Happy New Year

Wishing you all a safe and Happy New Year.  In the words of John Lennon and Yoko One, "Let's hope it's a good one, without any fear."

A Modern Proposal

This morning on Fox News, someone said that there is no way to identify the ideology of a passenger on a plane but that we should continue to identify radical Muslims as jihadist.  We currently do neither, and it's about time we did both.

Since 9/11, we continue to live the ridiculous myth that bombings in the name of Islam, can, have, and will be perpetrated by anyone other than Muslims so we must therefore screen everyone.  This is farcical, unnecessary, and we all know it to be unmitigated bullshit.  Not only does this practice perpetuate the mirage of security, but, in the end, is extremely dangerous.  The latest attempt to blow apart an American airliner is a perfect example of this.  Forget for a moment, that this young man from Nigeria purchased his one-way ticket with cash, had no luggage, or that his father had warned the authorities of his radicalism.  He should have been on anybody's no-fly list because his name is UMAR FAROUK ABDULMUTALLAB!  

Zenaphobic?  No, I'm being pragmatic.  Instead of assuming that all people are interested in, let alone capable of, blowing up Western, Christian, or Jewish things, let's assume that all Muslims are.  Then it remains their problem in clearing their individual names off of any no-fly or border crossing lists.  Although Muslims make up a large, and growing, portion of the worlds' population, their numbers are still more  manageable than an entire planets.  I have friends that are Muslim, and they would have no problem in clearing their names within minutes.  Would these friends be upset with my proposal?  Perhaps, but we can ill afford to worry about such trivialities anymore.  It's time we put an end to "politically correct."      

This practice would also push non-violent Muslims to help fight, what continues to be for many, a reluctant war against some of their own.  Let's put the onus, once and for all, where it belongs.  If the Muslim religion is so peace-loving and humanitarian, and I believe that it is, prove it.  Help us destroy this insidious cancer before it threatens to consume us all.

Elevated Threats

My brother and my oldest son share an absurd and ridiculous similarity with Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the young Nigerian who most recently tried to blow up an airliner bound for Detroit on Christmas Day. All three are on a list called the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment. So are another 550,000 people worldwide. It can make travel a hassle. I suspect that my brother Kevin and my son Sean are on the list because someone in Belfast, or some other part of Northern Ireland, with the last name of Kelly, might have once purchased a scone or some soda bread at an IRA bake sale. Being included on the list doesn't prevent one from flying but it does require some additional explanation at the airport.

Had authorities included the information provided to the U.S. Embassy in Lagos by the suspects father, that his son Umar had developed terrorist tendencies, the young man would have been put on the Terrorist Screening Database and barred from boarding an airplane. It most certainly would have prevented him from being issued a "multi entry visa" from our State Department. Another classic example of the authorities not connecting the dots. For two years, security personnel have known about Abdulmutallab. Thankfully, the "sophisticated explosive device" he had strapped to his leg proved more sophisticated than he himself could manage, and the whole thing went up in smoke. Next time we might not be so lucky.

For years we've been told that these suicide bombers are the product of bad neighborhoods, with little to look forward to in life. So to substantiate their miserable lives, they seek to destroy the lives of others in the name of Islam. Turns out this latest spawn of Mohammed comes from an affluent and influential family. So did Osama bin Laden by the way. In Super Freakonomics, by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner, a study that the book sites, claims that "terrorists tend to be drawn from well-educated, middle-class or high-income families." My guess is that killing westerners is a pastime enjoyed by all socioeconomic strata of jihadist.

New restrictions on the flying public will no doubt bubble up from the cauldrons of politically correct bureaucrats. Already international passengers are being told they cannot leave their seats, or touch their carry-on luggage, if they are within an hour from landing at their American destination. For now, U.S. officials are blaming lax security measures at oversees airports. Abdulmutallab boarded the original leg of Flight 253 in Lagos, Nigeria. From an account I read on the internet, "American authorities are still confident they can prevent an active bomber from boarding a plane at a domestic airport." I suspect these are the same American authorities who couldn't, didn't or wouldn't, connect the dots that led to Nidal Malik Hasan killing twelve, and wounding 42, fellow soldiers at Ft. Hood, Texas.

Merry Christmas

....Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night!

Smoke Signals

I quit smoking in March of this year. I had smoked about two packs of cigarettes per day for the last 35 years. I'd had enough. Along with the related health problems, the costs of smoking were becoming too high. For a number of years now, states across this country have been trying to solve their budgetary problems on the lungs of smokers by trying to raise revenue through increased taxes on tobacco products. Here in Michigan, we have the fourth highest cigarette tax in America at $2, plus an additional federal tax of $1.01. At almost $6 per pack, taxes equal at least 50% of the cost of the product. Add it all up and those are costs I can live without, literally, thank you very much.

Smokers are an easy target. Who wants to align themselves with foul smelling, doorway clogging litterbugs who pollute our air and treat our world as their personal ashtray. Certainly not me, nor the do gooders of the Coalition for Fire-Safe Cigarettes brought to you by the National Fire Protection Association or NFPA. The NFPA's mission is to "reduce the worldwide burden of fire and other hazards on the quality of life by providing and advocating consensus codes and standards, research, training and education." Ok, first off, three questions: 1) Who's quality of life are you trying to protect?, 2) Could conservatives be another "hazard" you wish to eliminate?, and 3) Is fire really a burden? And, by the way, what the heck are the oxymoronically named fire-safe cigarettes (FSC's) anyway?

Glad you asked, because beginning on January 1, 2010, Michigan retailers will only be able to sell you fire-safe cigarettes whether or not you want to smoke them. And apparently, we are one of the last states to comply with the wishes of the National Fire Protection Association. New York smokers have been sucking these things down since 2004 (and you thought Governor Paterson, Chuck Schumer, and high taxes were the reason for the mass exodus of the Empire State). FSC's, or lower ignition cigarettes, will extinguish themselves if not inhaled on a frequent enough basis. Why do we need FSC's? Because according to the coalition and the U.S. Fire Administration, a division of the Federal Emergency Management Agency or FEMA, almost 1000 people die every year in house fires caused by higher ignition or "unsafe" cigarettes. You got that right. Almost 500,000 people die every year from smoking related health problems, and yet the coalition wants to save one thousand of them from burning to death in their own homes.

Can you imagine the kinds of fire retardant chemicals necessary to make a cigarette fire-safe? Not to worry. According to a Harvard study, "there were no substantial differences in toxicity when key indicators were measured for fire-safe cigarettes and their conventional counterparts." Despite showing higher levels of poisonous compounds in FSC's, the study concluded that "there is no evidence that these increases affect the already highly toxic nature of cigarette smoke." In other words, why not put more shit into your shit sandwich?

With friends like the Coalition for Fire-Safe Cigarettes looking out for their safety, smokers have fewer enemies. And who are some of the people behind the coalition? Among the usual suspects like the AARP, the American College of Emergency Physicians, and the American Fire Sprinkler Association, there is the Boston Society of Vulcans. The Vulcans, no relation to the Dr. Spock variety, at least I don't think so, are a 501(c)3 non profit organization "focused on empowering people in need through education and support in the area of fire and public safety, prevention and employment into the fire service." Kind of like an ACORN for pyros.

Another partner in the coalition is the Center for Polyurethanes Industry. In their intro, they want us to know that they were formerly known as the Alliance for Polyurethanes Industry. So glad they cleared that one up for us. The scandal that prompted that name change must have been horrific. Anyhoo, the Center promotes the "sustainable growth of the polyurethane industry," and you can bet that the continued manufacture of FSC's will go a long ways towards that effort. In any event, in addition to the above mentioned entities that comprise the coalition, we can all take comfort in the fact that the Tobacco Free Kids are listed as a supporter.

Mind you that the same kind of progressive mentalities and government interventions of the cigarette safety coalition are the same ones which will produce and run Obamacare. Once again, your government is spending massive amounts of money on measures and initiatives that only marginally move the numbers. A near collapse of our economy just so a few American presidents could say they increased home ownership. Billions spent on incentivizing people to buy foreign cars when the American people owned GM and Chrysler. A healthcare program that could further ruin our economy just to insure another 12% of our population. None of this makes sense yet we invariably vote for more. Let's start to recover what we've lost in the process, common sense, come 2010.

