Warning: This blog is political in nature.

If you are sensitive to political commentary,
please go back to my main Random Thoughts blog.

If you like political discussion, you may also like my Political Positions blog.

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

We keep finding more problems in the Healthcare Bill

Another letter to my Senators, before tomorrow's vote on the massive 2074-page bill:


Healthcare in the United States has some problems. The current healthcare bill seeks to address a couple of those problems, such as lifetime caps on benefits, preexisting conditions, and higher premiums or lack of insurability due to preexisting conditions.

However, the more significant issues are not addressed in the bill.

• Frivolous lawsuits and excessive damages are the greatest cost in healthcare today, but tort reform is not addressed in this bill.

• Many people have problems with their insurance denying coverage due to the cost of procedures or perceived necessity of procedures. This bill does not resolve these issues; rather, it adds another layer of bureaucracy – or several – which can deny claims.

• Some are concerned by waiting times for critical procedures. But many expects expect these problems not only not to be improved, but to in fact multiply. Most countries with highly-regulated or federally-provided healthcare have extensive waiting periods for even minor procedures, and some procedures have waiting periods of years, where US citizens can currently get most procedures within days or weeks.

• Insurance premiums are a tremendous concern to many. But the additional regulation and taxes in the bill will certainly increase the cost of both healthcare and insurance. Some experts say that insurance premiums will double within the next year or two.

More troubling, however, for every day that passes, we keep finding more problems in the current healthcare bill.

• We knew that a panel would be established with the power to unquestionably and unappealably decide what does or does not qualify and who does or does not get coverage under Medicare. Some have euphemistically referred to this as a "death panel."

o We now know that this panel will be composed of five individuals appointed by the President, without accountability, without oversight, and without any Senate ability to repeal the panel in the future.

• We knew that the bill has MANY bribes, payoffs, coercions, and other incentives for Senators who were previously hesitant concerning or opposed to the bill. This includes $300 million from the US taxpayers for Louisiana's state healthcare, for which the state, from its own taxpayers, was otherwise expected to pay itself.

o We now know that the US taxpayers will be responsible for every penny of Medicare costs for Nebraska for the rest of time.

• We knew that all US citizens will be required – and unconstitutionally so – to obtain and maintain health insurance, the first time that citizens have ever been required to purchase a service simply for the privilege of living. We also know that only Federally-approved plans will be acceptable.

o But we do not know what criteria will be placed on the acceptable insurance place. Despite the length of over two-thousand pages of the bill, criteria for acceptable insurance programs are not specified in it. These all-important criteria will be specified later.

• In addition, we also now know that abortion will be funded by taxpayer dollars. We have determined that healthcare providers who have conscientious objections to providing abortion will be required to participate anyway or else suffer punitive action.

• We also know that the current bill will institute taxes and fees immediately, but will not start any benefits for another four years. We will be paying for five years of benefits over nine years of taxes and fees. This is not sustainable and results in unrealistic projections.

We also know that you voted for cloture, to end debate and to proceed toward a vote. (In the version sent to Senator Webb:) We know that despite your opposition expressed in your emails to many aspects of the bill, you have effectively voted for it.

The majority of Americans, and the majority of Virginians, do not want this bill. The majority of your constituents do not want this bill. Please work in the interest of your constituents and work against this bill.

Friday, December 18, 2009

Winter Snow ≠ State of Emergency

We are getting a little snow. Some parts of the state might get as much as a foot of snow. So?

And Governor Tim Kaine declared Virginia to be in a "state of emergency"?!?

Because of some snow? It's late December. It's winter. And it's Virginia, not south Florida. It's not the three feet I've seen here before, and which we dealt with without any real problem. It's not the two feet I saw in Georgia on occasion. And it won't be even the one foot in most areas; here in Bristol, we're expecting 4-8 inches.

The stores will sell out of bread and milk. Some gas stations may sell out. Both for the same reason - stupid people who think that if they get stuck at home for a few days, they might starve to death. What's the matter? Forget to go shopping this week? But it happens every time the forecast even calls for snow.

Some people will likely freeze to death. But that is a function of the cold, not the snow -- and it's not that cold, with lows maybe in the 20's; it was colder last week than now.

Some people may die from carbon monoxide poisoning, fumes, house fires, etc -- from using camp stoves, grills, etc, inside the house if they lose power for maybe a day or two. They have a gas grill and not a decent coat? Sounds like misplaced priorities to me. And a lack of common sense besides. And there are public organizations that are willing to help, if they just ask. There are public shelters with warm rooms, if the person just wants the help.

Snow happens. It is NOT an emergency.

Short addendum to my Senators

A vote to end debate is equivalent to a vote to support the bill.

New letter to my Senators

Please only vote for the healthcare bill -- or any other bill, for that matter -- if these three aspects are true:

1 - You have read the entire bill personally and clearly understand all aspects of the bill,

2 - The bill complies with President Obama's pledge that it will contain no pork or earmarks,

3 - You can clearly explain how the bill falls under the responsibilities assigned to the Federal Government by the Constitution.

If all three of these are not true, please vote and work against the bill as it is not in the best interest of the citizens of the United States.

I vote, and I actively support, both online and in person, those who work for the best interest of our country.

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Another letter to my Senators

Please work against this monstrosity bill that purports to "reform" healthcare. The current bill is 1.1 TRILLION dollars (and growing) of pork and regulation that will not reform. As massive as the regulation is, it does not even address the real problems, including frivolous lawsuits (needing tort reform) and lack of real insurance competition (needing interstate competition). This is a grab for power, not an attempt to solve anything. Please do all you can to eliminate this bill that will otherwise destroy our already-shaky economy.

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Global warming? Really?

So, lots of people are in Copenhagen for a couple of weeks to discuss "global warming".

But -

We just locally had the earliest snowfall on record?

Parts of California had their first snow since the 70's?

Lots of areas are reporting record low temperatures?

And apparently, those in Copenhagen don't really believe we are causing global warming anyway, based on all the private jets and limousines they are using. Someone in the news reported that - just in these two weeks - they are producing more carbon dioxide than many countries do in an entire year.

So, either they need to "practice what they preach", or else they don't really believe what they preach.

If that's the case, they are apparently only doing it for either money (Al Gore has made his fortunes off of global warming, but has a mansion that uses ten times the energy of the average house in the area) or power (regulation over every area of life and business).

Think about it.

Another Letter to Senators: Please REJECT any version of the current healthcare bill

I just sent this email to both of my Senators.
Subject: Please REJECT any version of the current healthcare bill

We do not want the current healthcare bill in any form or regardless of any amendments.

We do not want government-run healthcare, whether it be through a "public option", a single-payer system, or "co-ops".

We do not want government-funded abortion.

We do not want rationing of care.

We do not want any government official or committee, appointed, elected, directed, or otherwise empowered, to determine what care may or may not be appropriate over the decision of our doctors.

We do not want reduced care for seniors.

We do not want reduced choice, either of care options, care providers, or insurance providers.

We do not want increased taxes, whether they be direct, on healthcare providers, or though employers.

We do not want increased insurance premiums.

We do not want to be forced to buy insurance.

We do not want increased bureaucracy.

We do not want hesitant officials to be bought off with personal or local benefits.

We do not want personal agendas to be furthered through legislation.

This 2000-page bill is full of pork, unnecessary regulation, taxes and fees, and onerous requirements. And who knows what else is hidden in a bill that no one in the Senate has actually read fully.

Please reject this healthcare bill, regardless of any amendments or minor modifications it may have.

Friday, November 20, 2009

Forwarded email: "Maxine on Health Care!"

I don't normally pass on forwarded emails, but this one is both funny and true.


Maxine on Health Care!

Let me get this straight.

...we're going to pass a health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it,

passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it,

to be signed by a president that also hasn't read it and who smokes,

with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes,

all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese,

and financed by a country that's nearly broke.

What could possibly go wrong?

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Letter to my Senators: "Please REJECT the current healthcare bill."

I just sent this letter to my Senators, Jim Webb and Mark Warner.


Please REJECT the current healthcare bill.

