Off to India

I will be gone to India for five weeks.

I hope I will be able to blog a bit, and maybe add a bit of international insight!

In any case, you may be treated to some "guest" bloggers--my DH and my DS (middle one, very politically conservative and savvy--though I warn you, we don't always agree!)

If you want to know more about the trip to India, please see my other blog!

Toodle-oo!

The Party is Off

Well, the US has taken back its July 4th invitations to Iranian diplomats.

Good.

A few of my thoughts

I find the series of remarks by President Obama regarding Iran quite confusing.

First, on Friday, June 12th, the day of the Iranian vote, President Obama stated he was pleased with the "robust debate" and the possibility of change in Iran.

To me, this seemed extremely naive. Both Presidential aspirants, Ahmadinejad and Moussavi, were selected by the Guardian Council, who in turn are controlled by the Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei. The Supreme Leader, I suspect, would never allow anyone but his handpicked candidate to become President. Democratic process and change were never a possibility for Iran in this election.

Then, the Administration very carefully chose their words about the result. Mr. Obama continued to talk about democracy in Iran and respecting the Iranians' choice of President. Huh? He did mention being troubled about the violence he saw on TV. Vice-President Biden had "doubts" about the vote, and Secretary of State Clinton hoped that the election was the result of the "genuine will and desire" of the Iranian people.

The State Department then voiced concerns about "reports" of violence. I guess Hilary Clinton doesn't watch TV.

In defense of these cautious words, President Obama stated he didn't want the Iranian leaders to accuse the U.S. of "meddling". Of course, the Supreme Leader accused the U.S. of meddling anyway.

Now, President Obama has come out much more forcefully against the Iranian vote. Why now? It's been a week.

I suspect this turn-around is due to the bad press he has been receiving for his perceived lack of strength in this matter.

I must say that this is unsettling to me. I prefer someone in charge who doesn't change his actions according to popularity polls, who determines what is the best course and goes for it, who doesn't parse his words.

Strength of character is preferable in a leader, especially the leader of the free world.

Action on Cap & Trade

From what I understand, the "Cap and Trade" will be voted on this week--and doesn't necessarily have enough votes to pass.
Contact your Representative today and tell them "NO" on HR 2454.

Fireworks on the Fourth

Well, lovely readers, I will be gone on the fourth of July to India. Read more about it on my other blog http://passingallunderstanding.blogspot.com/. However, rumor has it that Hawaii may get a special fireworks display on July 4th, courtesy of North Korea.

North Korea, according to Japanese intelligence, is threatening to shoot off a missile toward Hawaii in early July. Japan, understandably enough, is concerned because said missile will go right over Japan--and North Korea missiles aren't known to be completely accurate, though there has been a plethora of missile launchings from there lately. Maybe they'll improve with practice.

On the other side of the world, Iran was able to use missile technology to put a satellite into space in February.

Defense Secretary Gates' announcement of increased missile defenses in the face of the North Korean threat is disingenuous. In fact, the Administration has reduced funding for anti-missile defenses. While the Pentagon feels that current budget is adequate, I must say that I am concerned. Many lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have questioned the cuts in defense spending.

Do you remember Teddy Roosevelt's words? "Speak softly and carry a big stick."

Heritage.org

Fox News

And PS

Go to http://www.heritage.org/ TODAY and sign up on the "Stop the EPA" in opposition to cap and trade. This petition ends tomorrow.

Let's Cause more Pain for Americans

Sometimes that pesky federal government makes me so mad I could just....expectorate!
The next thing up from President Obama is the Waxman-Markley Bill.

The goal is to produce less greenhouse emissions, or carbon dioxide. Part of this bill requires such things as new types of fuels and more electricity from renewable resources.

The second part of the bill is the "Cap and Trade" proposals. Basically, this places a limit on the carbon dioxide allowed. "Cap and Trade" is essentially a tax on all processes and sources of energy that produce carbon dioxide. Which, amazingly, is almost everything!

What would be the result of "cap and trade"? Well, the economy would suffer from greatly increased energy costs.

It is predicted that energy costs would rise by over $1500 per family per year between 2012 and 2035!

Employment will decrease by over 1 million jobs per year between 2012 and 2035!

This act will increase the national debt by 26 percent, on top of the already trillions of dollars in debt!

And all products that use energy to be produced--and that's everything I can think of--will cost more.