Jungle Fever and OPM in Copenhagen

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama sure like to spend the OPM (other people's money). They both have pledged to to put the U.S. taxpayer on the hook for $100 billion annually (that's per year) to support a global fund to pay restitution (read extortion) to African and other developing nations for all the damage we and the rest of the industrialized world have supposedly inflicted on their peoples. Regardless of what you think about this pledge, and I disagree wholeheartedly, how does paying off other countries cool down the earth's temperature?

Help Me Help You

Don't you just love the way politicians think. Even when they try to do the right thing, they invariably return to what they know best and that is usually making everything about themselves. Take Michigan's struggle to compete for the Obama administrations' "Race to The Top" education funds. Michigan stands to receive $400 million in additional Department of Education funds if the Michigan Legislature can agree on a proper mix of school reforms as promoted by President Obama. Ironically it's the Democrats who are dragging their feet on these reforms because their overlords, organized labor, in this case the Michigan Education Association or MEA, disagrees with increasing the number of charter schools or tying teacher pay to student performance.

Nevertheless, a handful of reform minded Democrats led by Rep. Tim Melton (D- Auburn Hills) and Sen. Buzz Thomas (D-Detroit) agree with the required reform measures. Melton, chair of the House Education Committee, has said, "What's been terrible for me the last few years is watching the communities that are most affected by this (failing schools), that are Democratic districts, and Democrats seem to be the ones that don't want to stand up and say enough is enough. Well enough is enough." Unfortunately, their solution to this problem is to raise funds for themselves. The aforementioned lawmakers announced their formation of a political action committee, Michigan Democrats for Education Reform.

Postscript to "As Time Goes Bye"

Last week I wrote about ending my subscription to Time magazine. Today on MSNBC's Morning Joe, I was given further reinforcement for that decision. Time's editor at large, Mark Halperin, in defending President Obama's focus on healthcare rather than unemployment, said "there's nothing he (Obama) can do about jobs that he's not already doing." Rightly so, host Joe Scarborough jumped all over this statement suggesting that it's hard for employers to create jobs when there are more questions then answers regarding how business costs will be affected with Obamacare, cap and trade, and other progressive programs that Obama advocates.

Bend This

Just over a week ago, President Obama scolded Republicans for trying to frighten Americans about the state of the economy. Yesterday, Obama told us that the U. S. will go bankrupt if we don't pass his healthcare legislation. Now who's trying (and succeeding I might add) to scare Americans? Hyperbole aside, America will not go bankrupt if Obamacare fails. On the contrary, its failure and the failure of all the other job killing programs the Obama team has in store for us just might keep us from economic collapse.

Obama continues to site the costs of healthcare as the straw that will break the collective backs of America. I believe, if anything, it will be the skyrocketing cost of government that has the real capacity to do so. Washington keeps talking about bending the cost curve of rising healthcare costs. Not only does Obamacare not do this, it looks as if it would succeed in doing the exact opposite. A cost curve that should immediately take a nosedive is one that looks more like a wall if plotted on a graph, and that is the recent explosion in federal payrolls.

In a USA Today report, the average pay of a federal job is now $71,206. The average pay in the private sector is $40,331. Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot! In just two years, between 2007 and 2009, the number of employees at the Defense Department earning $150,000 or more, increased from 1,868 to over 10,000. The Department of Transportation had just one employee who made over $170,000 before the recession, now there are 1,690 who do. If these are the figures that the president uses when preparing remarks to the press then he may be right. Given the "Cadillac" healthcare benefits of federal employees on top of Wall Street-like salaries, this very well could bankrupt America.

Unjust Numbers

In You Do The Math, I wrote about our governments attempt in making marginal improvements to U. S. home ownership at a tremendous cost to the taxpayer. Now comes a report out this week from the Treasury Department that only 4% of homeowners who have applied to the government for help with their mortgages have been accepted into the program. 759,058 applied and only 31,382 will receive permanent help in modifying their loans. According to UPI.com, another 30,650 were rejected summarily for "late payments, too little income, or failure to do paperwork." Ironically, these are the same reasons those same individuals shouldn't have received their troublesome mortgages in the first place. So what's happening with the other 700,000 applicants? Rest assured, the U. S. Treasury has $75 billion to spend on the program so I"m quite comfortable that many of these peoples' dreams will come true.

Speaking of nightmares, both Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi want some version of Obamacare passed by Christmas. Nancy Pelosi has suggested that passage of such will equate to a "present" for America. That made me think of the Bobby Gaylor song, Stop Giving Me Crap For Christmas. Who else hopes that Nancy, Harry, or Barack aren't our secret Santa? By the way, as of July 2008, there were 304,059,724 people living in America, and despite a clear majority of Americans opposed to Obamacare less than 300 will decide whether we get it or not. That seems fair.

Note to Readers: I will be taking a few days off so don't expect any new posts until next week sometime. Thanks for your patronage.

As Time Goes Bye

My subscription to Time magazine ends next month after 37 years. I began my subscription to Time as a Junior in high school in 1973 while attending Maur Hill Preparatory Academy in Atchison, Kansas . It was required reading and used as our text book in my current events class with Father Barnabas. We read it cover to cover and were tested on its contents weekly. The kinds of questions that tripped up Governor George Bush in the 2000 presidential campaign, the ones like can you name the leaders of Chechnya, Taiwan, India and Pakistan, would have been answered readily. So why then will I allow my subscription to run out after being a loyal reader for almost four decades? Because Time magazine and I simply grew apart.

I haven't read Time cover to cover for quite some time now. It began to frustrate and bore me, with its increasingly liberal bent, about 10 years ago. Coincidentally, that was about the same time that AOL merged with Time Warner, in 2000, and George Bush was elected as our 43rd president. During that same time period, in addition to me, the magazine has lost nearly one million readers. Today, I much prefer to read things like The Weekly Standard. In any event, Time had by then become a disparate ghost of its original past and its founder Henry Luce. Like Democrats in the 1960's, before their progressive visage of today, Time used to stand for middle-class values and American leadership. Today, for the most part, Times' writers and stories are 180 degrees from what their managing editor said in 1998 on the occasion of the magazine's 75th anniversary. Walter Isaacson said then, "Although our stories often have a strong point of view, we try to make sure they are informed by open-minded reporting rather than partisan biases."

Just to demonstrate how far off the mark today's Time is from that statement, let me share just a couple of examples from their current issue. Under the guise of Business Books, reporter Andrea Sachs reviews three new books about how "frugality is the new chic, and belt tightening is all the rage." All three books demagogue capitalism as the biggest culprit of global warming and the chief enemy to man's survival on earth. Under Briefing, a section called The Skimmer offers another book review by Gilbert Cruz just in time for holiday gift giving. The book, The Moral Underground: How Ordinary Americans Subvert an Unfair Economy, by Lisa Dodson, posits that if this book had been written prior to 2007 we could have staved off economic collapse. How? By providing free and humanitarian services such as "the supervisor who tweaks time cards so that employees can take care of their kids, the school nurse who keeps cots in her office so that students in difficult family situations can catch a few hours sleep, and the doctor who flouts insurance regulations in order to prescribe medicine for an entire household." "For Dodson and her subjects," writes Cruz, "American corporations are amoral entities that continue to build their wealth on the backs of the nation's low-income workers. Helping the less fortunate in this context becomes a form of civil and corporate disobedience." Merry Christmas.

Thanks Time, it was a swell ride. Good bye and good riddance.

Eye On Fly

For my son's thirteenth birthday we decided to visit some friends of ours we know from Pt. Lookout, Michigan, on their farm in Santa Fe (pronounced FEE), Tennessee, about an hour southwest of Nashville. Looking at the newly produced Old Tennessee Settlers To Soldiers Trail guide however I have determined they live closer to Fly, than what the U. S. Post Office says. Fly is just north of Water Valley and Shady Grove, but south of Bethel, Boston, and Leiper's Fork. Perhaps to give you a better idea, the road that connects all the above parallels the more famous Natchez Trace Parkway, an historic trail that provided sustenance, commerce, and an escape route for native American Indians, European traders, Confederate soldiers and settlers. It starts or ends, depending on your perspective, just south of Nashville, and goes all the way to Natchez, Mississippi on the Gulf of Mexico.