The current healthcare "reform" bill does NOTHING to reform malpractice suits, frivolous or otherwise, which are the major cause of increasing healthcare costs.

The bill requires, for the first time in US history and with neither legal nor Constitutional precedent, that all citizens purchase a product or service for simply living, and provides steep penalties for those who choose not to have the service.

The bill includes heavy taxes on the healthcare industry, which will further increase costs as these taxes are passed on to the customers.

The bill requires government-sponsored insurance "options", which inherently and unfairly compete against existing insurance companies, since the government plans have no need to operate at a profit, to break even financially, or to provide good customer service once the existing insurance has been run out of business.

The bill does not provide for private competition, as existing prohibitions against purchasing services from companies in other states are still in effect.

The bill continues biases against personal insurance coverage by not allowing tax deductibility unless the insurance is provided through an employer.

The bill includes government bureaucratic oversight, contrary to promises that "no government bureaucrat will come between you and your doctor."

As an example:

A "task force" has already been established that now "recommends" women who were previously recommended to get mammograms every year after age 40 now only get them every other year and then only after age 50. Just to be clear, the data has not changed, only the recommendations.

Right now, the United States has the best cancer survivorship in the world. If this healthcare plan is instituted, many thousands of women will die who would before have survived, and thousands of women who would have had a simple treatment and rapid recovery will now have to endure long, complex, painful (and expensive) treatments, because their cancer was not caught early.

In summary, this plan causes more problems without solving the existing ones.

Please both vote and speak against this horrendous plan.

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Cancer, Rationing, Broken Promises

President Obama said that "no government bureaucrat will come between you and your doctor."


The healthcare community has long recommended that women over 40 get mammograms every year. But now, as Congress and Senate try to pass a government takeover of healthcare, a government "task force" has just recommended that be changed. Just to be clear, the data has not changed, only the recommendations.

They now say that only women over 50 should get mammograms, and then only every other year.

Right now, the United States has the best cancer survivorship in the world. If the government enforces this "recommendation" as part of its new healthcare plan, many women will die who would before have survived, and many women who would have had a simple treatment and recovery will now have to endure long, complex, painful (and expensive) treatments, because their cancer was not caught early.

Well, that last part, "expensive," may not come. European countries with government-controlled healthcare don't allow expensive treatments for people over 60. That means that those who are over 60 and get cancer don't get treatment - they get management. Pain therapy. Don't treat the problem; manage the symptoms.

Guess what? It's not (for the most part) the Republicans who are telling people to "die quickly". It's those who are pushing for this government takeover of what is right now the best healthcare system in the world.

It's not perfect, and it can use some tweaks (mostly protection from already overbearing government, like allowing frivolous lawsuits and outrageous penalties), but it's the best anyone has.

Monday, November 9, 2009

States can opt out of Federal health care? Really?

Sorry. After six years, states have to participate, whether they want to or not. If they don't join, they lose the healthcare subsidies that they have had for years, including Medicare matching funds.

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

New letter to Congressman Rick Boucher


An amendment (the Ellsworth-DeLauro amendment) has been added to the healthcare bill that supposedly removes taxpayer funding of elective abortion.

It does not.

Analysis by National Right to Life legislative director Douglas Johnson (http://www.lifenews.com/nat5607.html) reveals that the amendment is complex subterfuge, and that all cases of elective abortion will still be permitted - and funded - by other provisions of the bill.

As you are no doubt aware, Creigh Deeds' candidacy for governor was rejected locally 71.85% to 27.25%. If you support this bill, which local voters such as myself are adamantly against, the same may happen to you next year.

New VA Governor: Bob McDonald in total domination

The year after every Presidential election since Carter in 1976, the Virginia gubernatorial election has always gone to the candidate of the other party. That means that Bob McDonald had to win, just according to the way Virginia voters always do things.

But we weren't expecting a 17 percent spread between the two candidates. Particularly since there was only a 12% difference in polling yesterday.

In politics, a 6% difference is considered a landslide. What do they call a 17% difference?

Update: It's actually a 17.41% difference, 58.64% to 41.23%. And Bristol, where I live, was 71.85% to 27.25%, an overwhelming 44.6% difference approaching 3-to-1.

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Healthcare Bill: Adding 800 MORE pages the day before the vote?

The current draft of the Congressional healthcare bill is 1990 pages long. Some experts say that it will take a week just to read it, not to mention deciphering it and looking up all the other laws to which it refers.

But wait - there's more!

Nancy Pelosi is working on an 800 PAGE amendment. No telling how much pork and government control is in there.

But that's not all!

She wants a vote on the bill on Friday!

The bill already cuts $500 BILLION from Medicare. Democrats regularly accuse Republicans of wanting to reduce care for seniors. Democrats say that Republicans are against seniors, and that is proven by their opposition to this bill. But this bill will actually do just that.

The bill outlaws any new private health insurance after 2013. We can choose our own insurance? Not with this bill.

The bill pays for elective abortions. Most Americans, even those who think abortion is fine, don't want it paid for by taxes. But this bill will allow mothers to kill their babies and have other people pay for it.

The Congressional Budget Office says that this bill - not including the extra 800 pages - will cost over a TRILLION dollars ($1.055T). Nancy Pelosi says that it won't add anything to the debt? That it won't cost taxpayers "a dime"? Yea, right.

The number Nancy Pelosi herself keeps using is $894 billion, just under the $900 billion cap that President Obama wanted. But that $894 billion is the funding the bill provides for health coverage, not the cost.

Monday, November 2, 2009

Letter to Congressman Rick Boucher

I just sent this email to my Congressman, Rick Boucher.


The current healthcare bill requires all private healthcare insurance (new registrations) to end in 2013.

I want to choose my own healthcare plan. Please vote against this bill.

There are many other problems in this 2000-page bill, including $500 Billion in CUTS in Medicare, but letters to Congress or Senate members must be short and to-the-point.

I sent similar letters to my Senators, saying to vote against the bill if it gets approved by the House and comes before the Senate.

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Deadliest month in Middle East, still no decision by President

With the recent deaths in Afghanistan, this month is the deadliest since the war in the Middle East started in 2002. And the deadliest since...well...August.

What do these months have in common? Simple - both months went without the reinforcements requested by the commanders in the field. Reinforcements requested formally in July and repeatedly requested in briefings since May.

Ummm, didn't Candidate Obama say that he, unlike his predecessor, would LISTEN to his commanders in the field? Didn't he say that he would do what it takes to complete the operation in Afghanistan?

Looks like Bush and Obama have more in common than they like to admit. They both dragged out this war without defined objectives and without giving their commanders what they need to get the job done. And they have both stood idly by as men and women of our armed forces die almost daily.

Get it done or get out. I don't care what your party is. Get it done or get out.

Monday, October 26, 2009

H1N1/Swine Flu: NOT a Pandemic or National Emergency

President Obama just declared H1H1 (Swine Flu) to be a "national emergency".

Why would he think that? And why would we believe that he actually does think that?

In the past year, about 1,000 people have died of H1N1 flu. In the typical year, 36,000 people die of the seasonal flu. Is H1N1 really that bad?

The President and the CDC are pushing that all children need to get the H1N1 inoculation shot. But the President has not had his own kids given the shot he is telling everyone else they need to get.

Does the President really think H1N1 is that bad? Or is he a hypocrite for not doing as he tells everyone else? Or is something else going on?

Remember, his Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, said: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." That's why this administration has been nothing but crisis after crisis after crisis. Healthcare crisis, banking crisis, auto crisis, climate crisis, energy crisis, housing crisis, spectrum crisis... Is this one any different? Is it a play for more power, more control?

Friday, October 23, 2009

Pay Czar: Pay caps - not only for bailed-out companies

You hear about the pay caps for any company that tool any bailout money? You know, taking away the LEGALLY-CONTRACTED and APPROVED BY CONGRESS bonuses for executives who decided to accept a bonus INSTEAD of salary? The bonus they EARNED by MEETING the goals set by Congress? And that if they had not met the goals, they would have only made one penny for the whole year of work?

Well, they met the goals. They earned the bonuses. And the "Pay Czar" is now wanting to take the bonuses away anyway.

But wait - there's more!

