Report: Britain to Release All Letters Related to Lockerbie Bomber - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News - FOXNews.com
Posted using ShareThis
Monday, August 31, 2009
The KGB, Kennedy, and Carter
The KGB, Kennedy, and Carter
Shared via AddThis
I've long felt that the Kennedy blood had thinned considerably by the time Teddy came along. Now that he's gone more of his perfidious nature comes to light--as if there wasn't already enough reason to distrust his judgment.
Shared via AddThis
I've long felt that the Kennedy blood had thinned considerably by the time Teddy came along. Now that he's gone more of his perfidious nature comes to light--as if there wasn't already enough reason to distrust his judgment.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Patriotism or prejudice? Teen suspended for criticizing Muslim student | abcactionnews.com
Patriotism or prejudice? Teen suspended for criticizing Muslim student | abcactionnews.com
Posted using ShareThis
The school, in an orgasm of political correctness, ignores the insult by the Muslim student to the United States and punishes in the extreme the young lady who told her to stand-up. That the young lady criticized the hajib is wrong but no less wrong than the failure of the other young lady to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.
The point is that while we should not ask immigrants to forget where they come from, we should not fear remind them as to where they are. They chose to come here of their own volition. They should accept our culture if they wish to stay; and as they do so, we should welcome them with open arms.
If they want to live in the culture they left and refuse to accept our American culture, they should return to the land whence they came.
Ted Kennedy - A life of debauchery
Ted Kennedy - A life of debauchery
Shared via AddThis
Senator Edward Kennedy laid to rest among heroes in Arlington National Cemetary. Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment.
Shared via AddThis
Senator Edward Kennedy laid to rest among heroes in Arlington National Cemetary. Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Sarah Palin: One Year Later
Sarah Palin: One Year Later
Shared via AddThis
I said when after her first speech that she was ready for prime time. She's done nothing to disabuse me of that notion. Unfortunately the the Main Stream Media, following the ideologues on the left, did everything it could to destroy her and, although McCain/Palin lost the election, she was far from destroyed.
Many didn't bother to actually listen to what she said either during the campaign or since but formed their opinions based on the MSM's "reporting." If they had bothered to listen with any objectivity we wouldn't be having the problems we have today. She still has more executive experience than Obama and more common sense that Obama, Biden, Reid and Pelosi put together.
My hope is that in after 1/20/2013 we'll be saying "Madame President." It's time, long past actually, we had some common sense in the White House.
Shared via AddThis
I said when after her first speech that she was ready for prime time. She's done nothing to disabuse me of that notion. Unfortunately the the Main Stream Media, following the ideologues on the left, did everything it could to destroy her and, although McCain/Palin lost the election, she was far from destroyed.
Many didn't bother to actually listen to what she said either during the campaign or since but formed their opinions based on the MSM's "reporting." If they had bothered to listen with any objectivity we wouldn't be having the problems we have today. She still has more executive experience than Obama and more common sense that Obama, Biden, Reid and Pelosi put together.
My hope is that in after 1/20/2013 we'll be saying "Madame President." It's time, long past actually, we had some common sense in the White House.
"It ain't [America] no more, OK?"
And we thought this couldn’t happen in America. Paste this URL into your browser and watch the YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzmBTrEfCTQ
Prepare to be shocked.
The supporters of President Obama, following his lead in ignoring the Constitution, are violating the rights of Americans to protest. Whether we agree with the sign this guy was carrying or not, the Constitution guarantees, above all, that Americans have the right to free speech, especially political free speech. This officer, used the "just following orders" defense that was common at Nuremberg, and violated the Constitution as it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court. The law on this is clear except to this officer. (And I wonder if liberal Fairfax County, Virginia, will allow him to stay an officer?)
What is shown is one of the most egregious violations of civil rights that I have ever seen. And that the officer said, "This ain't America anymore" is one of the most frightening things I have heard. Speaker Pelosi has publicly called the opposition to ObamaCare, "Nazis." It appears that while she was pointing one finger at the opposition, the rest were rightly pointed at the Democrats. If there are any "brown shirts," they are being worn by the liberals in this battle for America and not by the conservatives.
Prepare to be shocked.
The supporters of President Obama, following his lead in ignoring the Constitution, are violating the rights of Americans to protest. Whether we agree with the sign this guy was carrying or not, the Constitution guarantees, above all, that Americans have the right to free speech, especially political free speech. This officer, used the "just following orders" defense that was common at Nuremberg, and violated the Constitution as it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court. The law on this is clear except to this officer. (And I wonder if liberal Fairfax County, Virginia, will allow him to stay an officer?)
What is shown is one of the most egregious violations of civil rights that I have ever seen. And that the officer said, "This ain't America anymore" is one of the most frightening things I have heard. Speaker Pelosi has publicly called the opposition to ObamaCare, "Nazis." It appears that while she was pointing one finger at the opposition, the rest were rightly pointed at the Democrats. If there are any "brown shirts," they are being worn by the liberals in this battle for America and not by the conservatives.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Don't Exhale: EPA Expected to Declare Carbon Dioxide a Dangerous Pollutant - Political News - FOXNews.com
Don't Exhale: EPA Expected to Declare Carbon Dioxide a Dangerous Pollutant - Political News - FOXNews.com
Posted using ShareThis
Just when you think it can't get any more ridiculous. The rush to declare carbon dioxide a pollutant is the product of an Orwellian mindset. The Democrats won't be happy until all Americans are living by candlelight and riding bicycles...just like in rural China.
Posted using ShareThis
Just when you think it can't get any more ridiculous. The rush to declare carbon dioxide a pollutant is the product of an Orwellian mindset. The Democrats won't be happy until all Americans are living by candlelight and riding bicycles...just like in rural China.
Film Producer Accuses NEA of Enlisting Artists to Push Obama's Domestic Agenda - Political News - FOXNews.com
Film Producer Accuses NEA of Enlisting Artists to Push Obama's Domestic Agenda - Political News - FOXNews.com
Posted using ShareThis
The WH is pulling out all stops to shove their domestic agenda through against opposition by a majority of Americans.
Posted using ShareThis
The WH is pulling out all stops to shove their domestic agenda through against opposition by a majority of Americans.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Speak Without Fear - Glenn Beck - FOXNews.com
Speak Without Fear - Glenn Beck - FOXNews.com
Posted using ShareThis
My mother always said, "Show me your friends and I'll show you who you are." Like many of her generation she had the common sense to see the obvious. A person associates with like-minded people not with people who are the antithesis of what he professes to believe in. Glenn Beck does speak without fear and he's done some excellent research on the President's advisors. I've never doubted who the President really was or what his "change" might mean for America; but I had actually hoped that, for just one time, my mother, God rest her soul, would be wrong.
Posted using ShareThis
My mother always said, "Show me your friends and I'll show you who you are." Like many of her generation she had the common sense to see the obvious. A person associates with like-minded people not with people who are the antithesis of what he professes to believe in. Glenn Beck does speak without fear and he's done some excellent research on the President's advisors. I've never doubted who the President really was or what his "change" might mean for America; but I had actually hoped that, for just one time, my mother, God rest her soul, would be wrong.
ObamaCare Must Fail - Part 4
Although British officials have risen to defend the NHS, the truth of the matter is that it is a disgraceful failure for an exceedingly large number of Britons. For every individual who says that the system works just fine there is a horror story like this to counter the claim. Are we going to allow the Administration to destroy our freedom of choice and do this to us?
Initially the Administration labeled the opposition to single-payer, government controlled, health care (that’s us, folks) as being an Astroturf crowd in the employ of: a) the GOP; b) the insurance companies; c) the doctors; or d) all of the above. Now we have a situation where the Democratic Party is publicly going out of its’ way to Astroturf the Town Hall Meetings with union thugs and rabid Obamamites left over from the campaign. Where we were going to the Town Hall Meetings on our own as individuals to voice our concerns, the Democrats are bringing in paid crowds to give the appearance of "support" for ObamaCare. They intend to use any means possible to cram this bill down our throats, real public sentiment be damned!
The President himself has said ObamaCare opponents were untruthful in their criticism of the HR 3200 and that we have nothing to fear. With the people that the President has selected as advisors, however, it seems that we have everything to fear. For too long the Main Stream Media (MSM) has studiously ignored the President’s background and friends to the detriment of America and its’ citizens. The left-wing political and scientific fringe that staff the White House are not only frightening but downright dangerous to our individual liberties and to the security of the country.
If you will, remember how the ACLU liberals and the MSM screamed about the assault on privacy when it was divulged that President Bush had authorized the monitoring of voice communications to or from overseas where the overseas number was connected with terrorism. A horrific pseudo outcry over what was a valuable tool that helped keep America and Americans safe from attack. Yet here is a report that reveals that under ObamaCare the IRS will divulge your tax information to the Health Choices Commissioner. (Now there’s an Orwellian title!) That unaccountable appointee will then use that data to verify “affordability credits.” The Social Security Administration—another paragon of business acumen and ethical responsibility—will also be able to access your tax information. Where is the outcry from the ACLU and the protect-our-privacy crowd now?
Read the articles in the links. (One, surprisingly enough, comes from CBS!) As the pseudo-scientific TV drama show once said, “The truth is out there.” It’s time to listen to the truth and get involved. Write your Senators and Congressman today and tell them what they should do if they want to continue holding a position of public trust.
Initially the Administration labeled the opposition to single-payer, government controlled, health care (that’s us, folks) as being an Astroturf crowd in the employ of: a) the GOP; b) the insurance companies; c) the doctors; or d) all of the above. Now we have a situation where the Democratic Party is publicly going out of its’ way to Astroturf the Town Hall Meetings with union thugs and rabid Obamamites left over from the campaign. Where we were going to the Town Hall Meetings on our own as individuals to voice our concerns, the Democrats are bringing in paid crowds to give the appearance of "support" for ObamaCare. They intend to use any means possible to cram this bill down our throats, real public sentiment be damned!
The President himself has said ObamaCare opponents were untruthful in their criticism of the HR 3200 and that we have nothing to fear. With the people that the President has selected as advisors, however, it seems that we have everything to fear. For too long the Main Stream Media (MSM) has studiously ignored the President’s background and friends to the detriment of America and its’ citizens. The left-wing political and scientific fringe that staff the White House are not only frightening but downright dangerous to our individual liberties and to the security of the country.
If you will, remember how the ACLU liberals and the MSM screamed about the assault on privacy when it was divulged that President Bush had authorized the monitoring of voice communications to or from overseas where the overseas number was connected with terrorism. A horrific pseudo outcry over what was a valuable tool that helped keep America and Americans safe from attack. Yet here is a report that reveals that under ObamaCare the IRS will divulge your tax information to the Health Choices Commissioner. (Now there’s an Orwellian title!) That unaccountable appointee will then use that data to verify “affordability credits.” The Social Security Administration—another paragon of business acumen and ethical responsibility—will also be able to access your tax information. Where is the outcry from the ACLU and the protect-our-privacy crowd now?
Read the articles in the links. (One, surprisingly enough, comes from CBS!) As the pseudo-scientific TV drama show once said, “The truth is out there.” It’s time to listen to the truth and get involved. Write your Senators and Congressman today and tell them what they should do if they want to continue holding a position of public trust.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
U.N. Report Advocates Teaching Masturbation to 5-Year-Olds - United Nations - FOXNews.com
U.N. Report Advocates Teaching Masturbation to 5-Year-Olds - United Nations - FOXNews.com
Posted using ShareThis
This just goes to show that there are some very weird people in the world and the U.N., by its very nature, attracts them in droves. Teaching masturbation to 5-year old children? Followed by the how and why of abortion? Forrest Gump summed it all up very nicely when he said, "Stupid is as stupid does."
Posted using ShareThis
This just goes to show that there are some very weird people in the world and the U.N., by its very nature, attracts them in droves. Teaching masturbation to 5-year old children? Followed by the how and why of abortion? Forrest Gump summed it all up very nicely when he said, "Stupid is as stupid does."
Senator Ted Kennedy Dies of Brain Cancer
Senator Ted Kennedy has died of brain cancer. De mortuis nil nisi bonum dicendum est.
Saudi Child Bride Turned Back Over to 80-Year-Old Husband - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News - FOXNews.com
Saudi Child Bride Turned Back Over to 80-Year-Old Husband - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News - FOXNews.com
Posted using ShareThis
In case you were wondering if there were any good reasons to resist the acceptance of Sharia Law in the United States, take a look at this news report. It also clearly illustrates why we should be very leery of liberal judges and justices who want to take foreign law into consideration when deciding cases in the United States.