This is hill country, where everyone has horses, lots of dogs, some cows, and more than the occasional donkey. This area, situated within Williamson and Maury Counties, is home to many of Nashville's biggest stars including Tim McGraw and Faith Hill, Michael McDonald of Doobie Brothers fame, Keith Urban and wife Nicole Kidman, and the Judds, both Naomi and Wynona. As a matter of fact, Naomi Judd announced the Leiper's Fork Christmas parade yesterday from just a few feet away from where my family and I stood and watched the annual event.

The area is also known for its heavy concentration of antebellum architecture and Civil War battlegrounds including the Battle of Franklin, known in the South as the death knell of the Confederacy or Gettysburg of the West. One of the few night battles of the Civil War, it ended in 7,250 Confederate casualties and 2,326 Union dead and wounded. The Stars and Bars are big around here. So much so, that little Confederate flags were distributed by Confederate army impersonators in the parade we attended. Down here, the Civil War is known as the War of Northern Aggression. You can't swing a dead cat without hitting an historical marker or plaque indicating the site of a significant defeat or humiliation served up by those bastards from the North.

If you're ever down this way, I urge you to take some time to tour the area. Great history, beautiful scenery, terrific Southern hospitality and wonderful people. By the way my friends are looking to downsize and are seeking a buyer for their property. If you're looking for 60 plus acres south of Nashville, in the heart of the Old South, visit www.singingvalleyfarm.com.

Unemployment Czar

Despite what happens today at the White House job summit, I can tell you that private sector job growth will not be a top priority. Why? Because aside from our chief executive's job killing policy initiatives like Obamacare, cap and trade, and union expansionism, Michigan's Governor Jennifer Granholm is one of the invited guests. Any serious discussion regarding the economics of creating, attracting, or retaining jobs would not include Governor Granholm. Jennifer Granholm is to job creation what Tiger Woods is to fidelity.

Michigan has the highest unemployment in the nation at just over 15%. Governor Granholm has presided over the biggest decline in the number of jobs and one of the largest emigration rates of a state's population in decades, if not centuries. When she took office in 2003, Michigan's automobile manufacturing had 72% more jobs than it has today. Her answer to all of this has been the Michigan Business Tax, an increase in the personal income tax, and various other increases in taxes and fees. She is kryptonite to economic growth and prosperity.

What I hope the president hears, and follows, will be to reverse course on growing the employment rolls of government, nonprofits, and community organizing, and take the remaining funds from TARP and Stimulus I and put them towards rebuilding our nation's transportation, sanitary, and energy transmission infrastructure. Or he could drop his socialistic tendencies and drop the corporate tax rate from 35% to 15%. If nothing else, 15% is a number Governor Granholm can embrace and be comfortable with.

Executive Decision

Timing is everything. Just as I changed my position on the direction the U.S. should take in the war in Afghanistan, President Obama decides to do the exact opposite and yet I find myself in agreement with him and support his decision. Not hard to do really, since a month earlier I had been of the same opinion. Which goes to show that the war in Afghanistan remains a conundrum to me, and others as well, so I will henceforth refrain from opining on it anymore. At least until July 2011.

Tuesday night's speech by President Obama may have upset many of his most ardent supporters, but I thought it was his most presidential to date. In fact, what was really strange about the speech was that most of it could have been delivered by President George W. Bush. Which, in turn, is exactly why many of Obama's most ardent supporters are upset.

Reversal of Fortune

The waiting is over. The orders have been given. Tonight comes the explanation. Just over one hundred days have gone by since Gen. Stanley McChrystal presented President Obama with an assessment of the progress of the war in Afghanistan and his subsequent request for 40,000 additional troops. He will get them. Perhaps not in the numbers requested, and perhaps not for the duration required, but make no mistake about it President Obama plans to escalate the war against the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan before he calls it quits.

As he should, if you agree with him that Afghanistan is the "good war" and "a war of necessity." Many conservatives and Republicans do too. But he shouldn't commit additional numbers of young people to fight a war many believe to be unwinnable just because he feels bound by his previous words. And neither should I. So despite what I wrote over a month ago in How Not to Fight a War, I am of the opinion that we should leave the quagmire that has become Afghanistan and return home to fight another day. And there will be another day, probably sooner rather than later.

Why the change of heart? Why would I be in agreement with the likes of The Nation's Chris Hayes, or Bob Herbert of the New York Times, who both agree any escalation is a tragic mistake? Just to be contrary to Barack Obama? Whatever he thinks I must do the opposite? No, but it is disconcerting to find myself in agreement with the antiwar crowd in the progressive wing of the Democrat party. But unlike them, I do think some wars are good and most are extremely necessary. Just not this one (or at least the current iteration), and neither was the one in Iraq, but for vastly different reasons then they would espouse.

I disagree that we should commit more troops to Afghanistan and extend our presence there because there are too many forces working against a successful outcome and the biggest one is that no one can define what is a successful outcome. What is the end game? Al Qaeda on the run? The Taliban in retreat? Both are already partly true. Al Qaeda is mainly where we are not, and the Taliban only needs to solidify it's control of Pakistan before they cede Afghanistan entirely for their production of opium. Is it to stand up a democratically elected government? Did I mention how odd it feels to be in agreement with Bob Herbert?

There also remains the unwavering ambivalence of Barack Obama to wage a serious war against Islamic extremists. Up until now his harshest words have been reserved for his critics and couples who crash his parties. He has demonstrated more conviction in defending the rights of those who propagated 9/11 than in defending American interests abroad. His parties leaders, like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, will do their best to thwart appropriations vital to the war effort. A growing number of American citizens, consumed by their own troubles at home, have become less willing to sacrifice their offspring and pay forward any attempts to implant peace in a part of the globe that has alluded such for centuries.

That being said, without the solid convictions of our president, members of Congress, and the American people, backed by the unlimited access to our treasury for the resources necessary to fully protect and support our soldiers, then I suggest we cease the further prosecution of this war and bring our men and women home with the greatest speed possible.

Speaking Truth to Power

WEYI Channel 25, Saginaw's NBC affiliate, ran this story last Friday. It explains my departure from my job at United Way last summer.

Watch video

Canaries In The Echo Chamber

It's been said that any work of fiction written or performed after William Shakespeare, remains unoriginal. This is certainly true in the world of political reporting, where more often then not pundits and writers often share the same insights and reactions to news. However yesterday I came across an incident that suggests two such columnists may have attended the same briefing or overheard the same conversation at a Washington cocktail party. The synonymous idea is that President Obama needs to be more like President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Both John Nichols of The Nation, and E. J. Dionne of the Washington Post, wrote columns extolling the necessity and virtue of BO becoming more like FDR. They both took the opportunity of the president's Thanksgiving Proclamation to assert this claim. Apparently, Mr. Obama, despite his eloquence, braininess, and mastery of the English language, comes up short in comparison to Mr. Roosevelt in word and deed. They extolled the pragmatic use of the former president's proclamations to lift the spirits of his audience and to energize them into helping him put his policies into practice. On the other hand, they both suggested that our current presidents' words were less than energetic, and bereft of any call to action to right this country from the ravages of the Bush years.

It's apparent that people are running for the exits now having witnessed the first year of our new presidents first, and hopefully last, term in office. It's quite a turn of events however when the very people who aided in the rise and coronation of Barack Hussein Obama now find him shallow and unequipped to remake the world into a progressive utopia. As Peggy Noonan points out in a piece in today's Wall Street Journal, "When longtime political observers start calling for wise men, a president is in trouble."

Happy Thanksgiving

Be back soon.

Game Plan

Phony job numbers. Nonexistent congressional districts. Policy goals built upon fraudulent climate data. Lies, deceit, obfuscation, not to mention communist and terrorist sympathizers, tax cheats, and just plain incompetence. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to hope and change, I give you the Obama Administration.

It's really quite fascinating if you can put behind the utter scope and magnitude of insincerity and deception being practiced on a daily basis by this president and his cronies on the American public. There are no rules of order, fair play, or honest engagement with this crowd. It's all very ACORN like, 24/7, without let up. I just hope the republic can survive him until 2012.