These caps don't only apply to the banks that took bailout money. They can apply to all banks, whether or not they were bailed out.

But wait - there's more!

These caps can apply to ANY COMPANY that is deemed to affect the stability of the country. You know, like Walmart or GE?

"And if you act now -"

These caps DO NOT apply to everyone equally. The Pay Czar can choose who to limit and who to not limit.

On the one hand, Walmart has often been criticized by members of Congress and the administration. Some suggest these criticisms are targeted at them largely because they have repeatedly rejected unionization, and the President is - admitted repeatedly - very closely aligned with the largest union, SEIU. You know, the group that causes unrest at healthcare town hall meetings? And tries to make it look like it's the people against the healthcare plan causing the problems? Even while SEIU members are biting people's fingers off? Yea, those people. The President is VERY closely associated with them, and has said - repeatedly - that he consults with them on everything.

On the other hand, GE is closely associated with the Presidential administration, and several top executives have been appointed to plush positions. Guess whose pay is NOT getting capped?

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

President Obama: Act of Treason?

President Obama is planning to sign a UN global warming treaty.

The problem is, under the US Constitution, the President does not have authority to sign any treaties until first ratified by 2/3 of the Senate. And with the current members of the Senate, such a treaty will never get anywhere close to a 67/23 vote. Or, not in favor of it anyway. The Senate recognizes that their constituents are so firmly against such a thing that they will never approve it, and even if ALL the Democrats did vote for it (which they won't; the "blue dog" Democrats won't vote for it), there are enough Republicans (even after discounting the RINOs ["Republican In Name Only]) to ensure any such UN treaty to ensure a firm rejection.

Without this authority, the President is undermining the government and meeting the very definition of treason.

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Anita Dunn, Pres. Obama's "Fox Watchdog" Admires Mao Tse-Tung

Anita Dunn, appointed by President Obama to keep an eye on Fox News, gave a speech before a high school group in June.

In that speech, she said - and gave examples - of how much she admires Mao Tse-Tung. She said that he is one of her "favorite political philosophers." She has two favorites, and he is one.

Mao Tse-Tung took over China by killing anyone opposed to him. He killed 70 million of his own people, and put many more in "re-education" camps and slavery. he said that he would be willing to kill 300 million of his own people to get his victory.

Mao Tse-Tung killed more of his own people than Hitler did, 4 to 7 times as many, in fact. Hitler only had 6 million Jews killed, and 11-17 million total killed.

And this man is her "favorite philosopher"?!?

Doubt my text here? Click the link in the title to see it in her own words.

Friday, October 9, 2009

Perfect example of Liberalism

We have just been handed a perfect example of one side of Liberalism.

That side? Liberalism considered talk to be the same as action.

President Obama has just been given the Nobel Peace Prize. It was given to him for giving "hope for a better future", including reducing nuclear arms and talking with Iran about peace.

But Obama has only TALKED about reducing nuclear arms (which will not actually improve peace, since the radical nations will not give up theirs, but that's another matter), and he has TALKED about meeting with Iran. He has not actually done EITHER. Other Presidents have DONE both; Obama has TALKED about doing both.

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Cross in the Mohave Desert

There is currently a political conflict concerning a cross that is standing in the Mohave desert.

Background: In 1934, a group of veterans erected a cross in the desert as a memorial to those who died in the Great War (now known as World War I). In 1994, this land was made into a national preserve, hence it is now "federal land".

A man, supported by the ACLU (naturally) has filed a suit to have the cross removed, claiming that the cross violates the separation of church and state.

There are several problems here. First, any suit requires that the plaintiff have "standing", that is, he must be personally involved in the case. Unless he was personally harmed ("damaged"), he has no ground to file a suit. But he is claiming that he was offended by the cross, which is argued to give him standing in the case.

Second, the Constitution doesn't require a "separation of church and state". It requires that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". That means that Congress should not make any law that concerns any religious organization. Yea, right. They have made lots of law concerning religious groups. But the Constitution says they are not supposed to. As far as Congress is concerned, religious groups do not even exist. That means no laws for them, and no laws against them.

Third: "Congress". The cross was erected by a group of veterans, not the Congress, so the amendment does not apply. Actually, states can (short of more recent court decisions) establish their own religions, and many did so, though they have since been discontinued. Only Congress is restricted by this amendment.

Fourth: "establishment of religion". This is a cross, not an organization, so the amendment does not apply. Which technically means that Congress would be free to make laws concerning this cross if they wanted to, just not restrictions (see the next point). I'm sure the ACLU would like a law that any cross must be lit 24/7 at government expense, unless requested otherwise by the cross's owner...

Fifth: The amendment doesn't stop with forbidding laws concerning establishments of religion. It goes on: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That means that even if a law does not directly concern a religious group, it cannot restrict them. That means that Congress cannot make any law that would restrict this cross in any way. Of course, the lawsuit is handled by the courts, not Congress, so that doesn't apply either.

We see then, that IF this guy is deemed to even have standing to file a suit, the only results would be that he could seek damages for the offense. But he has no monetary claim, since nothing was damaged. He could seek some psychiatric opinion that he has suffered, but he would still have to determine some monetary loss for damages to be awarded - lost productivity or such. Awards for "pain and suffering" generally require gross negligence or some other fault on the part of the defendant.

So, even if this guy won his case, he still gets nothing. Other than maybe an injunction. Yea, issue the cross a restraining order so it can't stalk the guy. If the guy is "harmed" after knowing the "danger", then it's his own fault. You can't sue a stove manufacturer after you've been warned not to put your hand on the burner.

Remember, this cross is only eight-feet-tall, and it's in the middle of the desert. It's not like he's likely to see it on his way to work or anything. But even then, it's freedom. If this guy doesn't like freedom, he can use some of his freedom to move somewhere else.

Friday, October 2, 2009

Chicago Olympics

At the end of Round One:

Chicago, with the fewest votes for the 2016 Olympic Games...
You are the Weakest Link. Goodbye!

Good news!

We've just gotten two bits of good news!

1 - Chicago has been eliminated from consideration for the 2016 Olympics. YAY!

We don't want the second most politically-corrupt city (after New Orleans) getting it.

2 - President Obama met with General Stanley McChrystal briefly before leaving Copenhagen. YAY!

Despite last month being the deadliest in the middle east since we went there in 2002,
and despite Obama's loud insistence as a candidate that we need to listen to the commanders on the ground,
he has only met with his commander in Afghanistan (whom he appointed) ONCE in the past 70 days.
OK, now they have met twice.

Now Obama needs to approve the troops that McChrystal says we have to have to avoid losing the war...

Monday, September 28, 2009

President Obama promotes Chicago in Denmark rather than approving Afghanistan needs

I recently posted that President Obama has still not responded to the general that he appointed concerning needs in Afghanistan. General Stanley McChrystal said over a month ago that we need more troops in Afghanistan or else we will lose the war there.

Now, President Obama has gone to Denmark, with all his staff, to promote his home town of Chicago to get the Olympics.

And our men and women in the military are still fighting and dying, undersupported because President Obama has waited over a month now without even responding to the requests.

Friday, September 25, 2009

Afghanistan: Do it or don't do it

Did you hear that August was the deadliest month in the Iraq/Afghanistan theater since we went there in 2002? Yes, despite all the protests by Democrats that Bush was killing our troops, Obama has seen more killed himself.

The general that President Obama himself appointed to oversee the war in Afghanistan has strongly recommended that we need more troops. He says we need them NOW.

When healthcare issues or stimulus issues come up, President Obama says these bills must go through now - don't even bother reading it, just pass it - it's too important to get done now. But when his own appointee general gives him a report about Afghanistan, he lets it sit on his desk for WEEKS without action.

Instead, the President goes on TV shows. He's been on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Univision, and The David Letterman Show; he's given talks to the UN (apologizing for the United States again), been to meetings in Russia, and he's taken a vacation on Martha's Vineyard, all since he's gotten the report on Afghanistan. And he has still not done anything about the report, still not approved the troops that are, according to the report, NECESSARY to win the war.

Now, I'm not sure the troops are needed. I think we should be able to use a technological solution, but that's my bias. But I think we should do WHATEVER IT TAKES to get the job done. Get it done, and get our troops home.