The reported incident is from Saudi Arabia; but, for too long the Main Stream Media, the Democrats and the far-left have extolled the virtues of multiculturalism and preached that we must be more accepting of other cultures in the United States. The truth, however, is that we are accepting of other cultures. Sometimes too accepting. The liberal left's position opens the door to this type of egregious child abuse and the treatment of women as second-class citizens by those who believe that they may follow the dictates of a foreign culture while partaking of the fruits of American liberty. Clearly this is unacceptable and cannot be countenanced if we are to continue as a nation that prides itself on individual liberty.
Our nation did not become great because of multiculturalism nor is the lack of multiculturalism as promoted by the progressives (read liberal-left) among us a failure of our society or government. The United States became great because despite the multiculturalism that naturally occurs in a nation of immigrants, there was one over-riding culture to which all aspired to belong. People traditionally emigrated to become Americans, not the "hyphen-Americans" whose very identification promotes separatism as opposed to unity. If we truly want to move-on the next level where we recognize other human beings by their character rather than the color of their skin, their ethnic origin or their religion, we need to drop the idea that people can and should be hyphenated Americans. Citizens of this country should be Americans. Period. We should never ask others to forget where they came from, only to remember where they are now.
Posted using ShareThis
In case you were wondering if there were any good reasons to resist the acceptance of Sharia Law in the United States, take a look at this news report. It also clearly illustrates why we should be very leery of liberal judges and justices who want to take foreign law into consideration when deciding cases in the United States.
The reported incident is from Saudi Arabia; but, for too long the Main Stream Media, the Democrats and the far-left have extolled the virtues of multiculturalism and preached that we must be more accepting of other cultures in the United States. The truth, however, is that we are accepting of other cultures. Sometimes too accepting. The liberal left's position opens the door to this type of egregious child abuse and the treatment of women as second-class citizens by those who believe that they may follow the dictates of a foreign culture while partaking of the fruits of American liberty. Clearly this is unacceptable and cannot be countenanced if we are to continue as a nation that prides itself on individual liberty.
Our nation did not become great because of multiculturalism nor is the lack of multiculturalism as promoted by the progressives (read liberal-left) among us a failure of our society or government. The United States became great because despite the multiculturalism that naturally occurs in a nation of immigrants, there was one over-riding culture to which all aspired to belong. People traditionally emigrated to become Americans, not the "hyphen-Americans" whose very identification promotes separatism as opposed to unity. If we truly want to move-on the next level where we recognize other human beings by their character rather than the color of their skin, their ethnic origin or their religion, we need to drop the idea that people can and should be hyphenated Americans. Citizens of this country should be Americans. Period. We should never ask others to forget where they came from, only to remember where they are now.
South Carolina Lt. Gov. to Sanford: Resign - Political News - FOXNews.com
South Carolina Lt. Gov. to Sanford: Resign - Political News - FOXNews.com
Posted using ShareThis
It's past time for Governor Sanford to go. Despite his former prominent position as an up-and-coming power in the Republican Party, he has more than demonstrated his unfitness for the public trust. We have a right to expect more from our public servants than lip service to their marital vows and government travel regulations. If he can be corrupted so easily as the governor of South Carolina, what more damage could he do in national office? I would not like to risk finding out.
Posted using ShareThis
It's past time for Governor Sanford to go. Despite his former prominent position as an up-and-coming power in the Republican Party, he has more than demonstrated his unfitness for the public trust. We have a right to expect more from our public servants than lip service to their marital vows and government travel regulations. If he can be corrupted so easily as the governor of South Carolina, what more damage could he do in national office? I would not like to risk finding out.
Police: South Carolina Robber Dies After Spray Painting Face to Conceal His Identity - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com
Michelle Malkin : ACLU: Spying for America's Enemies - Townhall.com
Michelle Malkin : ACLU: Spying for America's Enemies - Townhall.com
Shared via AddThis
Michelle Malkin again goes straight for the heart of the matter. The ACLU has long taken actions calculated to damage America's security. This is just the latest outrage.
Shared via AddThis
Michelle Malkin again goes straight for the heart of the matter. The ACLU has long taken actions calculated to damage America's security. This is just the latest outrage.
American Thinker: What the President's Attack on the CIA Really Means
American Thinker: What the President's Attack on the CIA Really Means
Shared via AddThis
More on the Attorney General's attack on the CIA.
Shared via AddThis
More on the Attorney General's attack on the CIA.
My Global Warming Epiphany
My Global Warming Epiphany
Shared via AddThis
This article from the American Thinker succinctly puts the Global Warming advocates in proper perspective. I've long thought that AlGore was the equivalent of an opportunistic used car salesman who plans to profit greatly from Cap & Trade. In my opinion, the Religion of Gore--for the believers it is truly more of a religion than science--is built around a cabal that, as children, identified way to closely with the story about Chicken Little. I recommend reading this article so, if you're still not sure about Global Warming, you may have your own epiphany.
Shared via AddThis
This article from the American Thinker succinctly puts the Global Warming advocates in proper perspective. I've long thought that AlGore was the equivalent of an opportunistic used car salesman who plans to profit greatly from Cap & Trade. In my opinion, the Religion of Gore--for the believers it is truly more of a religion than science--is built around a cabal that, as children, identified way to closely with the story about Chicken Little. I recommend reading this article so, if you're still not sure about Global Warming, you may have your own epiphany.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
The Attorney General's Assault on the CIA
There are times when I see eerie similarities between President Obama’s Administration and that of President Jimmy Carter.
In 1978, during the early years of the Carter Administration, I left the U.S. Army for the Drug Enforcement Administration. In my last job in the Army I was the Provost Marshal at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, and my MP’s and a civilian guard force, including four Department of the Army Cowboys—yes, I said Cowboys—were responsible for security and law enforcement on the over 4,000 square mile facility that encompassed Trinity Site where the first atom bomb was detonated.
WSMR has a history of hosting highly classified, scientific projects benefiting the military’s development of arms to ensure the protection of American liberty. There were projects on WSMR that were so classified that they had two sets of guards: my MP’s on the outside of the fence surrounding the project and contractor-provided security personnel with much higher security clearances on the inside of the wire.
When I resigned my Regular Army commission to become a Special Agent with DEA, I remember being out-briefed by my boss, the Chief of Security of WSMR. One salient point that was made was that I was to forget anything I’d ever seen at WSMR especially as it related to the special projects on the range. I took that to heart and went off to the DEA Special Agent’s course that was then held at 1401 I St., NW, Washington, DC.
During those early years of government service—actually throughout my government career—I was basically apolitical. I read the papers, of course but paid little attention to the political parties. While in the Army I focused on being ready for whatever mission the Army gave my unit. In DEA I was focused totally on the drug investigations I was assigned and developed. And I took my security responsibilities seriously and studiously forgot what I’d seen at WSMR until one day I picked up a Newsweek magazine (that was in the time when it was still what I would consider a credible news source) and saw that President Jimmy Carter had unilaterally announced that the United States had developed a stealth aircraft that couldn’t be seen by radar. I looked at it initially in disbelief, as I had the impression that they’d come for my first-born son if I ever mentioned seeing that dark shape in the night over WSMR, and now in a magazine that had to be available to the Soviets, the President was telling the world about our secret technology.
As the Carter years unfolded, and it’s especially glaring in retrospect, the country saw the Administration move seamlessly from one stupid economic or intelligence decision to the next. One of the worst was when they all but emasculated the CIA mostly, it seems, as a reaction to CIA operations during the Vietnam War; and also because some unknown advisor convinced the President that the CIA no longer needed those nasty operators on the ground because we had great satellite technology that could see everything our enemies were doing. I have to admit, as a young DEA Special Agent immersed in complex international narcotic investigations, I was enthralled with the idea that satellite technology could replace the gathering of human intelligence. I even voiced that opinion in front of some senior Special Agents all but one of whom nodded knowingly. The exception wisely commented, “That might work if those satellites can tell us what the people are thinking.” He was prophetically right.
The CIA took a terrible hit during the Carter years and lost decades of experience in the downsizing of its clandestine branch. The country suffered greatly because of the loss not because the CIA was incompetent but because they had been seriously hamstrung by the Administration’s policies.
As a former operator in the drug world, I know that it takes many years and lots of luck to infiltrate an international drug cartel and get a source planted in a position to help you dismantle the organization and put its leaders in prison. The difficulty of infiltrating another government or a terrorist organization is also exceedingly difficult but made even more so when you lose the core of your experienced clandestine service. That central core of experience is something that takes decades to develop and, as we saw then, only a couple of years to destroy. I have no doubt that the diminution of the CIA’s capabilities in the late 1970’s helped the terrorists responsible for 9/11 and prevented a better intelligence product from being delivered to protect the country.
Now we are seeing the beginning of another assault on the CIA. Attorney General Eric Holder, clearly with the under the table approval of the President, is going after CIA interrogators who were successful in pulling information from hardened terrorists that helped prevent another 9/11-type attack on the U.S. It’s almost as if the Democrats, not having been able to lose the War on Terror as they lost the Vietnam War, are again going after the CIA in a case of monumental pique.
Any DEA Special Agent who worked overseas will complain about the CIA as much, if not more, than domestic Special Agents complain about the FBI and Customs—and they will complain about the FBI and Customs (now ICE) as well. But despite the disagreements that flourish because of agency competition and jealousy, none dispute the dedication and love of country that flows through the veins of CIA operators and support personnel. Knowing them and the clandestine nature of the agency those people will basically suffer this assault in silence, so it is up to the rest of us to take up the cudgels in their defense. It is true that we are a nation of laws. The perversion here is that the current administration is striving to use those laws in a political manner.
I will agree that there would be a problem if the CIA, as an agency, had taken no action, but they did take action when they saw that the CIA’s rules were violated and punishment was appropriately meted. With that in mind, I still see a “no blood, no foul” situation here with the type of interrogation undergone by Abd al-Nashiri, et al. We are fighting a war with an enemy that has no compunction about video-taping the beheading of a prisoner and now the Attorney General is getting all wee weed up over the brandishing of an unloaded gun and a power drill that were never used? Or a hollow threat to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that we will “kill your children?” I’m almost of the opinion that this is a sop to the Democrats far-left-wing, lunatic fringe because the administration sees that they are not going to win the ObamaCare battle. But regardless of the reason for the naming of the independent prosecutor, it is the wrong thing to do and sends the wrong message to the people who are trying to keep American safe.
While we still have to fight the ObamaCare battle and attempt to derail Cap & Tax, I urge you to not let this go unanswered. Take time to write your Congressman and Senator and protest the move by AG Holder. Let us let those who risked all to keep our families safe know that we are behind them. The country does not need to have another Carter-esque neutering of our senior intelligence agency by an Administration playing political games with our safety.
In 1978, during the early years of the Carter Administration, I left the U.S. Army for the Drug Enforcement Administration. In my last job in the Army I was the Provost Marshal at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, and my MP’s and a civilian guard force, including four Department of the Army Cowboys—yes, I said Cowboys—were responsible for security and law enforcement on the over 4,000 square mile facility that encompassed Trinity Site where the first atom bomb was detonated.
WSMR has a history of hosting highly classified, scientific projects benefiting the military’s development of arms to ensure the protection of American liberty. There were projects on WSMR that were so classified that they had two sets of guards: my MP’s on the outside of the fence surrounding the project and contractor-provided security personnel with much higher security clearances on the inside of the wire.
When I resigned my Regular Army commission to become a Special Agent with DEA, I remember being out-briefed by my boss, the Chief of Security of WSMR. One salient point that was made was that I was to forget anything I’d ever seen at WSMR especially as it related to the special projects on the range. I took that to heart and went off to the DEA Special Agent’s course that was then held at 1401 I St., NW, Washington, DC.
During those early years of government service—actually throughout my government career—I was basically apolitical. I read the papers, of course but paid little attention to the political parties. While in the Army I focused on being ready for whatever mission the Army gave my unit. In DEA I was focused totally on the drug investigations I was assigned and developed. And I took my security responsibilities seriously and studiously forgot what I’d seen at WSMR until one day I picked up a Newsweek magazine (that was in the time when it was still what I would consider a credible news source) and saw that President Jimmy Carter had unilaterally announced that the United States had developed a stealth aircraft that couldn’t be seen by radar. I looked at it initially in disbelief, as I had the impression that they’d come for my first-born son if I ever mentioned seeing that dark shape in the night over WSMR, and now in a magazine that had to be available to the Soviets, the President was telling the world about our secret technology.
As the Carter years unfolded, and it’s especially glaring in retrospect, the country saw the Administration move seamlessly from one stupid economic or intelligence decision to the next. One of the worst was when they all but emasculated the CIA mostly, it seems, as a reaction to CIA operations during the Vietnam War; and also because some unknown advisor convinced the President that the CIA no longer needed those nasty operators on the ground because we had great satellite technology that could see everything our enemies were doing. I have to admit, as a young DEA Special Agent immersed in complex international narcotic investigations, I was enthralled with the idea that satellite technology could replace the gathering of human intelligence. I even voiced that opinion in front of some senior Special Agents all but one of whom nodded knowingly. The exception wisely commented, “That might work if those satellites can tell us what the people are thinking.” He was prophetically right.