Come to think of it, let's not wait until then. Let's end this sooner rather than later. In 2010, let's elect a majority of Republicans, Independents, or whomever it takes, to reclaim the House of Representatives and the Senate with enough support to impeach this clown and send him back to Chicago. Perhaps then we can begin anew to reclaim this country for ourselves and our providence and cast aside the liberal groupthink that has dominated this country for decades.

Thanks to the succession of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and now Barack Obama, Nixon's "silent majority" has re-awakened and found their voice in a variety of places like the Tea Party movement, 9/12ers, and other conservative groups. We know what we want now. We desire an end to deficit spending. We demand a government that can be trusted with every last dime and an honest accounting of such. We want smaller government with taxation and services that are equal to our needs, not our wants. We insist on justice for all and special favors for no one. We want to be left alone to earn a living and raise our families, unfettered by government interference and over regulation. We want our leaders to stand up to tyranny and to defend freedom. We need to secure our borders, defend our shores, and protect our allies. Simply put, we need a government that works for us not against us.

Gravediggers

They're so proud of themselves. Chests pumped in full senatorial plumage. "Ted was watching us," gushed Harry Reid, the Democrat majority leader wistfully reflecting upon the passage of a procedural vote on Obamacare that would have pleased the late Ted Kennedy. Once again, Democrat lawmakers in Washington are so pleased with their efforts to control one sixth of the U.S. economy and to add $2.5 trillion to our nation's deficit that they vote to do so only when they think that no one (besides Ted) is paying attention. In other words, the Democrats are more interested in paying homage to the dead than in respecting the wishes of the living.

On two separate Saturday nights now, within two weeks of each other, the Democrat-controlled Congress have collectively thumbed their noses at a majority of American citizens who oppose this legislation. Come hell or high water (perhaps both if Al Gore is right), Reid, Pelosi, et al, will continue to march down the path to government run healthcare much to the dismay of their constituents. And again we are left with this fundamental and overriding question: If Obamacare is so great and so necessary, why then does Congress and the President exempt themselves and their families from coverage?

Brain Dead

Would a smart man risk his reputation and a powerful office on an unknown outcome as inconsequential as an Olympic bid? Would an intelligent person risk his young administration and potential future legacy by delegating his economic recovery plans and his most transformative legislation to a bunch of power hungry progressives with a tin ear to the electorate? Not to mention picking an attorney general that chooses to put America on trial rather than the terrorists who wish to bury it. Or the fact that his decision making process, where American soldiers' lives are at stake, is slower than molasses and may soon jeopardize the outcome regardless of his final decision. The answer to all of the above would be no, unless you are the brilliant, smartest-guy-in-the-room brainiac that is Barack Obama.

I'm sick and tired of everyone in the media and elsewhere repeating this notion that Barack Obama is so smart. What proof do we have that this is true? His Harvard law degree? Just because he's articulate, speaks like an educated adult, and uses phrases like "false choice", doesn't make him smart. I suppose after George Bush, anyone that could string two coherent sentences together was bound to come off as brilliant, but c'mon. He won't release his college transcripts from Occidental or Harvard so how do we know he didn't fail biology or get a C in freshman composition. Because he wrote a book or two? So did George Bush, his dog Barney, and his dad's dog Millie.

There's Something About Sarah

Sarah Palin drew 60,000 at The Villages in Florida last September. The 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate sits on Oprah's couch and the talk show mogul's ratings go through the roof. Thousands line shopping mall corridors just to get a glimpse of the former governor of Alaska. Millions will buy her book. Yet to the media elite in New York, L.A. and Washington, D.C., who continuously castigate and excoriate her, she is an inconsequential rube demagoguing her way through fly-over country as she clings to her guns and her religion. In other words, you should be afraid of Sarah Palin, be very afraid.

Why all the hate for this woman? What did she ever do to elicit such vitriol? Nothing she has ever done, no action taken on her part, has warranted the abject disgust and abuse this woman has taken at the hands of our national media. So she didn't answer a couple of questions quite the way she should have during the campaign. She answered more than enough of them right. She was the answer to millions of prayers and aspirations of hopeful Republican voters, most notably John McCains', who by joining him, single-handidly drew his ass out of the fire of a hopelessly pathetic campaign and gave it enough life to have a legitimate shot at winning.

Sarah Palin may not be the first woman elected as President of the United States. She may never be elected to another political office again in her life time. She may never again participate in Republican party politics. What Sarah Palin is however, is a powerful and welcome voice of conservatism in a country vastly in need of such.

Coddling Evil

As if the news that the Obama administration was making H1N1 vaccinations available to Gitmo prisoners before most of us in this country get ours wasn't shameful enough, now comes the real clincher. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the admitted mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, will be permitted to stand trial in New York City in a civil court. This decision by the U.S. Justice Department, under the auspices of President Barack Hussein Obama, is not only unconscionable but a direct affront to those that perished in the attacks, their families, and to their memories.

While many of us have been appalled at the speed and magnitude with which this president continues to try and remake this country into something that more aptly fits his own warped sense of ideology, this latest stunt wins first prize, hands down. President Obama and the rest of the blame it on America crowd will get their opportunity to put Uncle Sam on trial for the exploitation, degradation, and humiliation of the Muslim empire and all people of color. They will put before the world court, George W. Bush, for the unlawful invasion and summary destruction of an innocent and valuable member of the international community, as prosecuted by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, al Quaeda, and ably assisted by the U.S. Justice Department. God help us.

P.S. When I spellchecked, "Khalid", I was asked if my computer needed to learn this particular word or spelling. Unfortunately I had to enter yes.

What Political Correctness Has Wrought

When Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder chastised the U.S. as a "nation of cowards", he was speaking about our collective reluctance to honestly discuss our attitudes over skin color. While I disagree with his take on that subject, I do believe that America has become cowards to another fashion; political correctness. The pursuit of political correctness has continued to blind us all to certain realities. The latest reality, one that has been building for quite some time now, is that religious extremists of the Muslim variety live and flourish among us and continually work to destroy this country from within.

Paranoid xenophobic you say? Ask Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, now that he has regained consciousness, recuperating from his killing spree that took the lives of thirteen and wounded another 29 at Ft. Hood. Ask him if he should have been permitted to remain in the United States Army while the nation is at war against Islamic terrorists. Ask the white haired grandmother, or the young mother with a baby, why they have to remove their shoes or take a drink of the formula before proceeding to board an airplane. Ask the President of the United States why he feels compelled to throw our nation's Judeo-Christian heritage under the bus in a speech to a Muslim audience in Cairo. These are all examples of bending over backwards to accommodate and dismiss what we all know to be true. Practitioners and followers of the Islamic faith are solely responsible for 99.999% of terrorists acts against this country.

Why are we surprised then when we learn, once arrested or killed, that terrorists like Hasan, or Denver's Najibullah Zazi who is suspected of plotting to bomb New York city subways, or even the 9/11 hijackers, frequented American mosques where violent jihad was both condoned and encouraged? We fight and rail against the madrassas in middle eastern countries where intolerance is practiced and preached everyday, yet under our very noses, just down the street, that same anti-American garbage is continuously distributed and ingested.

Yet political correctness warns us not to be too judgmental of our Muslim neighbors. Just last month, U.S. Airways settled a lawsuit brought by six imams, or Islamic religious leaders, who were arrested and removed from a flight in 2006. Terrified passengers and crew members reported suspicious behavior by the imams prior to boarding and once seated on the plane. This included speaking loudly in Arabic, refusing to sit in their assigned seats and instead sitting in pairs on aisle seats, ordering lap belts that went unused, saying disparaging things about President Bush and the Iraq war, and mentioning al Quaeda and Osama bin Laden. A Minnesota judge who sided with the imams in the case noted that they were subjected to "extreme fear and humiliation of being falsely identified as dangerous terrorists" and said "similar behavior by Russian Orthodox priests or Franciscan monks would likely have not elicited this response." Quite right your Honor, because Fr. Molotov and Brother Beretta, while having dangerous sounding names, have no history of flying planes into buildings, bombing embassies, trying to sink our ships or gunning down our soldiers.