Mr. Obama himself pointed out that prices must "skyrocket" for cap and trade to suceed in driving down greenhouse gases--in other words, the consumer must be forced, by increased "ouch" to the pocketbook, to hold down his consumption of energy.

Ouch is right. And for basically no results. Climatologists calculate that these measures will lower temperatures by less than 2/10 of a degree by the end of the century. And many other scientists feel the earth is now undergoing global cooling rather than warming!

May I make a suggestion? Go to http://www.heritage.org/ and when you see the banner titled "Help Stop the EPA" come up, click on "Help Stop the EPA Here" and sign the petition to stop cap and trade.

And don't forget to write your senators and congressman!

Happy Father's Day!

Fathers are important.

They are essential to their children's well-being.

Families, which are the building blocks of our society, need dads in order to be at their healthiest and best.

Is this always possible? No, but this is the ideal.

So tell your father, husband, other dads you know, grandfathers, and soon-to-be-fathers "Thank you!"

(And, P.S., President Obama needs to support the Defense of Marriage Act, not undermine it. Had to get in something political!)

The Bill for Health Care

The CBO (Congressional Budget Office) numbers show that the current health care plan on the table will cost over a trillion dollars and will only cover about 1/3 the nation's uninsured.
People that add faster than I do state that the cost per person is $62,500.00.
My goodness! That's seems a bit excessive!
Source: Politico.com

Contact your senator!

Time to contact your Senators if you oppose the so-called "Hate Crimes" bill. This was previously passed by the House, but is due to be voted upon this week as Senate Bill (S.B.) 909.

See http://www.robgagnon.net/homosexHateCrimePart1.htm for a great discussion on "Why a Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity 'Hate Crimes' Bill is Bad for you" by Dr. Robert Gagnon.

Write or call your Senators and tell them you oppose SB 909. Laws already exist to prosecute violence against any member of our society. Extra penalties based on speculation about the motive of a crime, instead of objective findings about that crime, is NOT equal protection under the law.

The broken Medicare piggybank

I'm guessing that you knew about Medicare.

That it will run out of money within 8 years.

And that President Obama is suggesting cutting 200 to 300 billion in payments to hospitals to help with this deficit.

From the AP, "Hospitals, especially those with many poor patients, say the proposed cuts are unfair and will harm the sick and elderly."

Did you know that Medicare, when begun, promised that all medical costs would be paid to beneficiaries? That there would be no price controls (as there are today) and no governmental decisions as to appropriate treatment (ditto)?

Or that you, by law, can buy private health insurance if you are over age 65? However, there is one catch--there are no private policies available to you now that Medicare exists.

Or that Congress initially refused to interfere with the doctor-patient relationship, but changed this in 1997? Doctors must now opt out of Medicare for two years before accepting private pay from Medicare eligible patients.

May I suggest that you need to know your history?

More on health care

President Obama, during his campaign, gave 3 promises about health care.

1. If you were satisfied with your health insurance, nothing would change,

2. If you need health coverage, you would have access to health insurance as least as good as the members of Congress, and

3. Health care costs would decrease for American families (I believe the amount of $2500 was bandied about).

As for the first point, your private health insurance will change according the bill introduced by Senator Kennedy. The federal government would take much of the control of health insurance away from the states and place it in the hands of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The federal goverment will decide which medical treatments and benefits are deemed appropriate, and HHS will determine which insurance plans "qualify".

Hmmm....sounds like they're meddling with my health insurance.....

And it seems that the prospects for having private health insurance are dim. Kennedy's bill proposes, well, basically a penalty on employees and individuals on their private health insurance--to support the government insurance.

Doesn't sound good for my health plan.

Something else that is bothersome is that power will be taken away from the states to adapt insurance to local needs. Congress will determine insurance rates as well as "organize the market for competing health plans."

I'm not exactly sure how you "organize a market," but it doesn't sound good for us consumers.

As far as our health costs decreasing, even Newsweek describes President Obama's plans "naive, hypocritical, or simply dishonest" in the spending catagory. The CBO--Congressional Budget Office--states that health care proposals will lead to further increases in the national debt. More in the red. And their proposal to help this leak of red is to slash payments to doctors and hospitals and to tax us on our health care.

Sources: Heritage.org

Washington Post

Newsweek

Next--Are there other ways to deal with health care reform?

I may be a little bit naive...

but this is just all so, ah, unusual.

Four Uighurs have been transported to Bermuda; another 13 more are due to leave for the Pacific island country of Palau.