The CIA took a terrible hit during the Carter years and lost decades of experience in the downsizing of its clandestine branch. The country suffered greatly because of the loss not because the CIA was incompetent but because they had been seriously hamstrung by the Administration’s policies.
As a former operator in the drug world, I know that it takes many years and lots of luck to infiltrate an international drug cartel and get a source planted in a position to help you dismantle the organization and put its leaders in prison. The difficulty of infiltrating another government or a terrorist organization is also exceedingly difficult but made even more so when you lose the core of your experienced clandestine service. That central core of experience is something that takes decades to develop and, as we saw then, only a couple of years to destroy. I have no doubt that the diminution of the CIA’s capabilities in the late 1970’s helped the terrorists responsible for 9/11 and prevented a better intelligence product from being delivered to protect the country.
Now we are seeing the beginning of another assault on the CIA. Attorney General Eric Holder, clearly with the under the table approval of the President, is going after CIA interrogators who were successful in pulling information from hardened terrorists that helped prevent another 9/11-type attack on the U.S. It’s almost as if the Democrats, not having been able to lose the War on Terror as they lost the Vietnam War, are again going after the CIA in a case of monumental pique.
Any DEA Special Agent who worked overseas will complain about the CIA as much, if not more, than domestic Special Agents complain about the FBI and Customs—and they will complain about the FBI and Customs (now ICE) as well. But despite the disagreements that flourish because of agency competition and jealousy, none dispute the dedication and love of country that flows through the veins of CIA operators and support personnel. Knowing them and the clandestine nature of the agency those people will basically suffer this assault in silence, so it is up to the rest of us to take up the cudgels in their defense. It is true that we are a nation of laws. The perversion here is that the current administration is striving to use those laws in a political manner.
I will agree that there would be a problem if the CIA, as an agency, had taken no action, but they did take action when they saw that the CIA’s rules were violated and punishment was appropriately meted. With that in mind, I still see a “no blood, no foul” situation here with the type of interrogation undergone by Abd al-Nashiri, et al. We are fighting a war with an enemy that has no compunction about video-taping the beheading of a prisoner and now the Attorney General is getting all wee weed up over the brandishing of an unloaded gun and a power drill that were never used? Or a hollow threat to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that we will “kill your children?” I’m almost of the opinion that this is a sop to the Democrats far-left-wing, lunatic fringe because the administration sees that they are not going to win the ObamaCare battle. But regardless of the reason for the naming of the independent prosecutor, it is the wrong thing to do and sends the wrong message to the people who are trying to keep American safe.
While we still have to fight the ObamaCare battle and attempt to derail Cap & Tax, I urge you to not let this go unanswered. Take time to write your Congressman and Senator and protest the move by AG Holder. Let us let those who risked all to keep our families safe know that we are behind them. The country does not need to have another Carter-esque neutering of our senior intelligence agency by an Administration playing political games with our safety.
On Arms
Arms are the only true badge of liberty. The possession of arms is the distinction of a free man from a slave. -- Andrew Fletcher, 1698
Andrew Fletcher (1653 - September 1716) was a Scottish writer, politician and patriot who strongly supported Scottish independence and urged limitations on Royal power. His words were no less true in his day than they are in the 21st century.
The American experience is unique in the world in that we were able to rebel against the English Crown utilizing an army of citizen soldiers, many of whom provided their own weapons. We should have been easily defeated and might have been had it not been for British hubris, long supply lines and the assistance of the French. But how did the Colonists, basically emigrants from England where the populace was historically subserviently obedient to the crown, manage to defeat the British Army? The answer, is actually quite simple: Those who arrived on this shore as Englishmen soon morphed into self-reliant Americans.
Historian Frederick Jackson Turner believed that the frontier experience shaped the American character. And no one can deny that our frontier experience ingrained the early colonists with a reliance on their own abilities and on their arms to protect themselves in a rich, beautiful but unsettled land. Self-defense was a necessity as what government that was available could not provide protection to all settlers. The distances were too great and the transportation system consisted of either shoe-leather or horses. This meant that people had to be able to protect themselves if they were to have any protection at all. Those that would not or could not do so tended to stay within the forts where other armed men could protect them, for they left the safe walls of the fort at their own peril. (You could say that these individuals evolved into the present day metro-sexual progressives.)
As early Americans opened up the frontiers they did so with firearms by their sides. It was more common to see men with guns than without and nobody thought anything about it. Common sense indicated that no one had anything to fear from an honest man who was armed and people understood that self-reliance meant self-defense. The wide-open spaces of the American frontier allowed free men to rise and prosper as much as their God-given ability and efforts would allow. But then, as now, there existed elements of society that sought the easy life at the expense of other people’s labor. And here I am not talking about politicians and lawyers, but about outlaws who thought nothing of taking what they thought they could for they knew that law enforcement was far away and could not respond effectively.
The point of all this is that Americans have, both historically and culturally, have been comfortable in the presence of weapons. It is only in recent decades that the liberals have pushed for disarming society with the totally erroneous view that a disarmed citizenry would lead to lower violent crime and lower crime overall. We’ve seen the fallacy of this argument but, like their intellectual ancestors who were afraid to leave the safety of the fort, they prefer their freedom be protected by others in their employ. As a centerpiece of their argument against the “evil gun” they perpetuate the ridiculous, mediaeval belief that an inanimate object can be evil in and of itself. Those who have looked evil in the proverbial eye know the truth of the matter is that evil walks among us and it is called man. For only man, with his base motives, can be evil. To deny good honest men the right to self-defense is to deny a basic human right. A right that comes not from any society or government, but from God directly to man.
There are those who have abdicated this right and have willingly donned the shackles of slavery. They still refer to themselves as “free” but how free is any human being that places him or her self at the mercy of evil? How free is anyone who is afraid to walk alone at night or without the protective presence of bodyguards or police? And, having been in law enforcement for three decades, I can assure you that the police can’t be everywhere for everyone. The police will respond, and upon arrival will sincerely wish they had been their earlier; but even with the advances in technology and transportation, they most likely will be handling the crime scene rather than the crime itself.
Now before someone accuses me of promoting vigilantism, I must point out that there is a distinct difference between protecting yourself and hunting evil in order to take retribution. Self-defense is not vigilantism and hunting evil is the province of law enforcement after the crime has been committed.
The founding fathers in their writings were strong proponents of the right to bear arms. So strong that they enshrined it in the Bill of Rights second only to the right to speak, the right to worship as you wish, freedom of the press and the right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the government for the redress of grievances.
While Amendment I of the Bill of Rights dealt with several issues all surrounding freedom of worship and speech, Amendment II, now commonly called the 2nd Amendment, dealt with only a single issue: the right to keep and bear arms. We are lucky that the Supreme Court has finally, in the 21st Century, defined legally what my 3rd grade teacher taught me in Idaho over 50 years ago. The 2nd Amendment protects the individual right of Americans to keep and bear arms; but it is important to remember that this, though protected by the Constitution, comes not from the government. The right to bear arms stems directly from the natural, God-given right of self-defense. (Note: Before any of my British friends decide to weigh-in on this issue, please remember that we settled the matter in 1776. Despite the churlish manner in which the current administration has dealt with your PM and Her Royal Highness, we really do like you for many things. But your socialized health care and your attitudes towards arms are not traits we admire.)
Liberal anti-gun advocates are fond of disabusing the idea of self-defense saying that weapons can only lead to more violence. They cling to a utopian idea that if everyone is disarmed then all will be safe but in doing so they fail to understand or accept the very basics of human nature. The liberal, with his unceasing desire for a completely secular society, disabuses the idea that God gave man any rights and believes that the state is the grantor of rights. Liberals do not like individual freedom except as they alone define it and this usually means free from any reference to religion, morality or conservative thought. Even worse, liberals tend to project their own altruistic ideals to others. A noble projection, but the reality of the situation is quite different: If everyone is disarmed, the first man to have a club will rule.
Conservatives look at life and freedom differently. First, we know that in the absence of divine guidance and the acceptance of religious morality, evil is possible in all men. Government alone cannot bring order to a society. For a government to attempt to do so would require such draconian measures that no man would be free to think, live and pursue happiness. Second, we know that if everyone has a club, all men are very careful about how they swing theirs. So it is with modern firearms.
After long years studying the traits and commonalities of criminals I have come to the conclusion that they are attracted to weakness and thrive on timidity. An armed citizenry makes the criminal’s life much more complicated, as the last thing they want is an actual armed confrontation. When they commit a crime they target the weak and defenseless leaving the strong alone because it is safer and easier. I’ve often thought that liberals, having descended figuratively from that early settler who was afraid to leave the fort, find comfort in being part of a large, unarmed herd figuring that there is safety in numbers and that the predator will take someone else. This is especially true if they are one of the liberal elite standing in the middle of the herd.
The rest of us, however, would prefer to meet that predatory criminal on level ground with the ability to protect our homes, our families and our lives. We do not intend to don the chains of slavery by abdicating our right to bear arms and be free men and women. More importantly, we do not intend to spend our last minutes on earth wondering why the police have not yet arrived.
As a matter of disclosure, I have been a proud Life Member of the NRA since 1975.
Andrew Fletcher (1653 - September 1716) was a Scottish writer, politician and patriot who strongly supported Scottish independence and urged limitations on Royal power. His words were no less true in his day than they are in the 21st century.
The American experience is unique in the world in that we were able to rebel against the English Crown utilizing an army of citizen soldiers, many of whom provided their own weapons. We should have been easily defeated and might have been had it not been for British hubris, long supply lines and the assistance of the French. But how did the Colonists, basically emigrants from England where the populace was historically subserviently obedient to the crown, manage to defeat the British Army? The answer, is actually quite simple: Those who arrived on this shore as Englishmen soon morphed into self-reliant Americans.
Historian Frederick Jackson Turner believed that the frontier experience shaped the American character. And no one can deny that our frontier experience ingrained the early colonists with a reliance on their own abilities and on their arms to protect themselves in a rich, beautiful but unsettled land. Self-defense was a necessity as what government that was available could not provide protection to all settlers. The distances were too great and the transportation system consisted of either shoe-leather or horses. This meant that people had to be able to protect themselves if they were to have any protection at all. Those that would not or could not do so tended to stay within the forts where other armed men could protect them, for they left the safe walls of the fort at their own peril. (You could say that these individuals evolved into the present day metro-sexual progressives.)
As early Americans opened up the frontiers they did so with firearms by their sides. It was more common to see men with guns than without and nobody thought anything about it. Common sense indicated that no one had anything to fear from an honest man who was armed and people understood that self-reliance meant self-defense. The wide-open spaces of the American frontier allowed free men to rise and prosper as much as their God-given ability and efforts would allow. But then, as now, there existed elements of society that sought the easy life at the expense of other people’s labor. And here I am not talking about politicians and lawyers, but about outlaws who thought nothing of taking what they thought they could for they knew that law enforcement was far away and could not respond effectively.
The point of all this is that Americans have, both historically and culturally, have been comfortable in the presence of weapons. It is only in recent decades that the liberals have pushed for disarming society with the totally erroneous view that a disarmed citizenry would lead to lower violent crime and lower crime overall. We’ve seen the fallacy of this argument but, like their intellectual ancestors who were afraid to leave the safety of the fort, they prefer their freedom be protected by others in their employ. As a centerpiece of their argument against the “evil gun” they perpetuate the ridiculous, mediaeval belief that an inanimate object can be evil in and of itself. Those who have looked evil in the proverbial eye know the truth of the matter is that evil walks among us and it is called man. For only man, with his base motives, can be evil. To deny good honest men the right to self-defense is to deny a basic human right. A right that comes not from any society or government, but from God directly to man.
There are those who have abdicated this right and have willingly donned the shackles of slavery. They still refer to themselves as “free” but how free is any human being that places him or her self at the mercy of evil? How free is anyone who is afraid to walk alone at night or without the protective presence of bodyguards or police? And, having been in law enforcement for three decades, I can assure you that the police can’t be everywhere for everyone. The police will respond, and upon arrival will sincerely wish they had been their earlier; but even with the advances in technology and transportation, they most likely will be handling the crime scene rather than the crime itself.
Now before someone accuses me of promoting vigilantism, I must point out that there is a distinct difference between protecting yourself and hunting evil in order to take retribution. Self-defense is not vigilantism and hunting evil is the province of law enforcement after the crime has been committed.
The founding fathers in their writings were strong proponents of the right to bear arms. So strong that they enshrined it in the Bill of Rights second only to the right to speak, the right to worship as you wish, freedom of the press and the right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the government for the redress of grievances.