Media Monster

Today on Morning Joe, Mika Brzenzinski indignantly complained of the attention that former Miss USA runner-up Carrie Prejean, continues to receive for any and all of her exploits post pageant. While she may have a point, it should be remembered however that it was people like her, and other media elites, who upon being pushed and prodded by progressives' gay rights agenda, created Ms. Prejean in the first place. Furthermore, remember that what Carrie Prejean was pilloried for, her opinion in support of traditional marriage vs. same sex marriage, is the same opinion shared by President Obama.

An Aha Moment

10.2% unemployment, in the wake of a $787 billion stimulus plan, is not what Obama had in mind when he signed that particular legislative feces into law. But then again jobs, particularly ones that are based solely on generating an income for both the provider and the employee, may never have held the same import for Obama as say, healthcare reform, global warming, or apologies for American transgressions. In By The People, a new HBO documentary on Obama's presidential campaign, during a scene in which the candidate is prepping for a debate with contender John McCain, Obama needs help trying to remember his campaign platforms. After someone speaks off camera, Obama says, "Oh yeah, jobs! Hopefully that won't happen during the debate." Too bad it didn't. Maybe the nation could have been spared his ignorance of the concept.

Smelling Salts Please

It's been interesting watching the Democrats try and explain what happened to them on Tuesday. Listening to Nancy Pelosi or Rep. Clyburn (D-SC) you'd think the country had only 48 states and NY 23 encompasses all of that territory. Just this afternoon, Rep. Clyburn said the reason their candidates won in NY and CA was that they ran on Obamacare and other federal issues. He went on to explain that the Republican victories in gubernatorial races in NJ and VA were based on local or state issues and that federal issues were not a consideration. In other words, the Democrats want you to believe that when President Obama campaigned for both of the Democrat candidates in NJ and VA, healthcare, climate change, or union expansion was never mentioned.

What Tuesday's Election Means

1. Obamaism has been gravely wounded, perhaps even (and hopefully) fatally so. While the Democrats currently hold the majority in Washington, they now know that the policies behind the rapid expansion of the federal government, combined with unsustainable and continued deficit spending, along with the many other utopian ideals of the progressives, will not be supported by a majority of Americans.

2. Independent campaigns, like Doug Hoffman's in New York, Christopher Daggett's in New Jersey, and Ross Perot's in the 90's, while perhaps charming to some, only serve to dilute and disperse the very real anger and frustrations of those who have become disenchanted with our two-party system. Better to pick a party and work from within.

3. While the New York 23rd might not be the best test of Sarah Palin's attempt at going rogue and garnering support for her brand of conservatism, it does tell me that she has little crossover appeal on left-leaning moderates.

"But Captain, You Told Me..."

In the movie Mr. Roberts, James Cagney's character Capt. Morton, in a fit of frustration over a questioned order which had previously been given to Lt. Roberts (played by Henry Fonda), says "Never mind what I told you, I'm telling you!" Sound familiar?

Congressional earmarks. Remember them? Remember how candidate Obama, then President Obama vowed to end them, even after signing into law over 8,000 that were neatly tucked inside the $410 billion omnibus spending bill last spring. Or better yet, just last August, the President told an audience of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, "if Congress sends me a defense bill loaded with a bunch of pork, I will veto it." But just last week, the White House signaled their support of the latest Defense Department spending bill which includes almost $3 billion in earmarks. When asked why the President's actions don't always match his rhetoric, the White House responded that it was never their intention to end the practice of earmarks in one year. "The president has been clear from Day One: He wants to change the way business gets done in Washington." Yeah, right.

How Not to Fight a War

Regardless of the decision President Obama makes on Afghanistan, whether to escalate or to retreat, his protracted deliberations on the issue, while viewed as professorial to some, also belies a tell of indifference or lack of resolve to others including our enemies. Afghanistan, to be fair, is a colossal mess. Mostly historic but some self inflicted. Perhaps George Bush did take his eye off of the prize for shot at bigger glory in Iraq, after the initial defeat of the Taliban, but they don't call Afghanistan the graveyard of empires for nothing. Nevertheless, the President's continued "dithering", as former VP Dick Cheney calls it, combined with the blame it on Bush ad nauseam from the White House, assists in the narrative that Barack Obama doesn't wish to fight any war, whether out of "necessity" or not, and that is the most troubling aspect of all.

I agree that it's not worth sending good people to die if all we are going to do is pay people off like we did in Irag. Let's be honest, the surge worked because we paid people vast sums of money not to try and kill us. This is the strategy, in part, that General McChrystal has proposed to win friends and influence our enemies in Afghanistan. Great program if you can print money at will, but we can't even afford our own entitlement programs in the U.S. let alone new ones for generations of Afghanis. God forbid should the money run out. Witness the return of al Quaeda in Iraq. As soon as we notified everyone that we would be leaving and taking our money with us, look who returned to the streets of Baghdad. The same will happen in Afghanistan unless we make a firm commitment to stay, and buy time.

Time to try and convince those (including Obama himself perhaps) who still may think that radical Islamists will leave us alone if only we would leave them alone. I am convinced that most of the world have yet to figure out that they too are in the crosshairs of al Quaeda and that it will take us all, in a united front, to stop them in their tracks. Witness a recent resolution adopted by the corrupt United Nations condemning defamation of religion. "Defamation of religion is a serious affront to human dignity leading to a restriction on the freedom of their adherents and incitement to religious violence," the adopted text read, adding that "Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism." Wrongly associated? Are you kidding me? This might be a swell resolution if it weren't for the fact that it was brought by Pakistan and other Islamic countries who feel that since 9/11, their religion has been stigmatized and persecuted for no good reason. How about 3000 for a start.

Our retreat from Afghanistan will only empower those who already view us as weak and will enable them to regroup and plan bad things under the auspices of a friendly government. I believe, as do others, that if we abandon the fight now, we will undoubtedly have to return only to face a more powerful foe in the future. And as George W always maintained, better to fight them there than here.

But even that strategy has its price. From its inception, you just knew the Karzai government was going to be a loser. The same could be said for several of our other so-called buddies in the region, like Pakistan. Sometimes you just gotta dance with them that's ugly. Even then though you have to know how to lead or else you and your partner take a horrific tumble. It's imperative that we try and establish a working government who can at least be amenable to democracy, no more corrupt than the last guy (even if it remains the last guy) (hell even we have Charles Rangel) and will not try and subvert us at every turn. Then and only then, can we at least give our soldiers a chance at beating back the enemies of freedom, eviscerating any chance for al Quaeda from ever using Afghanistan as a safe house, and putting us on a path for a legitimate exit.

All Falling Down . . .

All Falling Down . . .

The Tipping Point Part 2

Despite more Americans calling themselves conservative, the Republican Party has yet to capitalize on this seismic shift beneath their feet. The momentum behind this realignment is due, in part, to a very large number of independent voters who, having married the dreamy Obama candidate now find themselves seeking an annulment from the progressively insane presidential Obama. What the pundits found so cataclysmic last year, a demonstrable shift from center-right to center-left, was entirely ethereal.

However there is a very real battle now for the hearts and souls of the conservative minded. Just last week, Sarah Palin endorsed the Conservative Party's candidate Doug Hoffman, over his Republican rival and Democrat challenger in a special election for a congressional seat in New York. Now I know why Palin titled her new book Going Rogue. The GOP, along with notables like Newt Gingrich, endorsed the Republican Party candidate. Look for figures like Palin, Ron Paul, or Mike Huckabee, and even television personalities like Mr. Independent Lou Dobbs and Glenn Beck to position themselves as national leaders for this emergent crowd. Despite the outcome of next weeks election, Mr. Hoffman will not be the last tea party or grass roots newbie to challenge rino (Republican in name only) Republicans in their own neighborhoods.

The tea party people and other grass roots organizers, the ones that fueled last spring's tax protests and this summer's town hall meetings, are looking for leaders who share their frustrations and conservative values and who will adopt their agenda of limited government, fiscal responsibility, and personal liberty. But, just as they can sense a rino in their midst, they also have a nose for "instant" tea party posers who often glom onto the enthusiastic crowds for their own glory.

