (-17,400) as public sector employment rose by 200. The largest contractions occurred in leisure and hospitality, including the casino industry (-5,900); professional and business services (-4,600); manufacturing (-3,700); and trade, transportation and utilities (-1,800). The 8.2 percent N.J. rate compared with a U.S. rate of 8.5 percent.

Wow. Conservative predictions comming true? Liberal plans beginning to work?
Maybe not? But if not, please provide a sound explanation, and prediction for the future based on current policies and trends.
Fascinating! (And a bit scary.)

I thought Change meant we weren't going to try to make everyone else like us anymore.

Afghans Throw Stones at Women Protesting Rape in Marriage Law
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,515980,00.html
...
The law, passed last month, says a husband can demand sex with his wife every four days unless she is ill or would be harmed by intercourse — a clause that critics say legalizes marital rape. It also regulates when and for what reasons a wife may leave her home alone.
...
The government of President Hamid Karzai has said the Shiite family law is being reviewed by the Justice Department and will not be implemented in its current form. Governments and rights groups around the world have condemned the legislation, and President Barack Obama has labeled it "abhorrent."

Seems the Afghans have some major legal matters to contend with. Can you imagine the legislative process, debate and vote that was needed to create and then pass this law? This matter actually took up their legislative time. These people are serious.

Now the dilemma for Karzai is whether to keep the law, rescind the law; or amend the law. Why 4 days and not 2? Etc...

1) In the context of foreign relations, negotiations, etc., for anyone who still suggests that these societies (at least the law's proponents) are no different from other "Western" societies, here is yet another example of how wrong that thought is. As of 2009, we are not even in the same century with these folks.

2) Having said that, I thought it was the goal of the Dems with BO to stop butting our U.S. nose into everyone else's business, or trying to convert everyone to capitalism - which is why, it is believed, so many hate the U.S. We're on a mission of live and let live now. So WHY do we allow ourselves to criticize Afghans over this law? (President Barack Obama has labeled it "abhorrent.") A law that they were able to pass through their own legislative process. One could very well argue, as many of the Afghans do, that these are strictly internal Afghan national affairs that are not the business of any other country.
Indeed. What's wrong with that argument?
Seems that an appropriate Changed U.S. response today should be either to say nothing, or to support the Afghan government, but not criticize the internal laws they pass. Hmm?
But if we criticize, have our criteria for what to criticize changed? How far are we willing to take our position? Will it have any teeth? Would the international response or perception of the U.S. improve now? If so, why? And if we do no more than criticize, how will that be perceived? How is our present behavior different from the past?

The idea that the world is rapidly running out of oil is nonsense - Newsweek

http://www.newsweek.com/id/193499/page/2

Despite all the fuss about growing demand for this scarce resource, the price of crude oil has gone lower and lower over the past 200 years, writes Ruchir Sharma, head of emerging markets at Morgan Stanley Investment Management. "This long-term price decline is due mainly to the constant discovery of new fields and greater energy efficiency, making nonsense of the idea that the world is rapidly running out of oil."

Very interesting article that attempts to look beyond the trees, at the forest as a whole. It makes a lot of grounded points and observations, based on history, trends and common sense.

I'm not saying there should be no interest in green technology. But perhaps the energy hysteria, coupled with the hype for green, are being artificially inflated in this country. If this article has any merit (which it certainly seems to have) then perhaps the way to lower our energy costs immediately, and for the long term (even without relying on this article), is for us to open up oil exploration and processing, as well as consider relying more on our other traditional fuels, while providing incentives and not penalties or government mandates (such as prohibiting oil drilling, regulating fuel efficiency, legislating cap and trade) to develop newer, more efficient technologies.

On top of these arguably ill-advised bailouts, in the face of the monumental new debt that our government now wants to impart on us for all sorts of social programs, the least they can do is try to relieve the financial pressure elsewhere, and not choke the goose completely.

Obama Wants to Control the Banks

There's a reason he refuses to accept repayment of TARP money.

By STUART VARNEY

I must be naive. I really thought the administration would welcome the return of bank bailout money. Some $340 million in TARP cash flowed back this week from four small banks in Louisiana, New York, Indiana and California. This isn't much when we routinely talk in trillions, but clearly that money has not been wasted or otherwise sunk down Wall Street's black hole. So why no cheering as the cash comes back?

My answer: The government wants to control the banks, just as it now controls GM and Chrysler, and will surely control the health industry in the not-too-distant future. Keeping them TARP-stuffed is the key to control. And for this intensely political president, mere influence is not enough. The White House wants to tell 'em what to do. Control. Direct. Command.