If you don't have enough troops available, I have a simple solution. Transfer everyone from Germany, Britain, Australia, Ireland, and anywhere else they are not actively needed for our own defense Close every base in other countries, unless we actively need them for our own defense. Put enough troops in Afghanistan that there will be one every square yard over the entire country. Take out EVERY MEMBER of the Taliban and EVERY MEMBER of Al Qaeda and EVERY MEMBER of any other terrorist group, with, as they say, extreme prejudice. If there's a stronghold and you can't get to it, use a cruise missile with a tactical nuke and destroy it.

Get the job done and bring our troops home.

Or, if you're unwilling to do what it takes, then just bring them home. It's better to admit defeat now, than to wait until you've allowed another few thousand of our men and women die and then pull them out.

Monday, September 21, 2009

Letter to my Senators and Congressman: Do not support ANY bailout of media

There is now discussion of possible bailouts for newspaper companies. I just sent this letter to my Senators and Congressman.
Do not support ANY bailout of media companies, including, but not limited to, as any newspaper company. The majority of media companies are losing market share because they are losing customers, and they are losing customers for many reasons, such as inaccurate, incomplete, and/or biased reporting. The Constitution guarantees the ability to print anything the publisher desires to print. It does not guarantee that anyone wants to read it. And it certainly does not require such printings be conducted at the public expense.

Thursday, September 17, 2009

ACORN's out from census and HUD - now get SEIU out

After all the scandals, ACORN has been removed from the census (which they were going to take) and Housing and Urban Development, which has been giving them lots of money supposedly for helping low-income people to find housing.

But SEIU is cut from the same cloth. Two brothers, Wade and Dale Rathke, control both. Wade is over ACORN and Dale is over SEIU. They share a headquarters. They share funding. They share a shell company that handles all the funding (a private not-for-profit company, so all their records are private).

Get SEIU out too. And get both of them all the way out, not just partway out.

Thursday, September 10, 2009

ACORN: Promoting prostitution, including child prostitution

News broken this morning:

ACORN, the organization that President Obama worked for as an attorney and "community organizer", the organization that has been given charge of the 2010 census by the White House - and the organization that has been charged in many states with election fraud...

ACORN - has been caught on tape with several members, not just a "rogue" employee, actually showing people how to engage in prostitution, including child prostitution, and how to do so with the appearance of legality.

They said to report the business activity as "performing arts", and to register the children as dependents for tax credit.

This group is getting MILLIONS, maybe even BILLIONS of dollars from US, the American taxpayers.

We've seen before how they register people like "Mickey Mouse" and others as voters.

We've seen how they bus people in from out of state to vote in places where advance registration is not required.

We've seen them organize protests and bus tours of the AIG executive homes, to make it seem that the general public was upset.

We've seen them "participate" at town hall forums concerning the President's healthcare agenda and we've seen them yell and get violent, so as to give the impression that those who object to the plan were unruly - when it was actually ACORN (and SEIU) people doing it all along.

And now we see them showing others how to do what they do best - how to game the system for personal benefit, even when the "personal benefits" are clearly and notoriously illegal.

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Hewalthcare: "A means to an end"

President Obama said in preparation for his speech tonight that a public option of healthcare is not an end in itself, but is only a means to and end.

Well, we already knew that. The public option is a means to the total government takeover of our healthcare system. And the takeover of healthcare is but one step in a takeover of all aspects of our society.

They have started with banks and auto manufacturing, and these people in charge, some of whom call themselves "progressive" (a system where all wealth is redistributed according to the dictates of the ruling party), some of whom call themselves "socialist" (a system where the government controls all business without owning it directly), and some of whom call themselves "communist" (a system where the government outright owns all business) will not be satisfied until they, as the President himself has said, "fundamentally transform America".

Sunday, September 6, 2009

Van Jones: Gone, but not forgotten

Van Jones, the self-proclaimed Communist Green Jobs Czar, uh, Special Advisor on Green Jobs, has resigned due to the controversy surrounding his involvement with a 9-11 conspiracy group (a group that believes the US government caused the 9-11-2001 disaster).

But is he really gone? Is he still advising President Obama, whether in an official capacity or otherwise?

And what about the affiliated group The Apollo Project that wrote the stimulus / Recovery Act and got $11 billion out of it for themselves and more for the unions they represent?

And what about the other, less vocal but nevertheless strong, Communists, Marxists and Socialists in the administration? Remember, President Obama himself proclaimed himself as a Marxist in college, and was friends in Chicago with the founder of the terrorist group Weather Underground - and initiated his run for Senate in his house.

In other words, Van Jones is no longer in an official position. But we still have to watch these people very closely. Remember, President Obama himself said that we can judge him by the people with which he surrounds himself.

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Senator Edward Kennedy and Health Care

Senator Edward Kennedy died last night.

He has had a year and a half of treatments trying to save his life.

If the healthcare plan he has pushed passes, other people will not be able to get similar care. They will be given pain treatments instead.

This is not my opinion; Health Czar Dr. Ezekial Emanuel says that care will be provided based on "quality-adjusted life years." That means that if treatment costs more than $50,000 per anticipated year of quality life, the treatment will be denied.

It also means that if treatment will not significantly improve either length or quality of life, the treatment will be denied - for instance, if the procedure will just reduce pain (say, back surgery or knee/hip replacement), they'll just give pain treatments instead.

Of course, the current Democratic healthcare plan exempts the Congress and Senate members from itself; it only applies to "regular people"...

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Reasonable Questions

On his show and copied on his website, Glenn Beck (Fox News) has posed some good questions. Questions that aren't being answered.

Questions like:

- Who is "surrounding" the President in the White House?

- Do any of the President's advisers have criminal records?

- Are the President's advisers working to better the country or their own ideals?

- Who are the anti-capitalists in Washington?

- What roles do they have in crafting bills?

- What was "STORM"? What happened to the founders, where are they now?

- What qualifications must one have to be a Presidential adviser?

- What is the difference between a community organizer and a community activist?

- Do the czars have power?

- Should a communist have the ear of the President of the United States?

- What role did the Apollo Alliance play in crafting bills?

- Does the President know the co-founder of the Weather Underground is a board member of the Apollo Alliance?

- How many people in the administration are connected to the movement for a democratic society?

- What role does George Soros play... CONSTITUTIONALLY?

- Our unfunded liability for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is close to $100 trillion. Is there any way to pay for these programs without bankrupting America?

- We are in so much debt, why spend more borrowed money on cap-and-trade and healthcare programs before we stop the flow of red-ink?

- The stimulus package funneled billions of dollars to ACORN. How does giving billions of dollars to ACORN stimulate the economy?

- If it was so important for congress to pass the stimulus bill before they even had time to read it why has only a fraction of the stimulus money been spent 6 months later?

- Bush said he had to abandon free market principles in order to save them, how exactly does that work?

- Why won’t members of Congress read the bills before they vote on them?

- Why are citizens mocked and laughed at when they ask their congressman to read the bills before they vote on them?

- Was the cash-for-clunkers program meant to save the earth or the economy? Did it accomplish either?

- How did Van Jones, a self-proclaimed communist become a special advisor to the president?

- Did President Obama know of Van Jones’ radical political beliefs when he named him special advisor?

- The Apollo Alliance claimed credit for writing the stimulus bill—why was this group allowed to write any portion of this bill?

- If politicians aren’t writing the bills and aren’t reading the bills, do they have any idea what these 1000 page plus bills actually impose on the American people?

- If the ‘public option’ health care plan is so good why won’t politicians agree to have that as their plan?

- If town hall meetings are intended for the politicians to learn what’s on our mind—why do they spend so much time talking instead of listening?

- Politicians are refusing to attend town hall meetings complaining, without evidence, that they are scripted. Does that mean we shouldn’t come out and vote for you since every campaign stop, baby kiss and speech you give is scripted?

- Why would you want to overwhelm the system?

- Is using the economic crises to rush legislation through congress what Rahm Emanuel meant when he talked about "not letting a crises go to waste"?

- What are the czars paid? What is the budget for their staffs/offices?