While Amendment I of the Bill of Rights dealt with several issues all surrounding freedom of worship and speech, Amendment II, now commonly called the 2nd Amendment, dealt with only a single issue: the right to keep and bear arms. We are lucky that the Supreme Court has finally, in the 21st Century, defined legally what my 3rd grade teacher taught me in Idaho over 50 years ago. The 2nd Amendment protects the individual right of Americans to keep and bear arms; but it is important to remember that this, though protected by the Constitution, comes not from the government. The right to bear arms stems directly from the natural, God-given right of self-defense. (Note: Before any of my British friends decide to weigh-in on this issue, please remember that we settled the matter in 1776. Despite the churlish manner in which the current administration has dealt with your PM and Her Royal Highness, we really do like you for many things. But your socialized health care and your attitudes towards arms are not traits we admire.)
Liberal anti-gun advocates are fond of disabusing the idea of self-defense saying that weapons can only lead to more violence. They cling to a utopian idea that if everyone is disarmed then all will be safe but in doing so they fail to understand or accept the very basics of human nature. The liberal, with his unceasing desire for a completely secular society, disabuses the idea that God gave man any rights and believes that the state is the grantor of rights. Liberals do not like individual freedom except as they alone define it and this usually means free from any reference to religion, morality or conservative thought. Even worse, liberals tend to project their own altruistic ideals to others. A noble projection, but the reality of the situation is quite different: If everyone is disarmed, the first man to have a club will rule.
Conservatives look at life and freedom differently. First, we know that in the absence of divine guidance and the acceptance of religious morality, evil is possible in all men. Government alone cannot bring order to a society. For a government to attempt to do so would require such draconian measures that no man would be free to think, live and pursue happiness. Second, we know that if everyone has a club, all men are very careful about how they swing theirs. So it is with modern firearms.
After long years studying the traits and commonalities of criminals I have come to the conclusion that they are attracted to weakness and thrive on timidity. An armed citizenry makes the criminal’s life much more complicated, as the last thing they want is an actual armed confrontation. When they commit a crime they target the weak and defenseless leaving the strong alone because it is safer and easier. I’ve often thought that liberals, having descended figuratively from that early settler who was afraid to leave the fort, find comfort in being part of a large, unarmed herd figuring that there is safety in numbers and that the predator will take someone else. This is especially true if they are one of the liberal elite standing in the middle of the herd.
The rest of us, however, would prefer to meet that predatory criminal on level ground with the ability to protect our homes, our families and our lives. We do not intend to don the chains of slavery by abdicating our right to bear arms and be free men and women. More importantly, we do not intend to spend our last minutes on earth wondering why the police have not yet arrived.
As a matter of disclosure, I have been a proud Life Member of the NRA since 1975.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
ObamaCare Must Fail - Part 3
President Obama has, as part of his all-out effort to get his ObamaCare plan pushed through Congress, demonized both medical professionals and insurance companies in televised speeches. We know that the assault on insurance companies is purposeful as it gives us a strawman to hate which is always useful when you’re trying to get people to do something that may be against their own self-interest. As a community organizer steeped in the tactics of Saul Alinsky, the President knows that actions taken in both haste and hate usually are not thought through to their logical end. In this case, he’s counting on it because once we, the people, think it through, it won’t happen.
The President’s attack on the medical profession has been less effective because most people like and trust their doctors because we chose them. In his first attack he talked about doctors who, instead of treating the child’s sore throat, opted to remove the tonsils as they would make more money. In his second attack, he cited doctors who would amputate a diabetic’s foot rather than treat it to prevent the amputation because they would get “$30,000.00 to $40,000.00” for the amputation. Both statements are unconscionable lies and anyone really listening to what he said, instead of the sonorous way in which he said it, recognized them as such.
The thinking public knows that doctors are constrained from within and without the medical profession. From within by standard treatment protocols that subject them to professional review by their medical peers. From without by trial lawyers to gleefully wait for them to take an erroneous action so they can launch a lawsuit and line their own pockets with profit—if not from the doctor, from the doctor’s medical liability insurance. While the first constraint attempts, usually successfully, to ensure that the medicine practiced is in the best interests of the patient, the second ensures that all of us pay higher costs for our health care.
I think it is important for everyone to realize one important, immutable fact: we are responsible for the quality of our own medical care. It’s an amazing concept, I know, but it is our personal responsibility to ensure that our medical care meets our needs. Now, I’m sure that you are wondering how someone with no medical training can execute that responsibility; but it’s actually quite simple. We choose the best doctor we can find, we interview him to determine if we feel we can trust him to take the proper actions, then knowing we’ve made the best choice we can, we place ourselves in his hands.
Believe me, it’s not hard. I’ve done it. When I was diagnosed with prostate cancer I travelled around the Washington, DC, area until I met a doctor with the training, the background and the personality that gave me confidence in his ability. He operated using a robot and today I’m prostate-cancer free with no untoward side effects. I could have made an error in choosing, of course; but as I told my wife, he was my choice and if, in the end, it didn’t work out, I could only blame myself. My insurance didn’t pay for all of it, but I’m not complaining. I chose the best medical care I could find. I chose. Not a government body and certainly not some community organizer from Chicago.
In getting to know my doctor I quickly realized that being a successful doctor in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area is not easy and, while the rewards are high, so are the costs. I could see that were it not for the exorbitant premiums charged by insurers for medical malpractice insurance, the costs would be lower, both to the doctor and to me. The high cost of medical malpractice insurance is the direct result of an unabated assault on the medical profession by trial lawyers who look at a medical mistake as the equivalent to winning the lottery. This attitude coupled with the unbelievably high awards by sympathetic juries has driven up the costs for us all. And many times, the insurance doesn’t even bother going to trial because they know the juries will be sympathetic and a settlement would be cheaper. In the end, we all pay and it’s only the lawyers who get rich.
We all have liability insurance of some sort. Most states require liability insurance on cars. Home-owners always have liability insurance in case someone falls down on their front porch. But none of us have to pay the price doctors do for malpractice insurance. I remember talking with one surgeon several years back who said that his malpractice insurance ran into the six figures yearly and that had to be passed on to his patients, of course, which resulted in higher fees. That doctor had never been sued for malpractice, but his patients still paid for it.
HR 3200 completely ignores this 800-pound gorilla that sits gleefully in the doctor’s waiting room. Trial lawyers, many of whom have made the jump into the House or Senate, are a close ally of the Democratic Party thus the gorilla is ignored and the President shifts the blame to the doctors and the insurance companies. This is, of course, the practice of political expediency at its’ worst.
But if we are serious about bettering our health care this is an issue that must be addressed. The rampant assault on the medical profession must be brought under control. Erring doctors, nurses and hospitals should certainly be subject to sanctions, but an error should not equate to winning the lottery.
At present we have the ability to choose our own doctors and being able to choose a physician makes us, in a large part, responsible for our own medical care. For those of you who still think that socialized medicine is the answer—that is, after all, what the President is attempting to impose—then I would ask you this: Do you really think that we’ll be able to sue those who chose the doctor for us and direct which treatments we will be authorized to receive? Do you really think we’ll even be able to sue the doctor we didn’t choose?
As I said above, no serious—no true—reform of health care can be successful unless it addresses tort reform to remove the profit motive of today’s trial lawyers. It’s one thing to represent those who are wronged. It’s clearly another to use the law to win the proverbial medical lottery.
The President’s attack on the medical profession has been less effective because most people like and trust their doctors because we chose them. In his first attack he talked about doctors who, instead of treating the child’s sore throat, opted to remove the tonsils as they would make more money. In his second attack, he cited doctors who would amputate a diabetic’s foot rather than treat it to prevent the amputation because they would get “$30,000.00 to $40,000.00” for the amputation. Both statements are unconscionable lies and anyone really listening to what he said, instead of the sonorous way in which he said it, recognized them as such.
The thinking public knows that doctors are constrained from within and without the medical profession. From within by standard treatment protocols that subject them to professional review by their medical peers. From without by trial lawyers to gleefully wait for them to take an erroneous action so they can launch a lawsuit and line their own pockets with profit—if not from the doctor, from the doctor’s medical liability insurance. While the first constraint attempts, usually successfully, to ensure that the medicine practiced is in the best interests of the patient, the second ensures that all of us pay higher costs for our health care.
I think it is important for everyone to realize one important, immutable fact: we are responsible for the quality of our own medical care. It’s an amazing concept, I know, but it is our personal responsibility to ensure that our medical care meets our needs. Now, I’m sure that you are wondering how someone with no medical training can execute that responsibility; but it’s actually quite simple. We choose the best doctor we can find, we interview him to determine if we feel we can trust him to take the proper actions, then knowing we’ve made the best choice we can, we place ourselves in his hands.
Believe me, it’s not hard. I’ve done it. When I was diagnosed with prostate cancer I travelled around the Washington, DC, area until I met a doctor with the training, the background and the personality that gave me confidence in his ability. He operated using a robot and today I’m prostate-cancer free with no untoward side effects. I could have made an error in choosing, of course; but as I told my wife, he was my choice and if, in the end, it didn’t work out, I could only blame myself. My insurance didn’t pay for all of it, but I’m not complaining. I chose the best medical care I could find. I chose. Not a government body and certainly not some community organizer from Chicago.
In getting to know my doctor I quickly realized that being a successful doctor in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area is not easy and, while the rewards are high, so are the costs. I could see that were it not for the exorbitant premiums charged by insurers for medical malpractice insurance, the costs would be lower, both to the doctor and to me. The high cost of medical malpractice insurance is the direct result of an unabated assault on the medical profession by trial lawyers who look at a medical mistake as the equivalent to winning the lottery. This attitude coupled with the unbelievably high awards by sympathetic juries has driven up the costs for us all. And many times, the insurance doesn’t even bother going to trial because they know the juries will be sympathetic and a settlement would be cheaper. In the end, we all pay and it’s only the lawyers who get rich.
We all have liability insurance of some sort. Most states require liability insurance on cars. Home-owners always have liability insurance in case someone falls down on their front porch. But none of us have to pay the price doctors do for malpractice insurance. I remember talking with one surgeon several years back who said that his malpractice insurance ran into the six figures yearly and that had to be passed on to his patients, of course, which resulted in higher fees. That doctor had never been sued for malpractice, but his patients still paid for it.
HR 3200 completely ignores this 800-pound gorilla that sits gleefully in the doctor’s waiting room. Trial lawyers, many of whom have made the jump into the House or Senate, are a close ally of the Democratic Party thus the gorilla is ignored and the President shifts the blame to the doctors and the insurance companies. This is, of course, the practice of political expediency at its’ worst.
But if we are serious about bettering our health care this is an issue that must be addressed. The rampant assault on the medical profession must be brought under control. Erring doctors, nurses and hospitals should certainly be subject to sanctions, but an error should not equate to winning the lottery.
At present we have the ability to choose our own doctors and being able to choose a physician makes us, in a large part, responsible for our own medical care. For those of you who still think that socialized medicine is the answer—that is, after all, what the President is attempting to impose—then I would ask you this: Do you really think that we’ll be able to sue those who chose the doctor for us and direct which treatments we will be authorized to receive? Do you really think we’ll even be able to sue the doctor we didn’t choose?
As I said above, no serious—no true—reform of health care can be successful unless it addresses tort reform to remove the profit motive of today’s trial lawyers. It’s one thing to represent those who are wronged. It’s clearly another to use the law to win the proverbial medical lottery.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Palin v. ObamaCare
Palin v. ObamaCare
Shared via AddThis
If the panels weren't there then why were they dropped? Obviously, when it was brought to the attention of the Senators and Representatives (who hadn't read the bill) they could see the door that was opened by that clause and the concerns of the people. However, with our nation debt over $1.5 trillion we can't afford any part of the bill. It must be trashed in its entirety so that health care can be addressed with common sense rather than political gamesmanship and ideology.
Shared via AddThis
If the panels weren't there then why were they dropped? Obviously, when it was brought to the attention of the Senators and Representatives (who hadn't read the bill) they could see the door that was opened by that clause and the concerns of the people. However, with our nation debt over $1.5 trillion we can't afford any part of the bill. It must be trashed in its entirety so that health care can be addressed with common sense rather than political gamesmanship and ideology.
The Racial Straw Man in the Healthcare Debate
The Racial Straw Man in the Healthcare Debate
Shared via AddThis
More on how the false accusation of racism is being used to advance the political agenda of the left. When will we learn that we cannot abide racism by anyone regardless of the color of their skin? A human being should be judged only by his or her character.
Shared via AddThis
More on how the false accusation of racism is being used to advance the political agenda of the left. When will we learn that we cannot abide racism by anyone regardless of the color of their skin? A human being should be judged only by his or her character.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
EXCLUSIVE: Lies Revealed รข€” Greenpeace Leader Admits Arctic Ice Exaggeration
EXCLUSIVE: Lies Revealed รข€” Greenpeace Leader Admits Arctic Ice Exaggeration
Shared via AddThis
And people wonder why I don't believe the Global Warming alarmists.