They will not be allowed into the US, as was previously desired by the Obama administration.

For a bit of background, the Uighurs live in China, but have not been, shall we say, happy under Chinese rule. All of these men are implicated by China as terrorists in the Uighur separatist movement, which China deems responsible for over 200 attacks since 1990, and China wants them back for trial. The US doesn't want to return them to China for fear they will be tortured and executed.

As for our side, the State Department has concluded that these men are not enemy combatants.

Of concern, however, is that the 4 men now in Bermuda, while at Guantanamo, admitted to being part of a UN-designated terrorist organization associated with the Taliban and al-Qaeda. They were trained in the Tora Bora terrorist camp, and admit to knowing Abdul Haq, recently added to the terrorist list by the US Treasury Department.

Of further concern is the ticklish international situation caused by the State Department. British officials feel a bit miffed, for example, at not being told that these four men were being taken to Bermuda, which is a British colony. From the Independent, "One senior official said: "The Americans were fully aware of the foreign-policy understanding we have with Bermuda and they deliberately chose to ignore it. This is not the kind of behaviour one expects from an ally." " Apparently trying to smooth ruffled feathers, the State Department says that they had been discussing this with the Bermuda governor, stating "We did talk to them before the Uighurs got on the plane." Bermuda insists they were only told the morning of the transfer.

The Brits are concerned that these men could eventually get British citizenship and move to the UK. The people of Palau are also a bit worried over the 13 men that are due to arrive there. And there may be some--what would you say-- suspicion? questions? concern?--about the 200 million dollars of aid the US has just set aside for Palau.

Not to mention that China wants these men back for trial and are a bit miffed about their transfer to Bermuda.

I won't mention that these 4 men are at a resort in Bermuda at taxpayer expense, where they hope to learn to drive, scuba-dive, and bowl.

Sources: The Independent

Investor's Business Daily

The Daily Mail

Throw out the law--it's just in the way...

I haven't gotten to the issue of Bankruptcy.

Basically, evading bankruptcy laws.

Even more specifically, the Obama administration disregarding American bankruptcy laws for Chrysler & GM.

Besides the small problem of breaking laws willy-nilly, which, beg your pardon, is NOT the American way, this causes some real problems.

1. By not following the bankruptcy system, the car manufacturers can avoid the strict guidelines that would both help them re-organize with a more profitable system, and rid themselves of contracts and debt that are burdening them.

2. By forcing the secured creditors to take far less money than they have a right to--in violation of the usual bankruptcy laws--the Obama administration has put Chrysler into a position where creditors will, understandably, be reluctant to offer capital in the future to the car company, should Chrysler require it.

Note--and yes, the Chrysler creditors were coerced to capitulate to Obama's demands to forgo their rights. According the Washington Examiner, a firm was "threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight.”

3. And (thinking ahead), if creditors are not protected by bankruptcy laws, if the federal government can arbitrarily use, or abuse, these laws, our capitalistic system and our economy will certainly suffer.

4. The meddling of the federal government in bankruptcy proceedings can lead to politicizing of the bankruptcy process.

And it has already happened. Representative Barney Frank (D-Mass), who happens to be the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee (which controls the bailout pursestrings) has persuaded GM not to close its plant in Massachusetts.

Who benefitted by this sleight-of-hand?

The secured creditors received about 33 cents on the dollar. Unsecured creditors, the United Auto Workers union & retirees, received about 50 cents on the dollar.

I will allow you to connect the dots.

Flag Day June 14th

I pledge allegiance to the Flag

Of the United States of America,

And to the Republic for which it stands,

One Nation under God, indivisible,

With liberty and justice for all. — The Pledge of Allegiance, 1892

Do you know much about the history of our flag? Here are several flags that are part of our American Revolution.

This is the Grand Union Flag, flown over Boston in 1776.

The Naval jack flew on Continental ships during the Revolutionary War.

This was called the Bennington Flag, and was the first flag leading American land troops into battle in 1777.

This was General George Washington's personal flag as Commander of the Continental Army.

Below is the famous Betsy Ross flag for you to print and color!

For more fun activities on Flag Day, go to
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/crafts/flagday/

--AND-- fly your flag June 14th!

If you don't like the numbers, fire the accountant....