Green Job Czar: Avowed Radical Communist

You read that right. Van Jones, the President's appointed "Special Adviser on Green Jobs," AKA "Green Jobs Czar"is a self-proclaimed Radical Communist. He has been in prison for radical activities, and spent time in jail associated with the Rodney King riots in LA.

That's not me or anyone else calling him a "communist" - it's him calling himself that.

How did he get past the FBI's vetting (background check) process? Simple. The White House does their own vetting now; they won't let the FBI look into his past.

War: Either Do It or Don't Do It

Just like with George H W Bush and George W Bush in Iraq:

Mr. President, either get the job done in Afghanistan or get out.

Don't just play around with it. Let the men and women who are trained to take down an enemy do what they are trained to do. Or bring them home.

Either way, finish there. Don't drag it out for the next eight years and wait for somebody else pull them out for you.

My personal preference: Take out Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Completely. (I am considering that "if you cut off the head, the snake will die;" ex-members of a dead group don't need to be individually taken out unless they are themselves a continuing threat.)

Don't play around with threats to our national security. Like poisonous snakes, either kill them or leave them alone. We don't want to get bitten again, because that would probably mean thousands (or more) of more people would die.

Of course, if they nuke DC, we'll get a new Congress and Senate out of it... But that's no excuse for the collateral damage of possibly millions of people to die because you just wouldn't let our military and intelligence services do their jobs.

It should be quite simple, really. We know our services have the ability to infiltrate them, a few people in varied positions. They can take out the leadership. In a manner that allows deniability, obviously. (Yea, the Taliban leadership must have gotten some dirty water or something. Always drink UPstream from the horses. We had nothing to do with it...)

Monday, August 24, 2009

Dems say Republicans only complain, no ideas

The Democrats repeatedly say that the Republicans only complain about the Democrat healthcare bill and offer no ideas of their own.

Well, I will readily admit that the Republicans aren't doing nearly as much as they could. That the Democrats can say what they do without getting laughed at is a case in point.

But the simple matter is that while the Democrats have put out one healthcare plan, the Republicans have put out three.

There is a saying that if you tell a lie often enough, people will believe it as true. The Democrats are telling lie after lie, but the Republicans aren't standing up to them.

"Stimulus" Exposed, This Week on Fox News

This week on Fox News (each night at 5PM EDT), Glenn Beck is going to expose the people and motives behind the "Stimulus" package.

He has given some information already on his radio show.

Rep. John Conyers said that he didn't need to read the bill, and mocked those who said he needed to, not because the bill isn't important, but because he trusts those who wrote it. This is a key in the Progressive movement - you don't need to actually do your job (that is, read the bill and make sure it is good for your constituents); just trust those who work with you in your movement.

So, who wrote the bill? Glenn gave some info on some of the people, but it's a long list. It includes heads / key figures in the big unions (United Steelworkers, SEIU), extreme environmental groups, Zero Population Growth, and members of the Revolutionary Communists. Not just "regular" Communists, but "Revolutionary" Communists.

Watch Glenn Beck at 5PM on Fox News for all the details. He is not speculating on this; he has all the documentation. (5PM EDT - adjust the time for your situation of you're not in Eastern Time.)

Friday, August 21, 2009

Our Federal Government is Financially Irresponsible

Our federal government can't handle $1 billion for Cash for Clunkers. The money was supposed to last 5 months, but it was gone in the first weekend.

Their response? Triple the funding. As it turned out, that only lasted a few more weeks. The Cash for Clunkers program, which was supposed to last until November 1, will now end on Monday, August 24.

A simple rebate requires 30 pages of paperwork, which has 136 pages of documentation. Rebate forms are being returned unpaid for simple spelling mistakes. The user agreement on the government website (though it was later changed after people complained) said that any computer that accessed the site became the property of the federal government and all information on it could be copied and any communications could be monitored and all information could be shared with any government entity, national or international.

Car dealers aren't getting reimbursed. They are giving out $3500-4500 per customer out of their own pockets (literally - most dealerships are sole proprietorships), but a month later, the government has only repaid 2% of the amount they've promised. Dealerships are stopping using the program because they can't afford it. And some in positions to know such things suggest that if the federal money runs out, the dealerships will just be out of luck on getting repaid at all.

Our federal government can't handle $1 billion for Cash for Clunkers.

But the same government, with the same legislators and the same bureaucrats, says they want $1.5 trillion for healthcare. They say they'll improve things. They really expect us to trust them?

With healthcare, the $1.5T will be spent in just as short a time. Then they'll just pass increases. Of course, they won't be able to just end the program once they've dismantled our current system, so they'll have to increase the funding again. Obviously, this means taxes. They've already long forgotten the campaign promises for no tax increases of any kind on anyone making less than $250,000/year, so there's no telling where things will head at that point.

There's no telling how much paperwork will be involved for a simple checkup, an x-ray of a suspected broken leg, a cut that needs stitches. Will the doctor be required to complete the 30 pages (or 300 pages, the way things are heading) before giving someone a drug for a heart attack? Or will the patient be expected to complete the paperwork himself before he can receive any treatment?

Will costs be unreimburseable if the form has a spelling mistake? Will coverage be denied if an emergency procedure isn't approved in advance by a government bureaucrat? Will doctors have to wait months for reimbursement? Will doctors stop accepting the government "insurance" plan like car dealers are doing with Cash for Clunkers, even if it means moving out of the country?

Unreasonable? Yes. But remember, the people passing the regulations won't have to deal with it themselves. Congress has already exempted themselves; they have their own plan for themselves and their families.

Thursday, August 13, 2009

"Community Organizers" = Thugs for Hire

OK, there are exceptions. But in general, the big well-known "community organizer" groups, particularly ACORN and SEIU, are acting as thugs hired out to left-wing / liberal / progressive political parties.

Several examples:

Black Panthers blocked entrances to a number of polling locations last fall. They wouldn't allow the white voters to enter. There was a lawsuit, but the newly-appointed public prosecutor dropped the case.

All the protests in front of AIG executive's houses? All the death threats? Paid for by ACORN. Bus tours chartered by ACORN.

The fights in Healthcare Reform town hall meetings? The rowdy protesters? All the ones who were actually rowdy were SEIU members. SEUI members have actually beat up - to the point that the people had to go to the hospital - people who disagree with the "reform" that is being proposed.

Again, "Community Organizers" = Thugs for Hire

Sunday, August 9, 2009

Healthcare "Reform" - mandatory abortion coverage

The current healthcare "reform" plan requires - REQUIRES - all insurance plans, public or private, to pay for abortion.

There are many problems with this.

One, I'm a single man. Why should I have insurance for childcare, whether killing the baby or live birth? And why should my parents in their senior years be required to have childcare insurance coverage?

Two, I don't want to pay for other people's elective abortion. And most people agree with me; a Zogby poll last year says 71% of Americans don't want insurance to be required to cover abortion.

Three, I believe abortion kills babies. 82% of Americans believe there should be at least some limits on abortion, and 11% believe all elective abortion should be illegal.

In contrast, President Obama is part of the only 9% of Americans (Harris) that believes that abortion should be legal for any reason at any point in the pregnancy. But more than that, he wants it paid for at taxpayer expense.

Why? Some experts believe that the purpose is population control. This will come in two ways.

One, many people will choose abortion over children. Some women will gladly take the simplicity of a minor surgical procedure (nevermind that only one of the two patients will survive the process) to the extended difficulty of a pregnancy followed by the pain of the birth. And some people, given the choice between meeting their obligations as human beings and actually caring for their own children or discarding their own offspring as "inconvenient" will take the easy way out. Then factor in that they don't actually have to pay for even the abortion themselves, and you have a "no-brainer".

Two, we will soon see encouragement to reduce childhood disorders. We will see efforts to reduce issues like Down's Syndrome, autism, and the 2% of all children who are technically "mentally retarded". How will these be reduced? Simple - fetal tests. And if the baby, that is, "fetus" has signs of a concern, the mother will be advised to abort the child. Later, this "advice" may become stronger. Parents have recently become legally criminal for not having their children vaccinated as instructed; parents may soon become required to kill "substandard" children. Obviously, these steps will require that the abortion be funded.