The Tipping Point Part 1

I think it's terrific that several recent polls indicate a that a number of people are making a shift to the right in their preference of political ideology. More people are describing their politics as conservative then they did just a year ago. The answer is not surprising given the Obama administration's zeal for big programs, big spending and big tax hikes. What is surprising is that just a few short months ago, after Obama's historic election and inauguration, pundits across this country were writing their epitaphs for the Republican Party, conservatives in general, and proclaiming a future Democrat governing majority for decades to come. So my thanks to BO, Senator's Reid, Dodd, Schumer, et al, Representative's Pelosi, Frank, Rangel, Obey, etc. We couldn't have done it without you. Now that's change I can believe in!

Health Care Vs. Liberty?

The following article is contributed by Donald Dale Milne, Secretary for the the Saginaw County Republican Party.

I note with concern that in the health care debate, the question of individual liberty seldom arises. I believe this should be the first question to be addressed, in this debate and all issues. Individual liberty is the opportunity for each person to determine his actions according to his own evaluation of what is best for himself. No king, slave owner, employer, or government bureaucrat making decisions for us. The whole of human history has been an attempt to move away from these controls by others and to more individual liberty. That is the entire basis and meaning of the United States of America, the only place where humanity has achieved the goal of individual liberty in significant measure for any good length of time.

So, I’m going to examine the relationship between individual liberty and health care. Health care impinges on individual liberty at many points in the health care system, beginning with you and me. Your doctor and pharmacist are also impacted, as are insurance companies, drug companies, hospitals, nursing homes and other businesses in the health care field. Finally, our governments: local, state and federal, have all entered our health care system at various points. The current debate happens because the federal government is proposing to become even more deeply involved in everyone’s health care. With regard to individual liberty, the question to investigate is, “What type of system best allows me to choose how much insurance I purchase (if any), who I want to contract with for care, what type of care I purchase, how much care I purchase, where I go for care, and when do I receive care?” The answer will be a system that places “you” at each decision-making point and excludes anyone else. To highlight how a system might place “you” at the decision-making points, I’m going to compare buying health care to something simple that anyone can understand: buying a pizza.

Suppose you wake up and decide you would like a pizza for dinner tonight. When buying a pizza, you can decide the size, flavor, style, where to buy it, where to eat it, how much to pay, whether to pay cash or credit, and whether you even buy a pizza or not. In short, you decide every detail of your pizza choice, taking into consideration your own opinions of taste, preparation time, cost, freshness, etc. In health care, this is not usually true.

Our health care usually works more like this: Suppose you wake up and one eye is swollen shut and you decide you should have a doctor look at it today. So, you call for an appointment with a doctor on the approved participating list from your health insurance company. No opportunity for you to choose a doctor based on your opinions of competence, ease of visiting, cost, or anything else. In fact, you probably have never received any information on any of these factors, and could not make an informed choice if you were allowed to! If you get to see the doctor today, which is not assured as the appointment time is her choice, you do not pay as you leave the office. You have no opportunity to consider a method of payment, as you are not charged directly. Your insurance company or government plan will make payment at some future date without even asking you whether you received adequate service. They may even bill you for a co-pay without considering your opinion on cost, method of payment or anything else. If the insurance company will pay, you will find that you did not even have a voice in choosing the insurance, your employer did that for you without consideration of your opinions on cost, services purchased, history of adequate services, ease of billing, or anything else. What happened to your liberty?

For many of us, others make these major decisions in our health care purchases. Our employer may decide what insurance company we get a policy from, and all the details of the policy. Our insurance company may decide what doctors we can go to and how much we pay for services if they don’t cover them. If you are on Medicaid, Medicare, or are a Veteran, a government may decide the details of what care you get. Very few of us have a direct contract between a doctor and ourselves. What happened to your liberty?

And the proposals being debated in Congress create an even worse situation, taking away the last remnants of our individual liberty by creating a single government health care bureaucracy to decide all details for us!

Why are some people fooled into thinking this is a good idea? Employers used to create company towns to dictate where we lived, and I doubt we want to go back to those dismal days. Slave owners made all decisions for their slaves, and that’s universally thought to be a bad system now. History has endless examples of why the government is a bad way to run things when a king ran it, so we have no kings anymore. We can see by simply watching the news that government still runs things poorly by looking at our roads, schools, Veterans’ hospitals, parks, prisons, etc. We all have at least one area where we are certain that somebody could run it better than government. So, why do we want the have the government, employers, insurance companies, or anyone else in charge of our health care decisions? The simple fact is that no one can make decisions for us as well as we can do it ourselves!

So, why isn’t the health care debate focused on restoring your lost liberty? Why are nearly all parties proposing ways to steal even more of your self-determination? Why do you put up with this lopsided debate instead of insisting on your freedom? Congress is running exactly opposite of the direction they should be on health care. They are trying to create a system with less individual liberty, instead of more. The change we need is to REMOVE government, employers, insurance companies, and anyone else from the system, so that individuals contract directly with doctors, hospitals, and other care providers.

Wouldn’t this be better? Suppose you wake up and one eye is swollen shut and you decide you should have a doctor look at it today. So, you call for an appointment with a doctor of your choice, taking into consideration your opinions of competence, ease of visiting, cost, etc. You can look up plenty of information on these factors in the doctors’ ads and perhaps a rating system. Because you are choosing the doctor, if she doesn’t have the appointment time you want, you can try another doctor to get what you want. As you leave the office, you pay for the visit with your choice of cash, credit, insurance billing, or check based on your opinions of total cost, ease of payment, etc. and you’re all done. If you have an insurance company billed, it is a company of your choice, taking into consideration your opinions on cost, services covered, history of adequate services, ease of billing, etc. You have successfully bought your medical exam, with very complete freedom of choice. There’s our individual liberty!

What would it take to create such a system from where we are today?

First, we need to get employers out of buying our health insurance. There is no economic, health care, or insurance actuarial reason to group people together by their place of employment, as these people have nothing else in common with each other. The major reason this system exists is that it is given tax breaks by the government. If the tax breaks for businesses were gone, it would make no sense for the business to provide your health insurance: after all, your employer doesn’t provide your car, groceries, cable tv, child care, or movie tickets. If you buy your own health care insurance, it would act much like your car insurance and likely would be less expensive for many people.

Maybe you think you’re getting “free” health coverage from your employer. You really know better than that: nothing is free because someone has to pay for it. It may not be you at this very moment, but you can be assured that you pay for everything somewhere down the road. Let’s start with the health insurance your employer chooses for you. He pays for it. If he didn’t buy your health insurance, where would that money go? Well, it could go a lot of other places, and nearly all of them would be good for you. He could pay you more directly in your wages. He could invest more money in the business, thus making it more likely that you will keep your job. He could lower his prices and still make as much money, meaning people, including you, could afford to buy more of what he and you make, also making it more likely that you will keep your job. He could put the money in his own pocket and spend it himself, which may create more jobs in some other businesses. He could donate it to some charity, accomplishing some community good.

Actually, there is no downside for you when your employer does not buy your health insurance. You get your freedom back and the money still does worthwhile things. But, maybe you’re afraid that you won’t be able to afford your health care costs unless someone else pays for them. That may be true for the small fraction of people who really do not make enough money to buy food, shelter, clothing, transportation, and health care. We’ll get back to them later in the discussion, but for now just note that charities and welfare attempt to cover all those other survival costs and health care need not be any different. For everyone else, you may just have to make new priorities about where you spend your money, including your health insurance.

There are many ways to offer insurance and there would constantly be new choices offered as companies jockeyed for position to get your dollars, just like they do for car insurance, life insurance, house insurance, etc. With millions of customers, insurance companies would need to develop special rates and special plans to attract customers. You could likely get discounts for bundling your health insurance with other insurances, just as you can now for car and home insurance. Some might offer medical savings accounts that you could build up to pay your own health care costs, instead of buying any insurance. Some might even pay you back dividends if you cost them less to insure than they anticipated. Some companies might lower rates for people in more healthy groups, just like non-smokers get better rates on life insurance and accident-free drivers get better rates. Many people might purchase coverage only for things they cannot afford out of pocket, such as a surgery, but pay doctors cash for office visits. Another thing that should happen is that we would get insurance companies out of our doctor choices. While some companies might offer plans that limit you to a list of doctors, other companies would do business differently, allowing you to shop around for the doctor of your choice, either by price, experience, closeness to home, family history, or other factors you decide on. All kinds of plans would be possible, many of which we’ve never even seen before, and many of which would cost you less, both because you could buy just what you want and because of the intense competition. You would choose which company to buy insurance from, taking into consideration your opinions of their costs, financial stability, coverage for your personal needs, etc. And all this multitude of insurance choice would be available and priced so that the companies offering them can make a profit and therefore continue in business to provide coverage, just like food companies, lawn care, furniture or anything else you buy. There’s our individual liberty!

