Wednesday, December 30, 2009

"War on Terror" or Maybe They Just Aren't That Into Us

President Obama ordered the phrase 'war on terror' be removed from all communication. While I understand the PR aspects of why he wanted to set a new tone with his administration, the rest of the world doesn't appear to have signed onto the general concept. Perhaps the President needs to have Mrs. Clinton deliver some more of those "reset" buttons. And while she's at it, she can drop one off in the Oval Office.

“As I’ve watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war. He seems to think if he has a low key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of 9/11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core al Qaeda trained terrorists still there, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gets rid of the words, ‘war on terror,’ we won’t be at war. But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe. Why doesn’t he want to admit we’re at war? It doesn’t fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn’t fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency – social transformation—the restructuring of American society. President Obama’s first object and his highest responsibility must be to defend us against an enemy that knows we are at war.” - Dick Cheney

But of course we are the US of A. We will surround ourselves with an impenetrable shield of good intention ?

It's a good thing we have the latest and greatest technology in body scanners. There is nothing we can not overcome without a little American ingenuity. Right?!?!

Of course Israel doesn't use body scanners. And when you think it through, it make perfect sense that a full body scan of a wife would be never be permitted by a Muslim man.

Israel has no qualms about admitting that there are people in the world who wish to do them harm. And that it's possible to take an honest look at these people and find that many of them fit a certain profile.

If you've ever flown on El Al Airlines, you notice that you are not be treated the same of those Israeli citizens flying with an Israeli passport. Flying El Al you begin to have an idea of how they keep people safe. And they do it quickly and very efficiently.

You want some tips on what American can do to stay safe? Call Israel.

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Government Sponsored Abortion

Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services discusses how the new health care "reform" bill will pay for abortion on demand. Although all will have a portion of their premium go into the pool that will fund abortions, it's not your money paying for abortions.

Upon reading the language of the bill, Democrat Congressman from Michigan Bart Stupak made a statement including "A review of the Senate language indicates a dramatic shift in federal policy that would allow the federal government to subsidize insurance policies with abortion coverage"

Here the Congressman reacts in person to the abortion language in the Senate bill:

So has our "health care reform" become a tool to provide "...a dramatic shift in federal policy..."? Perhaps a dramatic shift to the left? It is for the courts to decide the legality of abortion, and each administration has tried to resize the box to their liking. But this administration has completely jumped out of the box , pushing our society to the far left. Our government may not actually be in the abortion business, but our government will guarantee that everyone gets reimbursed for the expense of their abortion. Just like getting your tonsils removed, right? And of course pregnancy is an pre existing condition so your OK if you switch jobs. Who wants to start a new job all the hassles having a baby to raise.

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Is it Legal?

"A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government." Congressional Budget Office statement from 1994

"...Senators and Representatives need to know that, despite what they have been told, the health insurance mandate is highly vulnerable to challenge because it is, in truth, unconstitutional." Randy Barnett, Nathaniel Stewart, Todd F. Garzino, Legal Memorandum #49 The Heritage Foundation

Who knows? But it looks like it could be an interesting question regardless how hard the Democrats try to downplay the issue.

Monday, December 21, 2009

Reid Gets It Done.

Although few people had the ability to read Harry Reid's (D-NE) "manager's amendment" health bill, it was passed in the middle of the night. The bill was openly opposed by right wing nutroots such as Howard Dean, Arianna Huffington, and Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas. The latest Rasmussen poll showed 56% of Americans opposed it, increasing to 63% of those 65 and older.

Why did they do it? In the Washington Post, Kathleen Parker speculated:

"The growing sense now is that Obama is desperate -- for any kind of bill. What matters is checking the box next to "health care reform" and declaring some kind of victory.

Thus, the man who was going to remain above the political fray has revealed himself as pluperfectly political, ready to settle for the very kind of mandate (without the public option) that he opposed as a candidate challenging Hillary Clinton. Rather than inspiring confidence, he has inspired a groundswell of disapproval and a populist uprising that may allow Republicans to clean House come November."

But it's all about reducing costs, right? WellPoint looked into the data and did some regional comparisons. 25 year old in Milwaukee buying coverage on the individual market will see his costs increase by 178%, eight employee small business in Richmond VA costs will increase by 23%, 40 year old with 2 kids will see a 106% increase for family coverage. And as I have explored in previous postings, there is nothing in the bill that will actually reduce the costs of health care for Americans.

From a great article in today's Wall Street Journal:

"The tragedy is that Mr. Obama inherited a consensus that the health-care status quo needs serious reform, and a popular President might have crafted a durable compromise that blended the best ideas from both parties. A more honest and more thoughtful approach might have even done some good. But as Mr. Obama suggested, the Democratic old guard sees this plan as the culmination of 20th-century liberalism.