There may be portents of a third step to come later. Obama's "Science Czar", John P. Holdren (director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy) has written (another reference) that he does not believe a child to be a "human being" until he, excuse me, "it", is several years old, and then only if "given the opportunity to develop properly" including "essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food". Those who don't "develop properly"? They are never deemed human at any age, and as such can be eliminated without consequence. You know, Christians, Jews, homosexuals, conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians - anybody the ruling authority deems to have a negative influence in society. I would hope that one individual with radical ideas will not unduly influence the rest, but you never know.

I would have hoped that the second phase would not come in my lifetime, if at all. This is the stuff of science fiction, and not the good kind. But experts are now expecting this to come soon. Phase One within months, if the current "reform" passes, and Phase Two soon afterward. On the other hand, it has only been sixty-some years since the third phase was used extensively in Europe.

Friday, August 7, 2009

Cash for Clunkers Fiasco

Cash for Clunkers was supposed to run July 1 to November 1, four full months. But the money ran out after four days. Now they are trying to add another $2B to the $1B that was already used.

The program was supposed to start on July 1. But the program details weren't finalized until July 24.

The application form is 30 pages long, and the instructions are 136 pages.

The privacy policy said that using the CARS system will cause your (the car dealer's) computer and any networked systems to become property of the Federal government, and any information in this system, including usernames and passwords, can be copied and any communication can be monitored, and any of this can be sent to any government organization, either national or international. (This policy has since been changed, due to the loud feedback.)

Do we really want these people in charge of out healthcare?

Private Jets

Do you remember back when Congress got all over the heads of the auto manufacturers for flying to DC in private jets?

Well, Congress has now ordered half a billion dollars in private jets for their own use.

The Air Force maintains the aircraft for Congressional use, and they say only two jets are needed (to replace old ones), not all the ones that have been ordered. They say that they don't need them and that they didn't order them. Congress went around the AF and ordered the jets themselves.

Thursday, August 6, 2009

Judge Sonia Sotomayor Confirmed for Supreme Court

I have said before that "race", someone's culture, heritage and background, are a person's flavor, a seasoning of life.

If someone is from Georgia, grown up with fried chicken and grits, that person is no more inherently "right" or "wrong" than someone from Washington State with their apples and cherries. Do you like New York foldable pizza better than Chicago's thick-crust pizza? Fine. Do you like Texas spicy baked beans better than Boston's sweet baked beans? OK. Neither is right or wrong, just personal preference, and someone should be neither qualified nor disqualified from public office on the basis of such personal culture.

Similarly, is not voting for someone exclusively because of skin color or gender the very definition of racism or sexism? I have no problem with a person being elected (or "confirmed", as the case may be) to office, who may happen to be of a particular heritage or gender, but nobody should be elected or confirmed primarily because of such bias.

Voting for such a person in large part because of a bias is just as bad as voting against the person because of a bias.

A Senator who confirmed Judge Sonia Sotomayor primarily because she has a Latina heritage is just as bad as someone who voted against Barack Obama just because he's black. There is no difference.

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Decreased posting frequency

Some may note that my blog postings have become less frequent. This is because I have been listening less to politics. It has gotten depressing.

Examples, from memory:

One of President Obama's appointees (I think a czar of some sort) is a Communist. Not a "he has some positions I see as being Communist" Communist, but a"he is an official member of the Communist Party" Communist.

One of President Obama's appointees (maybe a czar of some sort, and maybe the person above) has said that he thinks offspring (that is, children) who have undesirable characteristics (defects, less desirable genetics) should be terminated. You're thinking, "So? Many people think fetuses with problems should be aborted." The problem is that he doesn't think it should be a problem whether or not the "fetus" happens to already be born. By several years. He thinks any person with a genetic defect should be "terminated" for the good of the society. So, what constitutes a "genetic defect"? Blacks? That's why Planned Parenthood got started, to eliminate black reproduction so the "defective genes" would die out. Christians? Jews? Homosexuals? These were part of Hitler's "cleansing," why not part of this one?

The proposed "healthcare reform" is expected by many experts to end care for many diseases. The University of Tennessee cancer care center is creating plans to close in the event this legislation passes. People who develop issues which are not "cost effective" to treat or are deemed "less beneficial to society" will not be treated. They will be "made comfortable" and allowed to die. This is how things are currently done in some countries with government-run healthcare, and many experts believe it will soon be this way here if this legislation passes. And they believe it enough to already be planning the shutdowns of major centers.

The people pushing for healthcare reform are now trying to change the term from "healthcare reform" to "health insurance reform' because their studies show people respond better to that term. They insist you will be able to keep your doctor. Whatever treatment he recommends just won't be covered under the new plans. And new people won't want to become doctors, because they aren't expected to get paid much. Why pay hundreds of thousands for education when you'll only get paid what the government says you get paid?

The proposed "healthcare reform" includes "end-of-life counseling", required every six months for anyone over 65 years of age. In other words, they are going to tell everyone over 65 just how big a drain they are on society and how they should just remove themselves from being a burden. And then they will repeat it every six months, in one-on-one "counseling" sessions with anyone who chose not to off themselves since the last meeting.

The "Cash for Clunkers" program pays people to buy a car that gets at least 25 miles per gallon in the idea of increasing fuel efficiency. 25MPG isn't very efficient, but someone can get paid up to $4500 for getting one. And the trade-in can't be resold, even if it's in perfect shape; it has to be scrapped. And used cars don't qualify; the bought car has to be new - used car dealers don't get any stimulus out of this.

The cars.gov website for the "Cash for Clunkers" program has an unusual usage agreement. It states that if you use that website, your computer becomes property of the US Government and anything on your computer can be copied and anything you do with your computer can be monitored. Emails, instant messages, Internet-based phone calls, anything.

Friday, July 31, 2009

Democrats: Time to get off the Obama Boat...

As a preface, I'm not a Republican. Or not lately, since they haven't done much in a long while to help our country.

But it's time for the Democrats to get off the "Obama Boat" as well. President Obama's approval numbers have dropped as fast as the economy.

His approval rating is now lower than Carter's at the same point in his presidency. President Obama's approval index, those who strongly approve minus those who strongly disapprove, is negative - there are 10% more people who STRONGLY disapprove what he's doing than strongly approve.

His own timetable to turn the economy around has passed; we were supposed to have seen recovery by today (7/31). Instead, unemployment keeps growing. And GDP keeps dropping.

The stimulus was "required" to keep the unemployment from climbing above 8 1/2%; it was about 7% at the time. It's now 9.7% as a nationwide average.

He just pushed through (granted, it took a lot of help) the LARGEST TAX INCREASE in history, with the cap-and-trade bill. A bill that NOBODY read before it was passed, because another 300 pages were added at 2AM (or was that 3AM, I don't remember) the DAY OF THE VOTE. The extra pages were pork to swing votes for it.

He wants to pass a healthcare bill that will require everyone who ever changes their employment to start using a government-supplied insurance plan. He says that you can keep your insurance and your doctor? That's not what the bill says; if your insurance ever needs to change, for any reason (add a dependent, drop one, change your job), that's it - your out of your insurance. And when someone asked him, he admitted that HE had not read the bill himself. His talks are based not on what IS in the bill, but what he WANTS in the bill.

He keeps talking about the $1.5T deficit that he "inherited" from Bush. He doesn't talk about the extra $4T he has added himself. So far, and only for bills that have already passed.

He showed racism the other day, after police responded by-the-book and very respectfully to a breaking-and-entering 911 call, when he said that the police "acted stupidly" when he, admittedly, didn't know anything of the situation other than that a black Harvard professor complained about them. It turned out, from radio recordings, that the professor had refused to identify himself and cursed at the police officer. Oh, and he did break into the house; it was just his own house.

Oh, and having Secret Service point guns out of vehicles at the crowds as his motorcade passes by doesn't help his image any. That's right, yesterday at his healthcare promotional stop at the Kroger in Bristol Virginia, reported by thirty-something different people who saw for themselves - rifles pointed out of vehicle windows as they moved down the street. And reported on a local radio call-in show by several of them. On the topic of that meeting, there were some 1500 people that showed up. National news only reported 250 people, because that was all that had tickets for the employees-only meeting inside the store.