Shared via AddThis
And people wonder why I don't believe the Global Warming alarmists.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Monday, August 17, 2009
Cigars
The smell of a cigar—actually the smell of a Roi-Tan—never failed to bring back memories of the Owyhee County Fair in Homedale, Idaho. It was most noticeable in the stock barns as I followed my father around looking at horses, prize steers, pigs and sheep; but you could also catch a whiff during the rodeo. A distinctive smell, not at all unpleasant in the open air. That was, of course, decades ago before political correctness and smoke-Nazis ruled the country. In those days if you didn’t like the smell of the cigar you moved upwind if he, the smoker, was there first. And if you thought to light a cigar, you asked your neighbors immediately downwind if it would bother them. (Four seats away was where “immediate” ended.)
I guess you could say that those whiffs of cigar smoke led me to be the unapologetic cigar smoker I am today because those years were a magical time in my life. Actually, all my family, except for me, smoked cigarettes and I never did like the smell. But cigars were different. They filled the air not with a stale smoke but one that you could roll around in your nostrils and enjoy.
Of course, today I don’t smoke Roi-Tans as the brand went the way of the Studebaker just last year when the Selma, Alabama, plant closed. My tastes run to Arturo Fuentes, Rocky Patel and CAO. But once in a while I catch the distinctive odor of a cigar that smells like a Roi-Tan and it instantly takes me back to 1959, hot summer days, cool summer nights, new Wrangler jeans, boots, snap Levi western shirts and straw cowboy hats.
My evening cigar is my time alone these days. For an hour I sit outside with coffee or whisky and a cigar while I contemplate the events of the day, the week and Washington with its foibles, factions and frictions. It’s a time of reflection and thought interrupted only by my 3-year old daughter’s laughter or her banging on the window to get my attention. It’s a time that obviously only occurs in good weather because as much as I enjoy my daily cigar I don’t desire to suffer as I pay my respects to the artisan on a far-away shore that created it by hand from loose leaves of tobacco.
My evening cigar is also a celebration of my freedom of choice. I don’t smoke because I must to keep my nerves calm nor do I have an insatiable desire to sit alone. But I do enjoy my daily cigar and count it lucky if I have the time for a second. I believe that all men and women should celebrate the individual freedom of choice in some small way at least once a day.
There are those who oppose individual freedoms if it isn’t their choice of a proper individual freedom (whatever that is). I pity them not only for their lack of tolerance of their fellow man but also for their lack of appreciation of other people’s freedom. I know that should those people ever gain the power to do so, they will move to stop all that they deem inappropriate. And that will lead to their own downfall as it will only be a matter of time until someone stronger, but with different tastes, deposes them and eliminates their own favorite freedoms.
Individual freedom is a precious thing that all too often we take it for granted whether it be a cigar, the 1st Amendment or the 2nd Amendment or any of the Bill of Rights. And the only way to keep those freedoms is to celebrate them at every opportunity for a freedom not used is soon lost.
I’ve been writing much about the proposed health care bill (HR 3200). It is troubling legislation constructed with broad yet obtuse language that allows for interpretation by those with the power to make decisions. Decisions that could well limit the personal freedoms of all Americans depending on the mindset of those appointed to execute the bill should it become law.
The questions for all of us are clear: Do we trust those whom we have never met and will never personally know with our personal freedom? And can we expect our freedom of choice to be respected once this bill is enacted?
Without addressing the arguments of cost, impact on the national debt and rationing, I am wary of the bill because of the hurried manner in which it was rushed through the House. Moreover, I am wary of the current Administration not because they have stated that they wish to effect a change in our country; but because the change they propose is covered by smoke and mirrors. Vague platitudes and speeches coupled with broad, over-reaching legislation bodes ill for the personal freedoms that were handed down from our forefathers. Those are freedoms that I cherish.
The rights we hold dear were not given to us by a government, but, as it indicates in the Declaration of Independence, by a higher power. I urge all to contact the members of their Congressional delegation and their Senators with their own views on the pending legislation. Use your right to speak to preserve your personal freedom—your God given rights—as you see them.
I guess you could say that those whiffs of cigar smoke led me to be the unapologetic cigar smoker I am today because those years were a magical time in my life. Actually, all my family, except for me, smoked cigarettes and I never did like the smell. But cigars were different. They filled the air not with a stale smoke but one that you could roll around in your nostrils and enjoy.
Of course, today I don’t smoke Roi-Tans as the brand went the way of the Studebaker just last year when the Selma, Alabama, plant closed. My tastes run to Arturo Fuentes, Rocky Patel and CAO. But once in a while I catch the distinctive odor of a cigar that smells like a Roi-Tan and it instantly takes me back to 1959, hot summer days, cool summer nights, new Wrangler jeans, boots, snap Levi western shirts and straw cowboy hats.
My evening cigar is my time alone these days. For an hour I sit outside with coffee or whisky and a cigar while I contemplate the events of the day, the week and Washington with its foibles, factions and frictions. It’s a time of reflection and thought interrupted only by my 3-year old daughter’s laughter or her banging on the window to get my attention. It’s a time that obviously only occurs in good weather because as much as I enjoy my daily cigar I don’t desire to suffer as I pay my respects to the artisan on a far-away shore that created it by hand from loose leaves of tobacco.
My evening cigar is also a celebration of my freedom of choice. I don’t smoke because I must to keep my nerves calm nor do I have an insatiable desire to sit alone. But I do enjoy my daily cigar and count it lucky if I have the time for a second. I believe that all men and women should celebrate the individual freedom of choice in some small way at least once a day.
There are those who oppose individual freedoms if it isn’t their choice of a proper individual freedom (whatever that is). I pity them not only for their lack of tolerance of their fellow man but also for their lack of appreciation of other people’s freedom. I know that should those people ever gain the power to do so, they will move to stop all that they deem inappropriate. And that will lead to their own downfall as it will only be a matter of time until someone stronger, but with different tastes, deposes them and eliminates their own favorite freedoms.
Individual freedom is a precious thing that all too often we take it for granted whether it be a cigar, the 1st Amendment or the 2nd Amendment or any of the Bill of Rights. And the only way to keep those freedoms is to celebrate them at every opportunity for a freedom not used is soon lost.
I’ve been writing much about the proposed health care bill (HR 3200). It is troubling legislation constructed with broad yet obtuse language that allows for interpretation by those with the power to make decisions. Decisions that could well limit the personal freedoms of all Americans depending on the mindset of those appointed to execute the bill should it become law.
The questions for all of us are clear: Do we trust those whom we have never met and will never personally know with our personal freedom? And can we expect our freedom of choice to be respected once this bill is enacted?
Without addressing the arguments of cost, impact on the national debt and rationing, I am wary of the bill because of the hurried manner in which it was rushed through the House. Moreover, I am wary of the current Administration not because they have stated that they wish to effect a change in our country; but because the change they propose is covered by smoke and mirrors. Vague platitudes and speeches coupled with broad, over-reaching legislation bodes ill for the personal freedoms that were handed down from our forefathers. Those are freedoms that I cherish.
The rights we hold dear were not given to us by a government, but, as it indicates in the Declaration of Independence, by a higher power. I urge all to contact the members of their Congressional delegation and their Senators with their own views on the pending legislation. Use your right to speak to preserve your personal freedom—your God given rights—as you see them.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
ObamaCare Must Fail - Part 2
President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid have been actively trying to create an evil bogeyman that their program will fight because they know that the only way to get the needed support to pass ObamaCare is to show it as fighting an evil. The insurance companies and the medical profession were chosen, reportedly after a series of polls and focus groups. This tactic of demonizing a segment of society in order to get public support for a consolidation of political power has been around for centuries but is more effective now in the age of instant communication. By throwing out a “strawman” to focus the public’s anger and fear, it becomes easier to enact laws and legislation expanding the role of government and lessening the actual freedom of the citizenry. (Is Swine Flu another strawman to create fear? They keep telling us that it is a pandemic yet so far it's been more hype than fact. Interesting. You make people afraid of the possiblity of getting sick then attack the health care system to "make it better." Saul Alinsky would have approved of that tactic.)
Initially, ObamaCare was trumpeted by the administration as a reform of American health care. A problem quickly arose, however, that caused the Administration to change their plan of battle. In that a May 2009 poll by Rasmussen 70% of the American people rated their current health care as good to excellent. If you go down as far as “fair,” 93% of Americans indicated they were satisfied with their health care. The Administration, seeing the growing grassroots opposition of the American people made a conscious decision to change the debate from a reform of American health care to a reform of the American health insurance system. This allowed them to designate health insurance companies as the evil that had to be destroyed. It is interesting to note that despite their change in the evil strawman, nothing in HR 3200 was changed. It remains the same enabling bill as it was when it was announced that it would address the health care system.
In damning the health insurance companies the Administration and its’ allies have been actively bemoaning the profits of made by insurance companies by throwing out huge monetary figures and trumpeting the “obscene” amounts made by those companies. They know this works as they’ve used it successfully against oil companies for decades and this has made for some great headlines in the liberal Main Stream Media as, on its’ face it looks terrible. After all, who likes to pay more for gasoline and when we do who do we blame: The Oil Company, of course! It’s the same with insurance. We pay a hefty bill for our insurance every month and still have to pay a deductable or co-pay after treatment, which is always aggravating.
For anyone who stops and thinks about it, and especially anyone who has been in business, the question arises as to what profit margin is being enjoyed by that sector of the economy. Just what is the profit margin of the insurance companies compared to, say, brewers (remember the White House beer?), software for the computers, wines and, restaurants or personal computers?
To find out we need only to go to the internet and look at profit margins by industry and, in particular, I recommend Carpe Diem, a blog by Prof. Mark J. Perry (Economics and finance) of the School of Management at the Flint campus of the University of Michigan. He’s collected the data and put it in a handy table for you to peruse and when you do you will find that maybe the insurance companies aren’t the greedy ogres that President Obama and his minions have led us to believe. Brewers made a profit of 25.9% on those bottles of beer served at the White House picnic with Officer Crowley, Professor Gates and Vice President Biden. (I knew that should have been my career field!)
Now software is something I’ve purchased many times and it hurts to know that the profit margin there is 22.7%. The software companies haven’t been targeted as an “evil entity” just yet, which is probably why they are so liberal in their political donations. They know that if they aren’t liberal then they might be targeted as evil profiteers by the left; and, after all, there's no threat from Conservatives who believe in a free market where prices are determined by demand.
Wineries (and distillers) aren’t as profitable as beer but the profit margin is still a comfortable 11.7%. This profit margin is palatable to almost everyone. I mean, who can complain that making a 10% or 12% profit. That’s reasonable!
I’ve been patronizing restaurants around the globe for years and in talks with owners have educated me as to how hard it is to be a success in the restaurant industry. All that hard work, sometimes 7-days a week, for an average profit of only 7.5%. Not much when you consider that their profit margin is based on a much smaller figure than, say, health insurance companies.
Computers always seem too expensive—even the cheap ones that will crash daily aren’t something to sneeze at—but their prices have come down considerably over the last 15 years. And at present the personal computer industry makes an average of 7.5% profit on each computer sold. Reasonable by any standard, don’t you think?
Now where do the health insurance companies fall in this? If you ask the President or his minions on the left, they will immediately drop the term “profit margin” and throw out billion dollar figures. But a reasonable person doesn’t fall for that and a review of the facts shows that Health Care Plans with a profit margin of only 3.3% are in 86th place of the table. The big figures thrown out by the the liberal, left-wing minions of the Administration are handy but totally misleading as the Health Care Plan industry is a big industry. Yes, the money they made was big in dollars, but can you really complain about 3.3%? (And who owns those companies? Investors and stockholders who want to make a profit on their investment.)
I can’t complain about a 3.3% annual profit margin. And I’m not about to fall for the demonization and destruction of a business by the government under the guise of making things better. The government won’t make things better but it will destroy our choice and, eventually force us all into a rationed system where we are at the mercy of a hard-hearted Nanny. It can't make things cheaper without rationing, increased taxes and denying health care to the elderly as they account for the largest portion of health care dollar expenditures.
The problem is not the demon health insurance companies as the President and the Democrats have stated. They have conveniently failed to identify the source of the yearly increase in health care expenditures because that goes against their drive for increased government control over the citizenry. So why is the cost of insurance always going up? Why does the cost of health care go up?