Lastly, we need to get the government out of all health care choices. Government now wants to “reform” its prior meddling in the health care decisions of its citizens, with more meddling. Meddling that has been going on since the decision reached during a time of government wage and price controls, to let employers buy health insurance for workers with untaxed dollars, while if workers buy the same insurance it must be done with taxed dollars. This is a clear meddling in the free market decisions between a person and his doctors and needs to be reformed by removing government from the system.

And, there is simply no need for the massive losses of individual liberty that will occur with the current proposals of even more government involvement. To provide for our every health care need, government would need to write detailed regulations on every health care procedure, review our personal records of health, finance, DNA, and lifestyle, pass judgement on how many doctors get educated and where they can practice, and likely more. Some of this is already written into the current bills and the rest would be needed in the future. Some provisions in bills Congress is considering make it illegal to pay for services out-of-pocket. Another provision states that businesses will be forced to either provide insurance to the government standard or pay an 8% tax, which would create a cost disadvantage to businesses that simply let employees go to the government plan, meaning that eventually all of us would go to the government plan. Some parts of the plan are even exempt from any court challenges! What happened to your liberty? None of this should be allowed: each person should be the only one having and using such information to choose health care for himself.

The system that maximizes individual liberty is instead very simple. You decide what insurance to buy, you decide what health care you need, you decide what doctors to go to, you decide when to go for care, you decide how to make payment. There’s our individual liberty! Your employer is completely out of the picture. Government is completely out of the picture. The insurance company is responsive directly to you as the customer because you pay the bills. The doctors and hospitals are responsive directly to you as the customer because you pay the bills. If you do not pay your bills, the insurance company cancels your coverage and the doctors and hospitals sue you for payment, in the same way any other company you don’t pay would do. There’s our individual liberty!

And, in case you think I’ve forgotten about those people who truly cannot afford food, shelter, clothing, transportation, and health care, let’s take a look at them. We attempt, through both charities and government, to help the truly poor with basic survival needs and health care need not be any different. If you cannot afford food, we have local charity food programs and government food stamps. For shelter, there are local charity shelters and government housing programs. There are also programs for clothing, education, and subsidized public transportation. Most of these provide temporary benefits, as people frequently come and go from the ranks of the poor. Our charitable and government health care efforts should be similar. They should be targeted to the truly needy and should be designed to meet temporary needs. The temporary nature of such programs will allow these people to regain their liberty, and make their own decisions in the future.

You may notice that I have not addresses the cost of government health care. That is because the idea is wrong and therefore if we simply stay with increasing liberty, the cost is not material. However, there are considerations of cost if some government health care plan is implemented. Any plan that truly intends to cover more people for more procedures will cost more, not less as is sometimes claimed. Conversely, any plan that will truly cost less will cover fewer procedures for fewer people. It is an economic impossibility to provide more care at less cost. Costs may be hidden by general taxation, government borrowing, “creative” bookkeeping or other means, but higher costs will exist if more care is provided for more people. Or, if costs are truly cut by paying doctors less per procedure, eliminating insurance companies or other means, then there will be less service provided and we will all receive poorer care and have sacrificed our liberty for no gain.

So please vote NO on any of the current health care bills, because they do not preserve or improve individual liberty. Instead, write and vote for a plan that allows individuals full choice of their own health care decisions.

We're Just Not That Into You

A new poll by CNN shows a majority of Americans now disagree with President Obama on major issues. Whether it's healthcare, the economy, the environment, you name it, 51% of us don't agree with BO. I think I know why this is so and why these numbers will only increase in the coming months. As he lashed out last night in New York against Wall Street, criticizing them for "reckless speculation and deceptive practices and short-sightedness and self-interestedness from a few," I can't help but think that most of us feel the same about him and his cronies in Washington.

Scary 2

In today's Wall Street Journal, there was an editorial on Michigan's sad economy and the disastrous job that Jennifer Granholm has done. Her effort to shore up a $2 billion plus deficit in 2007, by raising taxes $1.4 billion, has once again created a deficit of $2.8 billion. And after saying "I'm not ever going to raise taxes again," she wants to raise taxes another $600 million. Excuse me? Lying seems to be so fashionable right now doesn't it? Democrat perfidy is the new black.

The most alarming aspect of the article was the statistic that Michigan now has 637,000 public employees and only 500,000 in manufacturing jobs. "Government is the largest employer in the state, but the number of taxpayers to support these government workers is shrinking." We here in Michigan have reached our tipping point. Note to lawmakers; Vote for a tax increase and you will be paying for it from home.

Scary

The author of a story about Predator drone attacks, in the current issue of The New Yorker, said this morning on MSNBC that such attacks are "scary" and that they desensitize us from the very real act of murdering someone. She said that these attacks by remote controlled aircraft are responsible for large numbers of civilian or collateral deaths, in addition to those being targeted for extermination. Effective? Yes. Scary? I sure hope so.

For those trying to keep score in the war between progressives and liberals, socialists and Democrat dogs of both the blue and yellow varieties, while one argues against aerial warfare, another promotes it. War by remote control is the very strategy being pushed by VP Joe Biden in Afghanistan.

Unrelated, but nevertheless just as chilling, the Obama Administration is easing up on strongman Omar al-Bashir, President of Sudan, in the hope (there it is again) that his government will stop the genocide in Darfur. In April, the International Criminal Court issued a warrant for al-Bashir's arrest on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Al-Bashir has done nothing to warrant any change in U.S. policy mind you, he just provides another tyrant for Obama to appease.

56% Agree He's Not George Bush

An new Gallup poll finds that 56% of Americans approve of the job Barack Obama is doing as President. Absent winning the Nobel, which by his own acknowledgement was wrongfully awarded, what is there to approve of? Category after category, issue by issue, promises made versus promises kept, have all been disasters. I ask you, who make up this 56% other than perhaps yellow dog Democrats, members of Liars Anonymous, union leaders, Wall Street bankers, community organizers, nascent nuclear countries, ACORN, the media (excluding FOX), the NFL, well you get the picture. Please someone tell me what exactly President Obama does on a daily basis that should elicit approval? Then again, perhaps some of the 56% are Republicans, Independents, or other conservatives, like Rush Limbaugh, who are pleased that nothing has been accomplished and therefore approve of the job BO is doing as President. Just a thought.

Only American Free Enterprise Can Meet Our Nation's Job Challenge

Only American Free Enterprise Can Meet Our Nation's Job Challenge

Shared via AddThis

You Do The Math

After reading Mr. Sowell's article, realize that the Senate Finance Committee will likely pass out of committee their version of healthcare reform wherein Sen. Baucus (D-MT) has stated that his bill will expand healthcare coverage from 83% of Americans to 94%. In other words, at a cost of only $856 billion, we can cover an additional 11% of our population with healthcare. Remember that in expanding home ownership from 64% to just 69%, only a 5% increase, the world was thrown into what some now describe as the Great Recession at a cost of trillions! Once again, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Magic Numbers in Politics

Magic Numbers in Politics

Shared via AddThis

Regularly Frustrated in Michigan

A couple of days ago I came across an article on the web that subscribed to the idea that this past summer's tea parties and seething town hall protests over healthcare and deficit spending have given way to apathy and resignation on the part of some conservatives. That for many of us, these tantrums were only a cathartic and temporary reaction to the "black man as president" stimuli. Hogwash! The latest polls on Obamacare still show a majority dead set against a government takeover of the industry.