Friday, July 3, 2009

Honduras Interference

President Obama says that we don't get involved in other countries' internal politics. He said this when many people contested Iran's election results, which clearly had tampering (some districts had more votes cast than registered voters).

But when the government of Honduras LEGALLY removes a President who ILLEGALLY and UNCONSTITUTIONALLY tries to stay in office AFTER HIS TERM HAS ENDED, the same President Obama insists that they reinstate him. What's up with that?

As a reminder, the Constitution of Honduras limits Presidents to a single term. President Manuel Zelaya served his term, but he didn't want to leave. He filed with the court, and they said that, nope, you only get one term. He filed with the congress, and they said that, nope, you only get one term. He said that he wanted a public referendum, and they said that, nope, the president can't constitutionally issue one. So he decided that he just wouldn't leave. So they arrested him and ejected him from the country. Now President Obama is trying to get them to take him back anyway? They say they don't care what some President in another country says, even if its from the United States. Good for them; if you're doing what's right, don't back down from the neighborhood bully.

The US press is saying this was a coup. Sorry; it was the Constitutional process. Besides, in any normal coup, you don't calmly eject the previous leader - you execute them.

Thursday, July 2, 2009

McCain doesn't get it

For some reason, McCain (or his staff) still believes that Sarah Palin was the reason he lost the election. He doesn't get it.

Sarah is the only reason he did as well as he did. I know people that if it weren't for Sarah, they wouldn't have voted at all. The option was "Socialist vs Socialist Lite". Americans don't want our car companies run by the government. Americans don't want the banks run by the government. And Americans don't want healthcare run by the government. President Obama has effected some of these and is pushing for it all. But McCain was also pushing in this direction.

McCain just went to DC to meet with Obama. Why? McCain is upset with the unions. Why? Because he wants them to ease up on hiring restrictions against ILLEGAL ALIENS!

Even now, while Americans need jobs, McCain wants to give MORE of them away to ILLEGALS!

No, "no person is illegal". But many people are in the US illegally. That doesn't make their existence illegal. But it does make their presence in this country illegal. And it makes them criminals.

VA: Rick Boucher votes to increase taxes

I live in southwest Virginia. My US Representative, Rick Boucher, voted to approve the "American Clean Energy and Security Act".

This act is 1200 pages long and includes BILLIONS in pork, including 300 pages that was added early in the morning before the vote. Worse for us, it includes the so-called "cap-and-trade" provisions.

The Wall Street Journal says that the bill will "impose crushing costs on...consumers" (Review & Outlook, June 25, 2009). Estimates are that residential electricity costs may increase 90%.

Despite what anyone says, this act will dramatically increase energy costs, and when we can least afford them.

And it will cost jobs. Much of US "green jobs" policy, which is in this act, is based on Spain's policy. Policies that has caused Spain's unemployment to go to 17.4% as of April.

To put it simply, Rep. Rick Boucher voted to increase our energy bills as much as 90%. And he voted to support a bill that will increase unemployment even worse than it already is.

If you don't live near me, check here to see how your Representative voted.

And vote against him or her the next chance you get. I will.

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Health care: Rationing required

President Obama now admits that his healthcare plan will require service rationing.

That is, only x number of y services can be performed in z period of time. That means that when you can now just go into your doctor and get, say, a mammogram done, you will instead need to sign up on a list.

In Canada, you generally have to wait 6-12 months for a mammogram, even if you have a lump. This person (second Google result for "canada mammogram wait") was 34 and had a lump; she could not get approved for a mammogram until she had an ultrasound, which itself a had 6-month wait. That's the difference between easy treatment with little or no side effects and go home and wait to die.

Saturday, June 20, 2009

Regulatory reform: unnecessary and doesn't even do what it intends

Two major bills are currently being proposed. One is finance oversight regulation, the other is health care reform.

1: Finance oversight.

The major financial problems we've had over the last year was, and most people know this, due largely to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They encouraged, financed, and in many cases even required, lenders to make home loans to "underqualified buyers".

"Underqualified" means that the people couldn't afford them, like someone who makes $20k/year getting a $200k house. How could they even work that? Simple. Give them a low-interest, interest-only loan for the first five years. They don't have to pay on the $200k at all, only the 3% interest. They know that in five years they'll have to start paying principal too, and the interest will go to 9%. They pay $500/month for now. But in five years, that will go to $2028. Why would they even do that? They probably plan to either sell the house at a profit in five years, with a side thought of refinancing into a 30-year fixed at 6% ($1200/month) on an increased income. Problem is that housing values went down. They couldn't sell at a profit. They are "upside-down" in a house they couldn't afford. The bank should never have even lent to them. But Fannie Mae required that they make a certain number of these loans, or else risk losing access to financing sources.

The problem with the proposed legislation?

The new regulation DOES NOT APPLY TO FANNIE MAE OR FREDDIE MAC! AT ALL! The area that actually needs oversight doesn't get it!

2: Health care reform.

President Obama has pushed for this reform, in large part using General Motors as an example. The union "legacy costs", primarily health insurance, is too high, and has greatly contributed to their bankruptcy.

The problem with the proposed legislation? (Ignoring many other issues, like estimated costs of $1 trillion with no funding, and expectations that many employers will dump their current better insurance since the new stuff won't cost them anything...)

The new regulation grandfathers in the union plans! If you have a union, YOU CAN'T GET INTO THE NEW PLAN EVEN IF YOU WANT TO! The industries that need the reform most aren't allowed to use it!

Thursday, June 18, 2009

Transparent and Ethical Government as promised?

AmeriCorps is a public service organization under the Federal Government.

President Obama just fired the Inspector General of AmeriCorps. Why? He was "confused and disoriented". What's that mean? Is that like Joe Biden is everytime he speaks publicly? Or like Obama is everytime he doesn't have his teleprompter?

Obama sent notification to the Senate seven days after the firing. Part of the problem is that a law THAT OBAMA SIGNED requires 30-days advance notice is to be given to the Senate before starting procedures to fire any Inspector General. In other words, President Obama expressly broke the law, and a law he himself approved.

Why was Inspector General Walpin fired? Because the board of directors wanted him fired. Why did they want him fired? Because he had just investigated an organization for misuse of taxpayer funds provided by AmeriCorps. That organization, the St. HOPE Academy of Sacramento, was founded by an Obama supporter who used the $850,000 he got from AmeriCorp (for arts programs) for things like increasing salaries for his organization and personal car washes. After the investigation, While St. HOPE was not charged criminally, they agreed to repay half the grants.

In other words, Inspector General Walpin was doing his job, investigating misuse of taxpayer funds. But it turned out that those he was investigating supported Obama. And he was fired, without valid reason and directly contrary to the law.

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Moon / Space missions

OK, it's a toss-up, regular blog or political...

NASA has regular space missions. Some say they are useless. There's also the point that they're expensive in a time that we're having economic problems.

My thoughts?

First, on the economy, that's a valid point. My first thought was that we could delay missions for now until we can better afford them. Then I realized that large economies are built around these industries; if we shut them down, that would just cause more economic problems, albeit in specialized sectors. If it were planned properly, maybe, but we now have people and companies relying on these missions for their incomes and salaries.

Second, on the missions themselves:
Step it up! We should have manned stations on the moon by now. And civilian colonies on the moon. We've been visiting for FORTY YEARS! Why are we just playing with it? Most of the missions we're doing are with obsolete equipment. The only good these missions do is to enable scientific labs on the space station. Why have we not developed better propulsion systems? Better defensive systems? Antigravity systems?

It seems like our space administration is, like most in government, more interested in saving their own jobs than actually developing new tech and making new discoveries. How else can you explain our more advanced space tech being 20-year-old shuttles? If the problem is that they don't have sufficient funding, maybe they need to use the money more wisely. They're not getting anything done as it is. Maybe they, like many government agencies, are paying too much in too many salaries, and not on the research and equipment.

Bill for a specific purpose is only 80% for that purpose, and that's fine?!?