It is not for nothing that rage has been turned on those wicked financiers. The banks are at the core of the administration's thrust: By managing the money, government can steer the whole economy even more firmly down the left fork in the road.

If the banks are forced to keep TARP cash -- which was often forced on them in the first place -- the Obama team can work its will on the financial system to unprecedented degree. That's what's happening right now.

Here's a true story first reported by my Fox News colleague Andrew Napolitano (with the names and some details obscured to prevent retaliation). Under the Bush team a prominent and profitable bank, under threat of a damaging public audit, was forced to accept less than $1 billion of TARP money. The government insisted on buying a new class of preferred stock which gave it a tiny, minority position. The money flowed to the bank. Arguably, back then, the Bush administration was acting for purely economic reasons. It wanted to recapitalize the banks to halt a financial panic.

Fast forward to today, and that same bank is begging to give the money back. The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He's been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with "adverse" consequences if its chairman persists. That's politics talking, not economics.

Think about it: If Rick Wagoner can be fired and compact cars can be mandated, why can't a bank with a vault full of TARP money be told where to lend? And since politics drives this administration, why can't special loans and terms be offered to favored constituents, favored industries, or even favored regions? Our prosperity has never been based on the political allocation of credit -- until now.

Which brings me to the Pay for Performance Act, just passed by the House. This is an outstanding example of class warfare. I'm an Englishman. We invented class warfare, and I know it when I see it. This legislation allows the administration to dictate pay for anyone working in any company that takes a dime of TARP money. This is a whip with which to thrash the unpopular bankers, a tool to advance the Obama administration's goal of controlling the financial system.

After 35 years in America, I never thought I would see this. I still can't quite believe we will sit by as this crisis is used to hand control of our economy over to government. But here we are, on the brink. Clearly, I have been naive.

Now this is Alex speaking:

During the election I told you I was scared of this guy.  I'm no Englishman but I came from Russia and lived in Venezuela.  So I also know class warfare very well.  I made paralells with Hugo Chavez who is the king of class warfare.  A quote from an article in Bloomberg.com "The only indication of a possible slowdown by Chavez involves plans announced in July to take over Banco de Venezuela, the country’s third-biggest bank and a unit of Spain’s Banco Santander SA. Finance Minister Ali Rodriguez, who declined to respond to questions sent via text message about delayed payments, said last month the government is reconsidering the idea."  The article talks about Chavez' money crunch due to plunging oil prices. "

A Few Good Mothers

The rather small turnout of war protesters at Saturday's march down Manhattan's Broadway to Wall St. could be attributed to the blustery weather, the precedence the flagging economy demands of our attention; or perhaps that the stated intentions of our new President, to resolve the military misadventures of the previous administration, have led many to regard the wars as essentially over.

One small segment of our community knows all too well that the end is not at hand: families whose sons and daughters are, or have been, over there. Several local military mothers and fathers joined up with some of their counterparts from New York, Connecticut, and even Baltimore, and marched among the hodgepodge collection of students, health care unions, aging would-be anarchists, veterans groups from several wars, and various street performance troupes.

Four mothers carried a banner near the front of the procession, bucking a stiff head wind, making their way along the lane isolated from Broadway traffic by police barricades, toward the financial district and Battery Park. One National Guard mom, marching in only her second protest, worries every day about her son, who is due back from Iraq in May. She requested her name not be used, for fear that her son could suffer the effects of any publicity. Pam and Michelle, whose son and daughter returned from the war several years ago, and are since discharged from active duty, easily empathize with her dread at hearing each report of violence from Iraq. They, and the fourth mother, Anna, have been marching to protest the Iraq war, in New York, Washington, and South Orange/Maplewood, since before it began.

Anna's son arrived back in the US just a few days ago. He will be on leave next week, and will get to hold his four month old son for the first time. This having been his third tour in Iraq, Anna seems a bit weary of a routine that, in many ways, defines her life; yet she carries on, rarely missing a rally or vigil.

There had been discussion, during the wait to step off, about the point of all this marching. The advertised purpose for this march through Wall Street, to link the enormous costs of waging war to the economic turmoil now engulfing the country, seems unlikely to be advanced. The demonstrators may have been outnumbered by the support contingent - the police escorts, event marshals, and photographers. The New York media is unlikely to take notice, and onlookers will more likely be entertained by the giant puppets than inspired to ponder the economic connections intended by the organizers. All of the participants already oppose the wars, although for a broad range of reasons, so there will be no new converts to the cause.