Still, it's a tough slog when we are subjected daily to new and variant ways in which the left assault our intelligence and patience and have but our own voices to combat them. For instance. Just yesterday, the Democrats in the House voted overwhelmingly against a Republican attempt to remove Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. Why does he even remain a member of Congress? He has admitted to owing over $600,000 in back taxes! Where is the outrage? Full disclosure; I think that Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) should also be removed from Congress for his shenanigans over his adulterous affair.

Continuing to act more like a Chicago alderman than the President of the United States, Obama sends his education chief and his attorney general to Chicago to re-ignite a "discussion" on the ravages of gang violence. Another government program designed to assuage the situation should be forthcoming.

Here in Michigan, the state needs to balance an almost $3 billion budget deficit and the Democrats have voted to raise taxes by $400 million. If we didn't have Obama's "stimulus" money (our money, but that's another story) to offset further cuts, they'd have voted for a bigger tax increase. We have, with the help of some Republican lawmakers, an immovable object in the way of education and spending reform called the Michigan Education Association. For far too long, special interests like the MEA and other public employee unions have had their way with politicians who care more about their jobs then those of their constituents. It's time we reverse that trend and walk a different path, because the one we're on end in a cul-de- sac of misery.

Change and Hope

Terrific article and a great prescription for what ails us.

Change and Hope

Shared via AddThis

The Emperor's Media Purchased Clothes

There, there Mr. President, they just don't understand you like we do. And anyway, it's George Bush's fault. That's the sentiment from the New York Times in this morning's editorial. After being personally humiliated on a global stage, the NYT finds it necessary to prop up the President even when they admit it was a foolish and questionable gamble in his flying to Copenhagen with a personal appeal for Chicago's Olympic bid. Then the over-the-top fawning really begins.

"Mr. Obama has done important, courageous things to restore America’s standing. After George W. Bush, it feels good — and safer — to know that people around the world feel better about this country and about this president. One of Mr. Obama’s biggest challenges now is finding ways to fully leverage that good will into strong international leadership. And let’s face it, looking like a winner always helps."

What are these important and courageous things that Obama has done? What evidence exists of people around the world feeling better about America? Why do we think that everyone on earth should like Obama? Just because our Apologist-in-Chief says so in a speech, or to the press, doesn't mean it has or will happen in reality. He says things everyday that aren't true. He has ordered Guantanamo closed, but it won't close by his deadline or anyone else's. Yet he still uses this line as a fait accompli. Under his watch the U.S. will no longer torture prisoners. We never did. The economy is improving, despite rising unemployment figures. He won't sign a bill with earmarks, then goes and does exactly that. It goes on and on.

The only thing that is fueling the Obama administration, apart from ego and arrogance, is a remaining contingent of a cloying press. He, his advisors, and the media, wrongfully assume that 99% of what makes a president successful is to just show up. They underestimate the importance of substance. So far, this president, in my estimation, has shown very little substance in everything he does. In other words, he is an empty suit.

Spoiler Alert Update: Oops

A couple of days ago I predicted that Chicago's bid for the 2016 Olympics was going to be a lead-pipe cinch, opining that President Obama surely wouldn't risk his ego or the significance of his office on something as insignificant as a vote on who got to host the games. Turns out I was wrong. I will give credit to President Obama for trying, however poor his judgement may have been in doing so.

The Unthinkable is Always Allowed

For quite some time the world has been kept abreast of Iran's dream of building and possessing a nuclear arsenal. We have repeatedly been supplied with time lines and timetables of their progress such as "within the next decade", or "within a few years", or the latest, "perhaps just months away." Is there really any doubt left, with the exception of the Obama White House, that Iran has the deadliest of intentions and are not just spinning centrifuges for the peaceful purpose of nuclear power? This is a country run by fanatics like al Qaeda and the Taliban who refute modernity at any price. Actually I think President Obama does believe Iran's true intent, he's just afraid to do anything about it.

So have others, and for quite some time. Think about it. Nazis, the Khmer Rouge, Darfur, communism, as well as countless other governments, have all been responsible for horrendous murder and mayhem yet all were allowed to happen. Someone, somewhere, is always keenly aware, all the while aiding and abetting all that transpires. We do it, they do it, we all do it, but why? Money. Filthy lucre. The root of all evil. No, I am not Michael Moore or agree that capitalism should be done away with. On the contrary. But there should be more interest paid and pressure applied to folks who profit from misguided and dangerous despots.

But I don't want this post to be about greed or trying to kill what a man does for a living. There will be plenty of that under cap and trade. No, I am interested in a world populated with an abundance of sound minds and good judgment that somehow cannot find the collective will to end nonsense when and where they see it. Rather than stand by flailing our fists at Iran and threatening sanctions for the next few months, or until a nuclear bomb goes off on Israel, lets destroy those factories now. Let's warn the people in cities like Qom, where the latest installation has been discovered, to go visit their relatives for a few days. Then we turn the lights out and every participating country with an airplane fly over and drop a bomb on these facilities. Israel can supply us all with the targets. End of threat. At least from Iran. Then let's see how eager some other idiot wishes to defy our new found strength and resolve.

Spoiler Alert! Chicago to Get 2016 Olympics

With President Obama on the ropes over his designs to fix healthcare, the climate, geopolitics, or anything else he touches, his trip to Copenhagen to personally lobby for Chicago's bid is a clear sign that the committee has already chosen Chicago as the site for the 2016 games. The risk to his presidency and his ego would be too great if there were still a chance that the games might be played somewhere else.

The Olympic Committee has to be thrilled that Obama has already stepped on their applause line with the greatest of tells; a presidential trip.

Worthy of Your Read

Commentary » Blog Archive » Wanted: Defender of American Interests

Obama In The Booster Seat

Children under 8 years old, or shorter than 4'9", are required to use a booster seat properly secured in the back seat while traveling in any vehicle. It's safe, secure, and physically impossible to markedly influence any adult decision making going on in the front seat. If Obama's U.N. speech wasn't evidence enough that the United States going forward wishes to concede its superpower status, it was made clear today from the three statements made by President Obama, President Sarkozy, and Prime Minister Brown regarding Iran's secret nuclear program. For the next four years at least, the U.S. will no longer be interested in occupying the driver's seat or even riding shotgun in protecting the world from evil despots or rogue countries.

Neighborhood Bully

President Obama must not be a fan of Bob Dylan or he might have otherwise avoided throwing Israel under the bus in his speech to the U.N. today. I have never heard an American president speak so callously of a potentially endangered ally and at the same time so eager to please the Muslim world than was on display in New York this afternoon. After dressing down Israel for their continued "occupation" and expansion of the West Bank, the President conceded that efforts to quash Palestinian "incitement against Israel" has been less than successful and continues to hamper a two-state solution. Nevertheless, after we have secured peace between Palestine and Israel, the President went on to explain that "we will also pursue peace between Israel and Lebanon, Israel and Syria, and a broader peace between Israel and its many neighbors." With that lineup of democratic all-stars waiting on deck, and other Arab leaders systemically calling to wipe Israel off the map, it seems implausible then that Israel should be cast as the troublemaker.

The Left's Incessant Obsession

Why is it that those on the left, amplified by the media, are so obsessed with who leads the Republican Party? Why do they constantly complain that there is no one leader speaking for the Republicans? With all that is going on in this country and around the world, why is this uppermost on their minds? Because if there were one, that would be all they would talk about.

Let's leave for a moment the fact that Michael Steele is the chairman of the National Republican Committee and therefore the leader of the Republican Party. While he may not be a contender for the presidency in 2012, he is the titular head of the GOP. But the left can't attack him, he's black. If they did attack him they would be racists too. Even though by law, the left cannot be racists. In any event, the left really don't believe that Michael Steele is actually in charge any more than Governor Paterson is of New York.

No, the left needs a bogeyman to divert the attention away from President Obama and his feckless administration. They desperately need someone to help shout down people like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. They need another version of their creation, John McCain circa 2000. What they do not realize however, what they have never managed to comprehend or to penetrate their thick progressive skulls, is the fact that Glenn Beck, the Tea Party movement, and this summers' town hall participants, are not a product of the Republican Party. They are all grassroots, organic, and uncontrollable! And, believe me, if the Republican Party were in charge of any of this it wouldn't be as successful.