So instead we have this vast expansion of federal control. Never in our memory has so unpopular a bill been on the verge of passing Congress, never has social and economic legislation of this magnitude been forced through on a purely partisan vote, and never has a party exhibited more sheer political willfulness that is reckless even for Washington or had more warning about the consequences of its actions.

These 60 Democrats are creating a future of epic increases in spending, taxes and command-and-control regulation, in which bureaucracy trumps innovation and transfer payments are more important than private investment and individual decisions. In short, the Obama Democrats have chosen change nobody believes in—outside of themselves—and when it passes America will be paying for it for decades to come."

Sunday, December 20, 2009

Read The Bill

After all the deal making done behind closed doors, what have the Democrats brought to the table?

- Americans required to have insurance or pay a tax. CBO estimates $15 billion in tax over the next 10 years.

- 10% on tanning bed usage.

- Additional taxes on insurance companies and manufactures of medical devices and prescription drugs.

- Tax on employer-sponsored "Cadillac" insurance plans. Unless you're a member of a union that supported Obama in the election; SEIU, mine workers, construction workers.

- Tax on companies that do not offer health insurance coverage. CBO estimate is $28 billion in new taxes on these small business over the next 20 years.

- Unequal treatment and funding for specific states and counties.

Quoted in the New York Times, Harry Reid, D-Neb said; "A number of States are treated differently from other states. That's what this legislation is all about, compromise."

That's one way to put it. Mitch McConnell R-KY put it another way; "...a monstrosity full of special sweetheart deals for a few states."

- Coverage for abortion on demand.

This hot button issue has created a compromise that has been so twisted through the process that it is opposed by Planned Parenthood Federation of American, National Organization for Women, The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the National Right to Life Committee. When was the last time both NOW and the Catholic Church agreed on anything?

Of course Senator Reid would throw out that word "compromise". We MUST compromise! Set aside your personal and religious beliefs and accept that our government will REQUIRE insurance companies provide abortion on demand. This is the "Change" the current administration has promised? Not a change to the politics as usual in Washington, nothing in the bill to actually reduce medical costs. But rather an excuse to move our country to the left. Christians are expected step back from the line in the sand, or risk being accused of standing in the way of saving the lives of millions who may otherwise die without insurance. Which is the greater good, or perhaps the greater evil? The status quo, or our government taking an active role in providing abortions to millions?

I would challenge that "Christian" is not a noun. Being "Christian" is a verb. Jesus challenged in both word and action. He did not compromise, and neither can we.

Saturday, December 19, 2009

Another Member of Congress Sells Vote

What did Senator Ben Nelson (D-Neb) get for agreeing to support Reid's health care plan? Several hundred millions of dollars in taxpayer funds will go to the state of Nebraska. To paraphrase the punch line of the old joke, we have already established what you are we are just negotiating the price. The Democrats have referred to this arm twisting as "favors". I guess it's not a bribe if you're paying with someone else's money. There's also that nagging little story reported by Matt Lewis and Michael Goldfarb about the White House threatening to put Nebraska's military base on the list of bases to be closed. So Nelson got both the carrot and the stick. A bill put before congress should pass or fail based upon it's own merits. Not based upon how much taxpayer funded pork is coming to any specific district. Perhaps if term limits were put into place there would be better balance toward doing what's right for the entire country, rather then pork spending and political "I.O.U."s that may help someone re-elected. Little doubt that the new stimulus package the Democrats are preparing is full of similar "favors" going out to those who are supporting the Obama/Pelosi agenda.

‘‘(3) Notwithstanding subsection (b) and paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection, the Federal medical assistance percentage otherwise determined under subsection (b) with respect to all or any portion of a fiscal year that begins on or after January 1, 2017, for the State of Nebraska, with respect to amounts expended for newly eligible individuals described in subclause (VIII) of section 1902(a)(10)(A)(i), shall be determined as provided for under subsection (y)(1) (A) (notwithstanding the period provided for in such paragraph)

Monday, December 14, 2009

From a BBC News report on Afghanistan:

"Marines had mortared two men believed to be setting an IED in an area not far away. A villager later presented two dead children at their base, claiming they had been killed by American fire.

But the children, according to those who had seen them or photographs of them, had been shot. The marines said they had information that a local Taliban commander had ordered it, just so that the Americans would be blamed."

While the American press is consumed with the politics of Afghanistan, the reality of daily life is mostly ignored. How does a young man deal with the effects of facing such evil? Regardless of your political position, our troops need and deserve our support and prayers.

Sunday, December 13, 2009


Not sure who this guy is, but I like his style.

"Just a football game"

The grand tradition of the Army-Navy football game is one of the longest and most celebrated rivalries in sports. But in the end, it is "just a football game". Lady Liberty holds a torch that provides a symbol of freedom and beacon of hope for the world. Provided there are young Americans of character like those on the field yesterday, and the men and women they lead, she will continue to provide that light.

Major Cuts to Medicare, Unless You're a Democrat