Today, the Senate Democrats are worried about the cost of the health care reform bill--to the extent that they are discussing tossing the numbers from Congressional Budget Office, which has already been chastised. The Washington Post writes that Senator "Baucus, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and a key figure in the health debate, has publicly lectured Elmendorf [head of CBO], saying he has a moral duty to be "creative" and deliver the favorable budget estimates "we have to have" to win broad support. "

Instead, the Senate Democrats are thinking rejecting the usual accounting used for legislative proposals and instead using the White House estimates. These (surprise, surprise) show much less cost for health care reform.

Folks, besides taking over our health care, Democrats and President Obama want to bankrupt us in the process.

We'll talk about other ideas on health care (besides federal takeover of our health care system) soon.

And this is what I did: I went to the health care reform site(where you must give your name) http://www.healthreform.gov/ , to the middle of the page where you are invited to "share your story", and wrote the following:

"As a two time cancer survivor, I do not support any efforts of the federal government to control health care. I wish for my health care decisions as to treatments, doctors, and hospitals to be totally free of government input. I should be totally free to spend my health care dollars on the health insurance and care that I see fit. Thank you."

Health Care, but not for all

I believe there will be many, many problems with the proposed government health care bill (of which we have very few details yet), but one of the most egregious parts of this bill will be the rationing of health care services.

Mr. Daschle has already stated that health care reform "will not be pain free." What does that mean? Well, the stimulus bill has already provided for a federal agency to ration health care. With a budget of over 1 billion, the new Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research has been given the mandate to oversee doctors and hospitals to make sure physicians are giving what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective treatment.

This will inevitably lead to rationing of health care. As House Appropriations Chaiman Obey (D-Wis) describes it, treatments and medications "that are found to be less effective and in some cases, more expensive, will no longer be prescribed." This will first affect federal programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.

But it was also be part of any federal Health Care proposals.

The council is modeled after Great Britain's National Institute for Health and Clinical Effectiveness, nicknamed "NICE". NICE judges whether a medication or procedure is cost effective. Currently, NICE has denied effective treatments for kidney cancer, colon cancer, ovarian cancer, Alzheimer's, and rheumatoid arthritis. This means people are dying or in pain because they cannot access clinically proven drugs.

This is morally and ethically wrong. What's more, it will stifle research and development of new medicines and treatments, and, even more, it will not save money. This type of cost/benefit analysis must be researched before being applied, and this research is estimated to cost more than any savings realized.

WARNING: Editorial!!

But the most important point is the moral emptiness of this kind of health care rationing. How can you deny life saving treatments to fellow human beings? I daresay this type of thinking comes out a world view that does not value human life. President Obama has shown--by upholding partial birth abortions and the murder of born-alive babies in botched abortions--that human souls have worth only by fiat. There is no intrinsic, God-given merit in human life unless it is economically beneficial to society--as determined by the government.

From:
BBC
Bloomberg.com

Heritage.org
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123128781030459191.html

Our commander-in-chief

According to Representative Mike Rogers (senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee), President Obama has ordered that the FBI read the Miranda rights to all terrorists incarcerated at US military facilities in Afghanistan. He states that soldiers are frustrated by this, feeling that this act hurts their attempts at interrogation.
Ya' think so? Telling the terrorists that they have a right to remain silent causes problems in getting information out of them?
I just don't understand. My reading of the Geneva convention (IF you believe that the terrorists are honest-to-goodness soldiers--in reality, the terrorists would more fit into the "unlawful combatant" catagory) doesn't reveal that POW's have any rights except to be treated decently--fed and housed and all that.
Especially not rights that are for US citizens.

Source: Fox News

Tyranny by our elected representatives is Tyranny nonetheless

Next week, our elected representatives will begin working on a health care bill.
They will be using a process called "reconciliation" to push this momentous bill through the Senate and House in very little time and with very little debate.
"Reconciliation" is this, in a nutshell--our government has stated it needs to save $1 billion dollars. It has stated it will do this by passing a national health care bill. Because it is "reconciling" the budget, there's no need for discussion.
No need for our elected representatives to work on this bill. No need for us, the voters, to see the bill or to have time to contact our representatives about it.
Don't you think we, the people who put these folks in office, have a right to have a say in our government?
What happened to government for the people and by the people? What happened to our democratic system? When did despotism sneak in the door?
Tyranny by our elected representatives is tyranny nonetheless.

P.S. How you can reconcile a budget by passing a spending bill is beyond me. Wish I could do this with my household budget.

I Forgot....

the Sunday Fun!
This is hard....spot 15 differences between these two pictures of the US Capitol.