The partial answer is that health insurance companies are over-controlled by the individual states that place unreasonable requirements on the health insurance product that is offered in a particular state. This places the health insurance companies in a position of being unable to price insurance on the dynamics of a nationwide population. Instead, they are forced to cover special interest procedures in the general population of a particular state. What are those? Well can you tell me why, in the State of Washington, everyone must have a plan that covers hair transplants? I can’t, other than the fact that some Washington State legislators must have wanted some their constituents to look like a Chia pet (sorry, Vice President Biden. No offense meant...well, not a lot of offense). Other states, for whatever reason, forbid the offering of a catastrophic care policy.
The first logical step in reducing health insurance costs would be the elimination of individual state requirements that restrict the insurance products of health insurers within the state’s borders or mandate coverage that is not needed by the insured. A person should have the right to choose the insurance plan that they need. In Virginia I can buy auto insurance from a company in Texas. Why not health insurance from a company in New York, Texas or Idaho? And hair transplants I can do without so I don't want, or need, that coverage.
But why does the Administration not take this step? A very good question because we all know that economy of scale drives down costs. The government needs to allow the health insurance industry to take advantage of it so we can all benefit. We don’t need a government option that will put insurance companies out of business by destroying profitability. We need government to get out of the way. We need the government to shrink, not expand for it is the problem not the cure.
More to come on tort reform's impact on health care costs. But what are your thoughts?
Initially, ObamaCare was trumpeted by the administration as a reform of American health care. A problem quickly arose, however, that caused the Administration to change their plan of battle. In that a May 2009 poll by Rasmussen 70% of the American people rated their current health care as good to excellent. If you go down as far as “fair,” 93% of Americans indicated they were satisfied with their health care. The Administration, seeing the growing grassroots opposition of the American people made a conscious decision to change the debate from a reform of American health care to a reform of the American health insurance system. This allowed them to designate health insurance companies as the evil that had to be destroyed. It is interesting to note that despite their change in the evil strawman, nothing in HR 3200 was changed. It remains the same enabling bill as it was when it was announced that it would address the health care system.
In damning the health insurance companies the Administration and its’ allies have been actively bemoaning the profits of made by insurance companies by throwing out huge monetary figures and trumpeting the “obscene” amounts made by those companies. They know this works as they’ve used it successfully against oil companies for decades and this has made for some great headlines in the liberal Main Stream Media as, on its’ face it looks terrible. After all, who likes to pay more for gasoline and when we do who do we blame: The Oil Company, of course! It’s the same with insurance. We pay a hefty bill for our insurance every month and still have to pay a deductable or co-pay after treatment, which is always aggravating.
For anyone who stops and thinks about it, and especially anyone who has been in business, the question arises as to what profit margin is being enjoyed by that sector of the economy. Just what is the profit margin of the insurance companies compared to, say, brewers (remember the White House beer?), software for the computers, wines and, restaurants or personal computers?
To find out we need only to go to the internet and look at profit margins by industry and, in particular, I recommend Carpe Diem, a blog by Prof. Mark J. Perry (Economics and finance) of the School of Management at the Flint campus of the University of Michigan. He’s collected the data and put it in a handy table for you to peruse and when you do you will find that maybe the insurance companies aren’t the greedy ogres that President Obama and his minions have led us to believe. Brewers made a profit of 25.9% on those bottles of beer served at the White House picnic with Officer Crowley, Professor Gates and Vice President Biden. (I knew that should have been my career field!)
Now software is something I’ve purchased many times and it hurts to know that the profit margin there is 22.7%. The software companies haven’t been targeted as an “evil entity” just yet, which is probably why they are so liberal in their political donations. They know that if they aren’t liberal then they might be targeted as evil profiteers by the left; and, after all, there's no threat from Conservatives who believe in a free market where prices are determined by demand.
Wineries (and distillers) aren’t as profitable as beer but the profit margin is still a comfortable 11.7%. This profit margin is palatable to almost everyone. I mean, who can complain that making a 10% or 12% profit. That’s reasonable!
I’ve been patronizing restaurants around the globe for years and in talks with owners have educated me as to how hard it is to be a success in the restaurant industry. All that hard work, sometimes 7-days a week, for an average profit of only 7.5%. Not much when you consider that their profit margin is based on a much smaller figure than, say, health insurance companies.
Computers always seem too expensive—even the cheap ones that will crash daily aren’t something to sneeze at—but their prices have come down considerably over the last 15 years. And at present the personal computer industry makes an average of 7.5% profit on each computer sold. Reasonable by any standard, don’t you think?
Now where do the health insurance companies fall in this? If you ask the President or his minions on the left, they will immediately drop the term “profit margin” and throw out billion dollar figures. But a reasonable person doesn’t fall for that and a review of the facts shows that Health Care Plans with a profit margin of only 3.3% are in 86th place of the table. The big figures thrown out by the the liberal, left-wing minions of the Administration are handy but totally misleading as the Health Care Plan industry is a big industry. Yes, the money they made was big in dollars, but can you really complain about 3.3%? (And who owns those companies? Investors and stockholders who want to make a profit on their investment.)
I can’t complain about a 3.3% annual profit margin. And I’m not about to fall for the demonization and destruction of a business by the government under the guise of making things better. The government won’t make things better but it will destroy our choice and, eventually force us all into a rationed system where we are at the mercy of a hard-hearted Nanny. It can't make things cheaper without rationing, increased taxes and denying health care to the elderly as they account for the largest portion of health care dollar expenditures.
The problem is not the demon health insurance companies as the President and the Democrats have stated. They have conveniently failed to identify the source of the yearly increase in health care expenditures because that goes against their drive for increased government control over the citizenry. So why is the cost of insurance always going up? Why does the cost of health care go up?
The partial answer is that health insurance companies are over-controlled by the individual states that place unreasonable requirements on the health insurance product that is offered in a particular state. This places the health insurance companies in a position of being unable to price insurance on the dynamics of a nationwide population. Instead, they are forced to cover special interest procedures in the general population of a particular state. What are those? Well can you tell me why, in the State of Washington, everyone must have a plan that covers hair transplants? I can’t, other than the fact that some Washington State legislators must have wanted some their constituents to look like a Chia pet (sorry, Vice President Biden. No offense meant...well, not a lot of offense). Other states, for whatever reason, forbid the offering of a catastrophic care policy.
The first logical step in reducing health insurance costs would be the elimination of individual state requirements that restrict the insurance products of health insurers within the state’s borders or mandate coverage that is not needed by the insured. A person should have the right to choose the insurance plan that they need. In Virginia I can buy auto insurance from a company in Texas. Why not health insurance from a company in New York, Texas or Idaho? And hair transplants I can do without so I don't want, or need, that coverage.
But why does the Administration not take this step? A very good question because we all know that economy of scale drives down costs. The government needs to allow the health insurance industry to take advantage of it so we can all benefit. We don’t need a government option that will put insurance companies out of business by destroying profitability. We need government to get out of the way. We need the government to shrink, not expand for it is the problem not the cure.
More to come on tort reform's impact on health care costs. But what are your thoughts?
ObamaCare Must Fail - A Reader's View
I received the following email after I published my first blog on why ObamaCare must fail. It is from a friend who decided to communicate his own view based on his experience with both the British National Health System and medical care provided by American free enterprise. He clearly illustrates exactly why we must oppose the power-grab by the Obama Administration. Read on…
Friends:
Because of my values and political convictions I have been labeled by the Democratic party and President Obama in the following way :
- Old and white
- Mal-content
- Dupe (insurance companies fooled me)
- Un-American
- Mob member
- Bigot & racist
- Un-idealistic
- Liar (circulating misinformation)
- Greedy (my GM bond $ not honored)
I oppose President Obama's policies on their merits (or lack of). However, Ovomit's recent town hall in New Hampshire was an insult to the intelligence of Americans. He railed against insurance companies and special interests (whoever they are). He was condescending to Americans who disagree with the proposed reforms. He says opponents have been duped by the insurance companies and special interest groups. On the contrary, many Americans have been duped by the biggest special interest group of them all: the Democratic Party !
Let me tell you my experience with American health insurance. When I arrived in America in 1978 my employer in California signed me up in the Kaiser Permanente health care program. I was young and healthy so I didn't use it much, except for cuts, bruises, flu (and a dog bite). However, I recall my delight that I could walk into a Kaiser Hospital in Hayward or Walnut Creek and be taken care of right away. That was unlike the British National Health system, where the only way to get attention for that minor stuff was to have a personal connection to get to the front of the "line" (which was days or weeks long).
The Kaiser plan was employer provided, and Obama is correct, when I quit, I lost my medical insurance. I went to an early stage start-up with no medical plan. So I signed up with Blue Cross/Blue Shield of California, I think it was around $1,000 a year. They paid for the delivery of my daughter at John Muir Hospital, a top class clinic in Walnut Creek, no questions asked.
A few years later I had a heart attack, while I was between start-ups (that’s silicon valley speak for unemployed), but I still had my Blue Cross insurance. I received emergency surgery at Sequoia Hospital in Redwood City (another top-class clinic) and Blue Cross paid, no questions asked.
Fast forward to last year when I was diagnosed with cancer. I'm now living and working in the former British colony of Hong Kong. A UK style system of national health care is in place, but a supplementary insurance plan is required if you want to escape the public hospital option or should I say nightmare. I signed up for the Blue Cross Taipan insurance, where they will
pay for treatment in the USA provided you pay your own airfare and meet a deductible. This cost about $2,000 a year for my family. After my cancer was confirmed the Dr. told me to have immediate surgery because every second counted. The next day I had a successful surgery at St. Theresa Hospital in Hong Kong (Blue Cross paid, no questions asked).
So there you have it. I'm alive and well due to three things: American insurance, the finest medical talent in the world, and the prayers of my friends.
Jim
Stay tuned. More to come.
Papa Bill
Friends:
Because of my values and political convictions I have been labeled by the Democratic party and President Obama in the following way :
- Old and white
- Mal-content
- Dupe (insurance companies fooled me)
- Un-American
- Mob member
- Bigot & racist
- Un-idealistic
- Liar (circulating misinformation)
- Greedy (my GM bond $ not honored)
I oppose President Obama's policies on their merits (or lack of). However, Ovomit's recent town hall in New Hampshire was an insult to the intelligence of Americans. He railed against insurance companies and special interests (whoever they are). He was condescending to Americans who disagree with the proposed reforms. He says opponents have been duped by the insurance companies and special interest groups. On the contrary, many Americans have been duped by the biggest special interest group of them all: the Democratic Party !
Let me tell you my experience with American health insurance. When I arrived in America in 1978 my employer in California signed me up in the Kaiser Permanente health care program. I was young and healthy so I didn't use it much, except for cuts, bruises, flu (and a dog bite). However, I recall my delight that I could walk into a Kaiser Hospital in Hayward or Walnut Creek and be taken care of right away. That was unlike the British National Health system, where the only way to get attention for that minor stuff was to have a personal connection to get to the front of the "line" (which was days or weeks long).
The Kaiser plan was employer provided, and Obama is correct, when I quit, I lost my medical insurance. I went to an early stage start-up with no medical plan. So I signed up with Blue Cross/Blue Shield of California, I think it was around $1,000 a year. They paid for the delivery of my daughter at John Muir Hospital, a top class clinic in Walnut Creek, no questions asked.
A few years later I had a heart attack, while I was between start-ups (that’s silicon valley speak for unemployed), but I still had my Blue Cross insurance. I received emergency surgery at Sequoia Hospital in Redwood City (another top-class clinic) and Blue Cross paid, no questions asked.
Fast forward to last year when I was diagnosed with cancer. I'm now living and working in the former British colony of Hong Kong. A UK style system of national health care is in place, but a supplementary insurance plan is required if you want to escape the public hospital option or should I say nightmare. I signed up for the Blue Cross Taipan insurance, where they will
pay for treatment in the USA provided you pay your own airfare and meet a deductible. This cost about $2,000 a year for my family. After my cancer was confirmed the Dr. told me to have immediate surgery because every second counted. The next day I had a successful surgery at St. Theresa Hospital in Hong Kong (Blue Cross paid, no questions asked).
So there you have it. I'm alive and well due to three things: American insurance, the finest medical talent in the world, and the prayers of my friends.
Jim
Stay tuned. More to come.
Papa Bill
Thursday, August 13, 2009
ObamaCare Must Fail
Harsh words, I know, but it must fail or the change we were promised will be an America where the exceptional abilities of individuals are suborned to the perceived needs of “the many” by the ruling political class. Instead of equal opportunity, we will have equal outcome mandated by the government. This is unacceptable.
Our health care is among the best in the world. Those who say otherwise, especially “World” organizations whose dislike for America is palatable, are those who like to skew statistics to meet their own preconceptions. We are the envy of the world when it comes to the overall medical care and this is verified by the people from around the world who come here for treatments that they cannot get in their home countries. But do we have our problems? Certainly. And yes, things can be improved.