A bill to fund military operations includes $5 billion in lending to the International Monetary Fund, money that some expect will be lent to countries like Iran and North Korea. Money that will be borrowed (by us) largely from China, since we don't have it.

But the Democrat House Majority Leader, says that it's not a problem since 80% of the bill is still going to the military.

That's part of the problem. As long as over half of the funds of a bill go to the EXPRESS PURPOSE OF A BILL go to that purpose, the bill is "close enough" on target. That's why they have no problem with "pork". They are including in a bill $5 BILLION that is for something entirely different? I'm not even getting into the wrongness (or whatever) of what that money is for. If they want the money for IMF, put a bill through for that; don't tack it onto something else.

Sunday, June 14, 2009

Ahmadinejad Reelected?!?

So, Iran's "president" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the man often referred to as "Hitler in a head scarf", was reelected in a landslide, despite polling that showed him tied with the other candidate.

Who'd have thunk it?

On another note, there are people protesting the election results. If I were them, I'd stop - now. And either get out of Iran or distance myself from the protests, and quickly. Especially if they have families to think of. Because, one way or another, there probably won't be any of these protesters left in another month or so.

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Pay controls for everyone

The President's office has just announced pay "guidelines" that apply to all employees at all public companies. Not just financial companies, not just companies that accepted bailout funds. Everyone.

Do you expect executives for companies that have been growing and making lots of money will keep working hard when their pay is cut? Do you think they will work hard to keep as many jobs as they can? Will they work to keep costs down so they can keep wages high?

Why should they try to keep employee wages up if the government will mandate lower wages?

Do you work at a fast-food restaurant or big box store? Any job that could be considered entry-level? Do you want to have your pay changed to minimum wage?

This is un-Constitutional. There is no provision in the Constitution for government to get involved in regulating business. At all.

If the Federal government wants to tie wages to performance, let them start at home. Cut Congressional pay rates. Tie the President's pay to performance - as the economy dries up, let his pay dry up. Drop the excuses blaming everything on a guy who left office in January when you've effectively been in charge since last November. Try pay for performance there first before you mandate it on everyone else in the country and kill off what economy we still have.

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Global Warming: Winds - a quick comment

It has just been noticed, with preliminary study results, that global wind speeds seem to be slowing.

This is inconsistent with "warming". It is also inconsistent with the dire warnings some have been screaming.

But it is consistent with a global "greenhouse" environment. The idea is not warming, but moderating. That means that while winters may be warmer, summers will be cooler. Winds will be lower because the temperature extremes are not as extreme. Weather storms, one of the major threats of global warming extremists, will actually reduce, because they are created by temperature extremes, both locally and globally.

Of course, all this is theory since no studies along these lines have been done. Studies of global warming have been done, and the earth has been seen to be cooling instead of warming over the last decade. But I suggest that the earth is moderating in true "global greenhouse" style. Think "global Hawaii". Moderate temperatures year-round. Weather storms will get milder and milder in general, though there will be exceptions. As long as politicians do not do anything extreme, since our interference in this natural process could cause problems.

The earth is generating large amounts of carbon dioxide. Not man, but natural processes. And the plants love it.

Friday, June 5, 2009

Definitions: Racism and Sexism

Racism: The belief that one race/ethnicity is inherently superior to another.
Sexism: The belief that one gender is inherently superior to the other.

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor said that she believes a woman would make better decisions than a man, and that a Latina (a woman from a Spanish-heritage country) would make better decisions than a white man.

President Obama said he would hope that she would restate it given the chance. She did. She said effectively the same thing repeatedly over a number of years in a variety of situations.

So, you decide. Are these racist or sexist comments?

Do these statements have any place whatsoever coming from someone nominated to a position which is supposed to be "blind" and completely impartial to all circumstances in all decisions?

Thursday, June 4, 2009

The President seeks to appease a religion?!?

Why does our President feel it necessary to appease a religion, to meet with leaders of that religion, fly to nations with majorities of that religion, and have long, extended speeches specifically to speak to members of that religion?

He flew to Egypt to speak to "the Muslim world". Not the Arab world, not the middle eastern world. The Muslim world. Did he fly to Italy to speak to "the Catholic world"? Did he fly to Israel to speak to "the Orthodox Jewish world"? Did he fly to Germany to speak to "the Lutheran world"? Did he fly to Japan to speak to "the Buddhist world"?

Then why select one specific religion to speak to? Repeatedly? And specifically to apologize to them? On two separate world tours?

Wednesday, June 3, 2009

GM Bankruptcy, review

I just saw in my post from April 30 that I thought GM's bankruptcy would get the government out of their management at last.


The US government now owns 60% of General Motors. (Or Government Motors, whatever.) And Canada gets 12.5%. The UAW (United Auto Workers union) gets 17.5%.

And the bondholders, the people who were originally guaranteed by bankruptcy law to get at least their principal back, those who didn't take risk, those who needed stable investments, like school, fire department and police department pension funds, will get the remaining 10%, mere pennies on the dollar.

Stockholders get zip. Preferred stockholders (retirees living on a fixed income from dividends) get zip. Common stockholders (holding them as they split and increase value over time) get zip.

GM Being Run by Inexperienced Dropout

GM is now being run by Brian Deese, a 31-year-old Yale drop-out.

He got his undergrad degree in Political Science from a small private school in Vermont, and has had no formal econonomics education. His only previous experience with the auto industry was sleeping in his car in a Pontiac plant parking lot.

He worked with several Democratic-financed think-tanks, and after the stint at Yale, went to Hilary Clinton's Presidential campaign as her economic advisor. When that folded, he went to the Obama campaign as deputy economic policy director, then with the transition team as an economic advisor. Then, despite having neither any economic or business education, nor any private-sector experience, he was the only full-time member of the auto task force between the election and mid-February.

He is now managing the government investment of $458,000 per day in GM. And that plant at which he slept in the parking lot? The entire brand is being closed under his management.

Reference for much of this, though I found it elsewhere citing this article.

Tuesday, June 2, 2009

Abortion is murder. But murder is also murder.

Some over-zealous individual (or nutjob, or psycopath - I don't know his story) killed an abortion doctor Sunday morning.

Yes, I believe abortion is wrong. But murder is also wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. And a wrong done for the right reasons is still wrong.

How should this have been handled? Since elective abortion is murder, the laws should reflect such and those who do elective abortions under such law should be found by the courts to be guilty of murder. (No, the law should not be retroactive, as no laws should be.) The law should then act and serve justice. If a murder is, for some reason, not legally considered such (whether unborn children as now, or members of unfavored ethnicities as in the past), then the law should be changed, not the enforcement of laws.

However, this individual who murdered the doctor finds himself in the same place he wished the doctor. The doctor is legally not guilty and the individual guilty. When these persons come before God for judgment, they will both be deemed guilty of the same crime.

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Wasteful spending

The US National Institutes of Health is spending $2.6M to train Chinese prostitutes to drink responsibly on the job. You can't make this stuff up!

Monday, May 11, 2009

A union that supports itself, not its members

The Service Employees International Union, SEIU, self-noted as the second-largest union of government employees, gave $33M to President Obama's campaign.

California is out of money. They are losing residents who are fleeing increasing state taxes. They are being forced to close offices, lay off people, and reduce hours of those who stay. The White House has just informed the State of California that if they proceed in their plan to trim $74M in worker pay they will lose $6.8B in stimulus.

The SEIU may have a legitimate mission; I'm not arguing that. They are free to support political candidates that best reflect their members. My problem is with the politicians. Rather than doing what is best for all the people, they would rather pay back their supporters. This is not even in the best long-term interests of the members of the union; if California is not allowed to trim costs now, the problems will just get bigger. This rewards the union leaders at the expense of the union members. We can't afford the paybacks anymore.

Saturday, May 9, 2009

GM Restructuring

GM's restructuring plan includes more jobs manufacturing cars. But those jobs will be in Mexico and China, because they are moving some of the manufacturing there.

But...I thought this bailout was to save the "American auto industry"? So we are now bailing out the Mexican and Chinese auto industry, while those who really make cars here, like Honda and Toyota, are on their own?