How did GM become Government Motors?

We've looked at the fact that the federal government did not and has not made General Motors a success. You can not honestly call a company a success that is closing plants and laying off workers and has been forced to declare (a form of) bankruptcy.
And, we've seen that the President was not given the power to control private enterprise by our Constitution.

So, how did this all happen?
In short, the Stimulus Bill. When GM came to the federal government and asked for money, they got it--with the provisos that they obeyed their new masters.
I cannot quote you chapter and verse of the bill, so if you have more to add, please comment and do so.
Is there a problem with this? Our legislative branch legislated these new laws, right?
Well, there are several problems with the legislative process here, beyond the "mere" unconstitutionality issue already mentioned.
1. The stimulus bill was forced to be passed quickly. Speaker Nancy Pelosi used special rulings to bring the bill to a prompt vote. The final bill was brought to a vote in less that 12 hours.
This did not allow time for adequate Congressional debate or for the American people to respond and give input to their elected representatives.
2. The federal government has bypassed bankruptcy laws. Laws are to be applied equally--that is what laws are for! And U.S. bankruptcy laws (the real ones) are effective in helping companies re-organize. About 70% of companies that enter bankruptcy emerge successfully.
Making up new rules as you go along is lawlessness.
Let's explore a bit about bankruptcy laws next.

Research from:
The Boston Globe
Heritage.org
The St. Petersburg Times

Funny by my DH

We were talking about President Obama's speech in Egypt, and I mentioned that Mr. Obama said (my paraphrase) that he used to live in a Muslim country.
My DH's retort?
"Well, I used to live in a capitalist country!"

The "enumerated powers" of the President

A basic question: Does the federal government, especially the office of President, have the Constitutional authority to take over private business?

In a word, NO.

James Madison wrote about our new (in 17887) Constitution in The Federalist Papers stating that "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined". This briefly describes the principle of enumerated powers--that the Constitution has stated exactly what prerogatives each of the different branches of federal government may have.

This principle was codified in the Tenth Amendment which says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Of course, the exact meaning and nuances of this amendment has been debated over the years, but the basic deal is that our Constitution limits the powers of our government to what is written in the document.

Let's look at the Constitution to see what are the duties of our President. First look in Article II, Section 1.

Our Constitution gives the executive power to the President. It describes the election of the President (by electors, what we call the electoral college), describes the qualifications, provides for the succession if the President dies, provides for a salary, and delineates the oath of office, and a few other bits and pieces about the office.

Our Constitution then outlines, in Section 2, the powers of the President. He is Commander In Chief, can have advisors, can grant pardons, make treaties (with the consent of the Senate), and can nominate Supreme Court justices, ambassadors, and a few other officials.

So how did our President become the head of General Motors?

We'll look into this a bit more...

For more information, see

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Thought/fp0023.cfm

An intriguing Russian editorial

This article was written by a Russian young man and was published by Pravda RU, a Russian newspaper. However, I will direct you to his blog, instead of the newspaper, due to the salacious nature of some of the advertisements on the newspaper webpage.

http://mat-rodina.blogspot.com/search/label/capitalism

What do you think?

GM Bankruptcy

I've been trying to decide how to write about the stimulus bill, bailouts, etc, etc. It's a lot to get your head around enough to blog. (Or maybe my head is just too small!)

Well, let's start with the bankruptcy of GM.

The most obvious concern is that our federal government took over General Motors with the promise of "fixing" it.

They spent billions of OUR tax dollars (that we pay through taxes--our money!! I can't say this enough) to make it viable.

Yet, GM has failed. Despite huge infusions of money. Despite the oversight of the federal government. GM is now declaring bankruptcy.

Three points we can explore further in future posts:

1) The US government obviously doesn't has the ability and know-how to run a company and save it from failure.

2) The US government, by its takeover of General Motors, has threatened our free enterprise system.

3) What is the US government's constitutional role in private enterprise? Does the government have the right to to do what it did?

Things to ponder. But the question of the day--what does our US government have to say about its FAILURE to fix General Motors? And its squandering of billions of dollars to do nothing?

Because GM could have declared bankruptcy months ago. Without the interference of the government and huge amounts of money (out money, remember?) spent.

Part of this is GM's fault. For being a poorly run company in the first place and for being greedy for federal (OUR) money. And part of this is our government's fault.

But the big problem is that no one is pointing the failure of the whole scheme by our government. The emperor has no clothes.