The question is not, “Do we want to improve the health care system?” but “How do we best improve the health care system?” It is certainly not by turning it over the federal government. The federal government does some things extremely well—providing for the common defense is one as we have a military without peer in the world and a law enforcement system that is envied even more than the health care system—but when you look at the federal government’s score sheet when it comes to social programs you see either failed or barely passing grades. By President Obama’s own admission, FedEx and UPS are doing great whereas the U.S. Postal Service is struggling to stay afloat. And look at the problems caused by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were central contributors to the current financial problem and are now in need of further taxpayer bailouts. To say that the federal government is not good at business is an understatement. And how could it be? The people who draw up the rules in Washington are not businessmen but politicians, many of whom have never been in business, and bureaucrats who have never been in business but have great degrees. The bottom line for them is not a profitable venture but did they expend all of their organization's budget allocation so that their bureaucracy can continue to grow. Success is not measured by any means other than an increase in Full Time Employee slots.
Need amore examples? Try Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. There is a very good reason that Washington politicians have exempted themselves from Social Security. They’ve been spending the money for decades rather than protecting it for the people who will need it in the future. (You wonder where Bernie Madoff got his idea for his ponzi scheme? Look at how Congress has handled Social Security. The only difference is that they can’t go to jail for doing exactly the same thing.) (A random thought: Putting Congress under Social Security as their only retirement program would result in it being fixed. Absent that, it will be broke in another decade.)
So what can we do? It is not enough to just say “No” to the vacuous enabling legislation that we call ObamaCare. We must force the federal government to get out of the way so that the extraordinary abilities of the American people can be unleashed. We begin this at the state level in the coming months by voting to replace incumbents at every level of government unless they have already committed to stopping the erosion of personal freedom by the federal government. And that is regardless of party affiliation, for the problem, while accelerated under the liberal Democrats, was contributed to by the Republican Party’s lack of fiscal restraint and purposeful growth of the federal government during the past 8 years. (To be sure, some of that was dictated by the War on Terror, but not all.) I urge you to support those candidates for office in your individual states that commit to expanding not the role of government in our lives but our role in government. I urge you to support those who commit to getting the government out of the way of Americans and following the Constitution with particular regard to the Bill of Rights.
So what should we do on health care? As the President and his minions have sought to demonize both the insurance industry and the medical profession, we’ll start there. More thoughts in my next blog.
In the meantime, write your Representatives and Senators to ensure that your voice is heard. Write them often and long regardless of their party affiliation.
And do remember the immortal words of Benjamin Franklin, “Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But, then, I repeat myself.”
Now go forth and be safe out there!
Our health care is among the best in the world. Those who say otherwise, especially “World” organizations whose dislike for America is palatable, are those who like to skew statistics to meet their own preconceptions. We are the envy of the world when it comes to the overall medical care and this is verified by the people from around the world who come here for treatments that they cannot get in their home countries. But do we have our problems? Certainly. And yes, things can be improved.
The question is not, “Do we want to improve the health care system?” but “How do we best improve the health care system?” It is certainly not by turning it over the federal government. The federal government does some things extremely well—providing for the common defense is one as we have a military without peer in the world and a law enforcement system that is envied even more than the health care system—but when you look at the federal government’s score sheet when it comes to social programs you see either failed or barely passing grades. By President Obama’s own admission, FedEx and UPS are doing great whereas the U.S. Postal Service is struggling to stay afloat. And look at the problems caused by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were central contributors to the current financial problem and are now in need of further taxpayer bailouts. To say that the federal government is not good at business is an understatement. And how could it be? The people who draw up the rules in Washington are not businessmen but politicians, many of whom have never been in business, and bureaucrats who have never been in business but have great degrees. The bottom line for them is not a profitable venture but did they expend all of their organization's budget allocation so that their bureaucracy can continue to grow. Success is not measured by any means other than an increase in Full Time Employee slots.
Need amore examples? Try Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. There is a very good reason that Washington politicians have exempted themselves from Social Security. They’ve been spending the money for decades rather than protecting it for the people who will need it in the future. (You wonder where Bernie Madoff got his idea for his ponzi scheme? Look at how Congress has handled Social Security. The only difference is that they can’t go to jail for doing exactly the same thing.) (A random thought: Putting Congress under Social Security as their only retirement program would result in it being fixed. Absent that, it will be broke in another decade.)
So what can we do? It is not enough to just say “No” to the vacuous enabling legislation that we call ObamaCare. We must force the federal government to get out of the way so that the extraordinary abilities of the American people can be unleashed. We begin this at the state level in the coming months by voting to replace incumbents at every level of government unless they have already committed to stopping the erosion of personal freedom by the federal government. And that is regardless of party affiliation, for the problem, while accelerated under the liberal Democrats, was contributed to by the Republican Party’s lack of fiscal restraint and purposeful growth of the federal government during the past 8 years. (To be sure, some of that was dictated by the War on Terror, but not all.) I urge you to support those candidates for office in your individual states that commit to expanding not the role of government in our lives but our role in government. I urge you to support those who commit to getting the government out of the way of Americans and following the Constitution with particular regard to the Bill of Rights.
So what should we do on health care? As the President and his minions have sought to demonize both the insurance industry and the medical profession, we’ll start there. More thoughts in my next blog.
In the meantime, write your Representatives and Senators to ensure that your voice is heard. Write them often and long regardless of their party affiliation.
And do remember the immortal words of Benjamin Franklin, “Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But, then, I repeat myself.”
Now go forth and be safe out there!
Monday, August 10, 2009
Sarah Stirs-Up the Liberals!
I do believe that Sarah Palin will continue to be a major conservative figure in American politics just as Hillary Clinton is for liberals. Both evoke strong gut reactions from supporters and foes alike often leading to rather hilarious efforts to denigrate their statements and writings. When I first heard Sarah Palin speak I thought to myself, “She’s ready for prime time.” Despite the pundits’ obvious liberal bias during subsequent campaign interviews, she showed more ability than the current President and there is no doubt in my mind that she would be better at the job.
That being said, much has been made of her recent “death panel” comment. To be sure, neither bill before the House and Senate establishes a “death panel,” per se. But there is no denying that rationed health care—which is exactly what is going to happen if the Obamacare bill passes—will result in decisions being made to the detriment of the elderly, the chronically ill and the disabled. Those decisions, made by government bureaucrats, will literally lead to the death of people in those categories because their continued life just isn’t worth the cost of continued, advanced medical care to the government which must hold down costs. Don't believe me? Then you should read the writings by President Obama's Science Advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanual. (You know, Rahm Emanual's brother.) Had it been necessary to vet him before congress, his views could have been clarified much as now-Justice Sotomayor clarified her anti-Second Amendment views. But since he wasn't, we will have to make do with what he put in writing. And what he did say about decisions being made based on potential productivity of individuals is more than 1984 scary.
We should remember what Thomas Jefferson said, and I quote, “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." In this case, if they don't decide to abort you before you can come into this world, they may decide to end it for you earlier than you'd like because you're just not productive enough.
For more on this from the Washington Examiner click on the title/link above.
That being said, much has been made of her recent “death panel” comment. To be sure, neither bill before the House and Senate establishes a “death panel,” per se. But there is no denying that rationed health care—which is exactly what is going to happen if the Obamacare bill passes—will result in decisions being made to the detriment of the elderly, the chronically ill and the disabled. Those decisions, made by government bureaucrats, will literally lead to the death of people in those categories because their continued life just isn’t worth the cost of continued, advanced medical care to the government which must hold down costs. Don't believe me? Then you should read the writings by President Obama's Science Advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanual. (You know, Rahm Emanual's brother.) Had it been necessary to vet him before congress, his views could have been clarified much as now-Justice Sotomayor clarified her anti-Second Amendment views. But since he wasn't, we will have to make do with what he put in writing. And what he did say about decisions being made based on potential productivity of individuals is more than 1984 scary.
We should remember what Thomas Jefferson said, and I quote, “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." In this case, if they don't decide to abort you before you can come into this world, they may decide to end it for you earlier than you'd like because you're just not productive enough.
For more on this from the Washington Examiner click on the title/link above.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
A Party to Remember
There is an old saying that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Given that the quality of education in the US has definitely slipped in recent decades—verified by interviews of voters in the last election who didn’t even know who Joe Biden was but voted for Obama—it is clear that we have produced a couple of generations of functional zombies. They go about their daily lives quite happy with the latest tunes but are only motivated by what makes them feel good as opposed to rational thought. In that, I suppose the theorem that Democrats are born but Republicans are made through logic might be true.
But one pejorative insult that seems to be tossed around a lot these days revolves around Germany and the terrible war Hitler brought to the world. The Speaker of the House saying that people opposing health care were carrying swastikas was nothing more than an attempt by the Democratic far-left to demonize people who are turning out in droves to oppose the massive government take-over of health care. The Democrats will brook no interference with their program and the President has told them to “hit back twice as hard.” (The SEIU took that seriously from recent news reports.)
Perhaps the Speaker, being one of my generation and from San Francisco, toked her way through college and failed to remember that the term “Nazi” was only a nickname given to another far-left group, the National Socialist German Party. Both Socialists and National Socialists instituted totalitarian regimes that were, I believe, somehow erroneously placed at opposite ends of the political spectrum. Both are fascist in their top-down ordering of society. Both reformed their respective nations into a new political identity where the State was in control of the daily lives of people and collected the names of dissenters. In the USSR they sent them to gulags. In Germany they sent them to concentration camps. (Same action, just different names.) The Democratic left-wing with its government run health care, cap and tax and now the “flag@whitehouse” report-your-neighbor email address, is attempting just such a reordering. (No, not the camps…well, not yet, anyway.) And President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid are leading the way. While I would not characterize any of them as Nazi’s, it does appear that they want history to repeat itself. I guess they think that they can do it better.
I don’t.
Click the title for a link to more on this view from the American Thinker.
But one pejorative insult that seems to be tossed around a lot these days revolves around Germany and the terrible war Hitler brought to the world. The Speaker of the House saying that people opposing health care were carrying swastikas was nothing more than an attempt by the Democratic far-left to demonize people who are turning out in droves to oppose the massive government take-over of health care. The Democrats will brook no interference with their program and the President has told them to “hit back twice as hard.” (The SEIU took that seriously from recent news reports.)
Perhaps the Speaker, being one of my generation and from San Francisco, toked her way through college and failed to remember that the term “Nazi” was only a nickname given to another far-left group, the National Socialist German Party. Both Socialists and National Socialists instituted totalitarian regimes that were, I believe, somehow erroneously placed at opposite ends of the political spectrum. Both are fascist in their top-down ordering of society. Both reformed their respective nations into a new political identity where the State was in control of the daily lives of people and collected the names of dissenters. In the USSR they sent them to gulags. In Germany they sent them to concentration camps. (Same action, just different names.) The Democratic left-wing with its government run health care, cap and tax and now the “flag@whitehouse” report-your-neighbor email address, is attempting just such a reordering. (No, not the camps…well, not yet, anyway.) And President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid are leading the way. While I would not characterize any of them as Nazi’s, it does appear that they want history to repeat itself. I guess they think that they can do it better.
I don’t.
Click the title for a link to more on this view from the American Thinker.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Chicago-Style Thug-Politics in Washington
Early misgivings about the choice of Eric Holder for the position of Attorney General were evidently well-founded. When the story about the dismissal of the voter-intimidation case dismissal broke there were immediate calls for an explanation from the Department of Justice but those calls initially fell on deaf ears. They weren’t even acknowledged. And when an explanation was finally provided it was patently hollow and reeked of "because I said so" rhetoric.
Now the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is asking for the second time for an explanation. The first question is, will Holder’s Justice Department respond or will it continue to stonewall? In the Attorney General’s mindset there are clearly two systems of justice in the nation; and, he’s making sure we know it loud and clear.
The first question begs the second: Is Holder taking his cue from the White House to protect Philadelphia thugs, members of the New Black Panther Party (which endorsed President Obama) who blatantly intimidated voters in support of the current incumbent?
Click on the link to read the Washington Times story.
Then write your Senators and Representatives, or tell them at a Townhall Meeting, that you want them to demand an explanation as well. It's a novel idea, I know, but we can make our government work for us and we all, regardless of skin color or ethnic background, deserve equal protection under the law especially when we go to exercise our right to vote.
Now the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is asking for the second time for an explanation. The first question is, will Holder’s Justice Department respond or will it continue to stonewall? In the Attorney General’s mindset there are clearly two systems of justice in the nation; and, he’s making sure we know it loud and clear.
The first question begs the second: Is Holder taking his cue from the White House to protect Philadelphia thugs, members of the New Black Panther Party (which endorsed President Obama) who blatantly intimidated voters in support of the current incumbent?
Click on the link to read the Washington Times story.