The chief benefit for many military families lies essentially in being there for each other. A validation of emotion and experience at odds with that of the typical Americans they encounter in their daily lives. Their public expression of frustration at the duration of the wars, and support of each other, recharges them for the ride home on the Midtown Direct - and a return to their other reality.

Injecting Sanity Into Bailout Mix

President Obama, acting as our chief steward, wisely put conditions on the truckload of cash being shipped to Detroit. Too bad the cash pumped into the flat tire we call the financial system was not similarly encumbered. We might be able to see where it went. Businesses SHOULD be leery of accepting bailout funds [and are not being forced to do so]. Business needs to be careful not to trade away autonomy for cash. If the government buys a stake, they have investor rights - for better or worse.

Does the stake in large companies held by our government equate to socialism? Does it represent an erosion of capitalism? Are we asking the right questions?
Capitalism is not a structure subject to erosion - but merely a tool used to accomplish projects on a scale impossible for individuals. Likewise, socialism is not an all-consuming beast about to devour all of our creative souls - but merely a tool to assure basic access that individuals are unable to attain on their own. Both tools provide benefits to society, and both, like all tools, must have guards to prevent accidental injury, and instructions for productive use. In clumsy hands, or used in the wrong application, either would be damaging. Also, one tool cannot produce all that's needed.

Since Reagan, capitalism has been overused and underregulated in our economy. This has produced a lot of wealth, but you can't eat wealth. The auto industry, like many in the US, operated with its primary goal to maximize shareholder return; a laudable intent, but this should have been lower as a priority than building the best automobiles. The capitalist tools were used to make poor quality, inappropriate, but high profit cars and SUVs. This short-sighted strategy was accomplished by investing in lobbying, to excuse the industry from efficiency [and sometime safety] standards; advertising, to create demand for these vehicles; and financing, to smooth the buying process. Lack of vision [supposedly the great benefit of capitalism] and unwillingness to keep focused on their market, is what left these hulks so vulnerable in the current recession.

Treasury Bonds - The next big bubble

A very under reported situation that's looming is the creation of the next big bubble - the t-bond bubble. It's very interesting because I recently attended a party and some folks told me don't worry about the economy because the government will figure out what the next bubble will be. Well they have. When in 2001 the dot-com bubble burst Alan Greenspan gave us the housing bubble by injecting cheap credit into our economy. In 2009 they will save us from the housing bubble by printing money like crazy.

According to Warren Buffet "When the financial history of this decade is written, it will surely speak of the Internet bubble of the late 1990s and the housing bubble of the early 2000s," he wrote. "But the U.S. Treasury bond bubble . . . may be regarded as almost equally extraordinary."

Buffett's comments came before the Federal Reserve last week said it would buy $300 billion in long-term U.S. Treasury debt over the next six months.

The government also lifted the ceiling on mortgage-backed securities that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can guarantee, up from $500 billion to $1.25 trillion. And the Fed doubled to $200 billion what it might purchase of that debt.

"Never in the U.S. have we had this level of money creation in a short period of time," said Olivier Garret, chief executive of Casey Research in Stowe, Vt. "The scale is such that you could see the printing presses turning red hot."

Interest rates fell sharply and stock markets responded positively to the Fed moves. But critics argue the actions will devalue the U.S. dollar, reduce confidence of foreign buyers and stoke inflation.

"The U.S. dollar is . . . not backed up by anything, only by the fact that the world has confidence the U.S. will be honoring its debts," Garret said.

At some point the debt will be so huge that investors will start to loose confidence in our ability to pay back our debt. This increased risk translates into higher interest to lure investors.

A piece of news that went completely unnoticed this week is that England failed to raise capital to fund their stimulus package. "The impact on the markets of the UK's deepening debt was seen the day after King spoke to the committee. Long-term government bonds, or "gilts," were put up for sale and failed to find enough buyers, the first time this has happened in 13 years."

Higher interest rates at the treasury level means higher cost of capital for businesses (Treasuries are considered in economic terms the risk free instrument, the cost of capital for businesses always has a higher premium, so as treasury interests go up so does cost of capital). Higher cost of capital translates into higher inflation or in this case possibly hyper inflation.

In the mean time the Fed continues to expand their balance sheet (the debit portion) and this will prevent them from taking further action long term. I don't know how they will be able to unwind it, since all the treasuries they are buying won't have any demand in the open market already flooded with treasuries that nobody can buy or wants to buy.

So, our government is taking us down a path that scares the crap out of me. I've said it before and I will say it again, inflation is coming and with a vengeance, the question is how soon?