Then write your Senators and Representatives, or tell them at a Townhall Meeting, that you want them to demand an explanation as well. It's a novel idea, I know, but we can make our government work for us and we all, regardless of skin color or ethnic background, deserve equal protection under the law especially when we go to exercise our right to vote.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Obama's Spending Habits Must Have Rubbed-Off or Birds-of-a-Feather
The New York Post (follow above link to read the article) reports that on the eve of flying home to the funeral of revered President Cory Aquino, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo managed to make a stop at a premier eatery in the Big Apple running up a $20,000.00 (US) tab.
And here we thought that there was a financial problem in the world! President Obama is very adept at spending OPM (Other People's Money) for Kobe beef dinners. It seems that President Arroyo follows the same fiscal path when it comes to dining.
I know the U.S. deserves better--he gives a great speech, to be sure, but his early Marxist training is endangering the country and our culture--but it's up the the Philippine people to address the issue of President GMA.
And here we thought that there was a financial problem in the world! President Obama is very adept at spending OPM (Other People's Money) for Kobe beef dinners. It seems that President Arroyo follows the same fiscal path when it comes to dining.
I know the U.S. deserves better--he gives a great speech, to be sure, but his early Marxist training is endangering the country and our culture--but it's up the the Philippine people to address the issue of President GMA.
The Democrats Deplore the “Mob Tactics” of Health Care Opponents
I am not surprised at the chutzpah of the Democratics when they accuse their opposition of doing exactly what they do. Some would call it “projection.” I call it hypocrisy.
There is video going around the net showing great, big hulking thugs, alleged to be union members, pushing around health care opponents. They were clearly there to intimidate the opposition at a townhall meeting held by a congresswoman. The Democrats brook no opposition to their plans to change American into a national socialist state.
Just who are the mobs? Click on the title link to go to Dana Loesch’s web site and see some pictures of the typical “mob” being deplored by the White House.
There is video going around the net showing great, big hulking thugs, alleged to be union members, pushing around health care opponents. They were clearly there to intimidate the opposition at a townhall meeting held by a congresswoman. The Democrats brook no opposition to their plans to change American into a national socialist state.
Just who are the mobs? Click on the title link to go to Dana Loesch’s web site and see some pictures of the typical “mob” being deplored by the White House.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Peace at Last? The War is Over?
I was looking at the news and saw that we are no longer in a global war or a war on terrorism and that we will no longer refer to those who are trying to kill us as "jihadists." I presume this means that we'll have to find another term for them.
President Obama's top homeland security and counterterrorism official took all three terms off the table of acceptable words inside the White House during a speech Thursday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.
Sounds good to me. I just hope somebody tells the people that are trying to kill us that we are no longer interested in fighting them so they should stop. And if they could kindly quit referring to us as "infidels" and "non-believers" that, too, would be greatly appreciated and an appropriate quid pro quo wouldn't you agree?
See the full story at the title link above. And be thankful that we are now at peace and that there will be no more 9/11's. The White House has decreed it so.
President Obama's top homeland security and counterterrorism official took all three terms off the table of acceptable words inside the White House during a speech Thursday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.
Sounds good to me. I just hope somebody tells the people that are trying to kill us that we are no longer interested in fighting them so they should stop. And if they could kindly quit referring to us as "infidels" and "non-believers" that, too, would be greatly appreciated and an appropriate quid pro quo wouldn't you agree?
See the full story at the title link above. And be thankful that we are now at peace and that there will be no more 9/11's. The White House has decreed it so.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
The White House Asks that We Report Health Care Disinformation
The continuing fight against the proposed health care bill is getting increasingly nasty as the Democratic majority is resorting to Chicago-style machine politics to force the plan on the American people. This despite a majority of the people not wanting anything to do with government control of their health care decisions.
The latest move by the White House was the creation of an email address (flag@whitehouse.gov) where they requested that their supporters identify and report anyone spreading “fishy” facts surrounding the health care proposal. Obviously, this was meant to stifle dissent but it looks like it is going to backfire.
For my part, in the interest if bipartisanship, I did report to the site some of those spreading disinformation. My email was as follows:
Madam/Sirs:
Per your request for the identity of persons spreading disinformation about the proposed health care bill I feel obligated to report the following: I have seen a lot in disinformation being spread about the health care proposal and it is all coming from people who haven't read the bill. They are easily identifiable as they are the leadership and members of the Democratic majority in the House and Senate. (Doubt me? Ask Waxman as he publicly admitted he hadn't read the bill.) Also being spread by people in the White House is the figure of "47 million" uninsured. There are no facts to back up that claim and it is, at best, a WAG and at worst, an outright fabrication.
Also the following information has been brought to my attention and it certainly should be brought to yours as clearly these individuals are spreading disinformation:
1. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) at a Health Care for America Now rally: “And next to me was a guy from the insurance company who argued against the public health insurance option, saying it wouldn’t let private insurance compete. That a public option will put the private insurance industry out of business and lead to single-payer. My single-payer friends, he was right. The man was right.”
2. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) told Single Payer Action: “I think that if we get a good public option it could lead to single-payer and that is the best way to reach single-payer. Saying you’ll do nothing till you get single-payer is a sure way never to get it. … I think the best way we’re going to get single-payer, the only way, is to have a public option and demonstrate the strength of its power.”
3. Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein at the Democratic National Convention last year: “They have a sneaky strategy, the point of which is to put in place something that over time the natural incentives within its own market will move it to single-payer.”
4. Noble Prize winning New York Times columnist Paul Krugman: “[T]he only reason not to do [single-payer] is that politically it’s hard to do in one step…You’d have to convince people completely give up the insurance they have, whereas something that lets people keep the insurance they have but then offers the option of a public plan, that may evolve into single-payer.”
These individuals are clearly spreading disinformation because the President has denied through Press Secretary Gibbs that this will lead to a single-payer system. Or maybe, they haven't lied? Who is lying? The President or the four people above?
But there! I've done my civic duty as you asked.
Now I have a couple of questions for you.
1. Who authorized you to collect names and spy on American citizens engaged in political discourse?
2. Who came up with the idea that it was ok to have one group of citizens "report" another group for disagreeing with the plans of the administration? (What's next? A gulag for political dissenters?)
Please publicly identify the author(s) of this idea so we, the people, know who is responsible. Or is the promised "transparency" just a little too much for you?
In our Republic, such dissent is Constitutionally protected and you should be ashamed of yourselves.
And yes, if you haven't figured it out by now, I am opposed the the government taking over the health care of the American people. Our country was founded on the premise of equal opportunity, not equal outcome. I urge you to stay away from my right to choose.
Sincerely,
I’ll let you all know how things are from the gulag.
But seriously, it’s important that we do let them know how we feel. If we are silent then we have agreed to their programs by our very silence. If we are vocal then the politicians know that their political survival depends on following the wishes of the electorate.
To be sure, there are those in politics who look on the electorate as a necessary evil and an impediment to their acquisition of more power. Hopefully we will get rid of some of them in the next election and that will teach a lesson, short-lived though it may be, to the rest.
The latest move by the White House was the creation of an email address (flag@whitehouse.gov) where they requested that their supporters identify and report anyone spreading “fishy” facts surrounding the health care proposal. Obviously, this was meant to stifle dissent but it looks like it is going to backfire.
For my part, in the interest if bipartisanship, I did report to the site some of those spreading disinformation. My email was as follows:
Madam/Sirs:
Per your request for the identity of persons spreading disinformation about the proposed health care bill I feel obligated to report the following: I have seen a lot in disinformation being spread about the health care proposal and it is all coming from people who haven't read the bill. They are easily identifiable as they are the leadership and members of the Democratic majority in the House and Senate. (Doubt me? Ask Waxman as he publicly admitted he hadn't read the bill.) Also being spread by people in the White House is the figure of "47 million" uninsured. There are no facts to back up that claim and it is, at best, a WAG and at worst, an outright fabrication.
Also the following information has been brought to my attention and it certainly should be brought to yours as clearly these individuals are spreading disinformation:
1. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) at a Health Care for America Now rally: “And next to me was a guy from the insurance company who argued against the public health insurance option, saying it wouldn’t let private insurance compete. That a public option will put the private insurance industry out of business and lead to single-payer. My single-payer friends, he was right. The man was right.”
2. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) told Single Payer Action: “I think that if we get a good public option it could lead to single-payer and that is the best way to reach single-payer. Saying you’ll do nothing till you get single-payer is a sure way never to get it. … I think the best way we’re going to get single-payer, the only way, is to have a public option and demonstrate the strength of its power.”
3. Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein at the Democratic National Convention last year: “They have a sneaky strategy, the point of which is to put in place something that over time the natural incentives within its own market will move it to single-payer.”
4. Noble Prize winning New York Times columnist Paul Krugman: “[T]he only reason not to do [single-payer] is that politically it’s hard to do in one step…You’d have to convince people completely give up the insurance they have, whereas something that lets people keep the insurance they have but then offers the option of a public plan, that may evolve into single-payer.”
These individuals are clearly spreading disinformation because the President has denied through Press Secretary Gibbs that this will lead to a single-payer system. Or maybe, they haven't lied? Who is lying? The President or the four people above?
But there! I've done my civic duty as you asked.
Now I have a couple of questions for you.
1. Who authorized you to collect names and spy on American citizens engaged in political discourse?
2. Who came up with the idea that it was ok to have one group of citizens "report" another group for disagreeing with the plans of the administration? (What's next? A gulag for political dissenters?)
Please publicly identify the author(s) of this idea so we, the people, know who is responsible. Or is the promised "transparency" just a little too much for you?
In our Republic, such dissent is Constitutionally protected and you should be ashamed of yourselves.
And yes, if you haven't figured it out by now, I am opposed the the government taking over the health care of the American people. Our country was founded on the premise of equal opportunity, not equal outcome. I urge you to stay away from my right to choose.
Sincerely,
I’ll let you all know how things are from the gulag.
But seriously, it’s important that we do let them know how we feel. If we are silent then we have agreed to their programs by our very silence. If we are vocal then the politicians know that their political survival depends on following the wishes of the electorate.
To be sure, there are those in politics who look on the electorate as a necessary evil and an impediment to their acquisition of more power. Hopefully we will get rid of some of them in the next election and that will teach a lesson, short-lived though it may be, to the rest.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
In Memoriam - Cory Aquino
Maria Corazon “Cory” Cojuanco Aquino - January 25, 1933 – August 1, 2009
Yellow is the first sign of a new day, a new beginning, a promise of what is to come as the sun rises above the horizon. As such, it was the perfect color for a lady who donned the mantle of power on behalf of the people.
She didn’t aspire for her role in history. Happily married to Benigno S. “Ninoy” Aquino, Jr., a strong opposition political leader, she was a mother and wife. To be sure, she was intelligent, but by all accounts she was happiest at home in the Philippine society’s traditional role as a pillar of support for her husband and family. Unfortunately, the murder of her husband thrust her into a greater role as the pillar of support for a renewed Philippine democracy.
I remember the first time I saw her. It was in January 1991 at the ceremony in which the colors of the famed Philippine Constabulary were struck and replaced with the colors of the Philippine National Police. I had only been in country about 10 days and knew little about the personalities or players with whom I would interact for the next 11 years. I was lucky enough to be seated next to a USAF LTC and his lovely wife and after the end of the official ceremony he asked if I would escort his wife to the auditorium while he met with his Filipino contacts.
The auditorium at Camp Crame was crowded as people continued to flow in and none were leaving. While standing there I saw a lady quietly standing alone off to one side. I recognized her as she was dressed in her trademark yellow and observing the goings-on with a small smile. Never being the shy one, I escorted the lady who had been entrusted me to President Cory Aquino and presented her and myself while offering our appreciation for being invited to observe the ceremony. As we spoke briefly, I felt the warm glow of the President’s personality and was impressed with the honesty and humility with which she responded. I walked away not fully appreciating that I had just been in the presence of one who had been at the center of one of the seminal moments of Philippine history. My impression that day, and it hasn’t changed, was that I had just met a person who, having the mantle of leadership thrust upon her, did not shirk or make excuses but rose to the occasion and did the best she could for her country. I was impressed not with her charisma but with her aura of goodness and straight-forward manner.
Throughout my 11 years in the Philippines she remained a central figure, almost reluctantly involving herself in the political ebb and flow of the vibrant democracy that she strived to help create. She never sought the center stage but was often thrust there by the times. In all that, her love of country and family was always evident.
Her last battle was hard fought and painful; and, from all accounts she fought that battle and endured the discomfort with the same strength she showed during her life and presidency. She is finally at peace now and we are left to reflect on her life and accomplishments. To do so properly may take more than one generation of scholars. But her goodness as a human being and greatness as a patriot are self-evident needing no scholarly study. The world lost an icon of freedom. The Philippines lost a great leader and role model. But most importantly, her family lost a loving mother, grandmother, sister and aunt.
My condolences and that of my family are extended to her family and to the Philippine people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
