George A. Sprecace M.D.,
J.D., F.A.C.P. and Allergy Associates of New
RESPONSE (Archives)...Daily Commentary on News of the Day
This is a new section. It will
quick reactions by myself to news and events of the day, day by day, in
this rapid-fire world of ours. Of course, as in military
a rapid response in one direction may occasionally have to be followed
by a "strategic withdrawal" in another direction. Charge that to
"the fog of war", and to the necessary flexibility any mental or
campaign must maintain to be effective. But the mission will
be the same: common sense, based upon facts and "real politick",
by a visceral sense of Justice and a commitment to be pro-active.
That's all I promise.
to return to the current Rapid Response list
MONDAY through WEDNESDAY, March 29
through 31, 2010
Some more headaches for Republicans from their "Conservative
Base". Conservatives by themselves cannot win elections for
Republicans; they can only lose them. There is only one issue on
which they must be...and can get away with being...totally of one mind
and position: anti-abortion. On all others, they must develop
more nuanced thinking and positions: Immigration; Health Care Reform;
taxation; total free enterprise in Business vs some necessary
government regulation (in the obvious absence of self-regulation);
necessary State and Federal roles in governance...all of this in a
pluralistic society that values freedom as well as a functioning
society and that fortunately remains middle-of-the-road in its
This is our mission as Republicans - if we choose to accept it. GS
hopes repeal-the-bill fire won't burn them
WASHINGTON – Top Republicans are starting
to worry about their health care rallying cry "Repeal the bill." It
just might singe GOP candidates in November's elections, they fear, if
voters begin to see benefits from the new law.
Democrats, hoping the GOP is indeed
positioning itself too far to the right for the elections, are taking
note of every Republican who pledges to fight for repeal. Such a pledge
might work well in conservative-dominated Republican primaries, they
say, but it could backfire in the fall when more moderate voters turn
At least one Republican Senate candidate,
Mark Kirk of
Illinois, has eased back from his earlier, adamant repeal-the-law
stance. And the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which fiercely opposed President Barack Obama's
health legislation, now
urges opponents to pursue a "more effective approach" of trying to
"minimize its harmful impacts."
For Republicans, urging a full repeal of
the law will energize conservative activists whose turnout is crucial
this year. But it also carries risks, say strategists in both parties.
Repeal is politically and legally
unlikely, and some grass-roots activists may feel disillusioned by a
"It's just not going to happen," Sen. Bob Corker,
R-Tenn., said of repeal in a speech Wednesday. "It's a great political
issue," he said, but opponents will never muster the 67 votes needed in
the 100-member Senate.
Over the next few months, Democrats say,
Americans will learn of the new law's benefits, and anger over its
messy legislative pedigree may fade.
Republican leaders are moving cautiously,
wary of angering their hard-right base. In recent public comments, they
have quietly played down the notion of repealing the law while
emphasizing claims that it will hurt jobs, the economy and the deficit.
Sen. John Cornyn of
Texas, who chairs the committee responsible for electing GOP senators
this fall, said in an interview, "The focus really should be on the
misplaced priorities of the administration" and Congress' Democratic
Asked if he advises Republican Senate
candidates to call for repealing the law, Cornyn said: "Candidates are
going to test the winds in their own states. ... In some places, the health care bill is
more popular than others."
Three weeks ago, Cornyn told reporters he
thought GOP Senate candidates would and should run on a platform of
repealing the legislation.
Cornyn and others increasingly are
focused on several corporations' claims that a provision of the new law
that cancels a tax benefit will hurt profits and hiring. This approach
places a greater premium on pivoting to the economy instead of dwelling
on the legalistic process of trying to repeal the complex law.
"The health care debate provides a natural
segue into talking about the economy and jobs," said Nicklaus Simpson,
spokesman for the Senate Republican Conference, a policy group.
Obama said last week he would relish a
Republican bid to repeal the new law.
"My attitude is, go for it," Obama said
in Iowa on Friday. "If
these congressmen in Washington want to come here in Iowa and tell
small-business owners that they plan to take away their tax credits and
essentially raise their taxes, be my guest."
Sen. Robert Menendez of
New Jersey, who
chairs the Democratic
Senatorial Campaign Committee, said his team began pressing
Republican candidates months ago to state whether they support repeal
of the health care
legislation. Most of them have, and Democrats plan to use it
against them this fall.
"You never want to wage a campaign
telling voters you want to take something away from them," Menendez
In Illinois, where there's a spirited
battle to fill the Senate seat Obama once held, Kirk recently said he
would "lead the effort" to repeal the measure. But on Tuesday, when
asked repeatedly by reporters whether he still wants it repealed, Kirk
would say only that he opposes the new taxes and Medicare cuts
associated with the law.
In Delaware, Rep. Mike Castle is one of
the few top Republican Senate candidates who has declined to pledge to
fight for the health law's repeal. Christine O'Donnell has made it
central to her underdog bid to deny him the GOP nomination.
"We must repeal this health bill horror,"
she said in a statement, assailing Castle's "cynical refusal to fight"
for that cause.
The conservative Club for Growth is on her
side. It launched a "Repeal It" campaign in January, and is urging
supporters to back only those candidates who make the pledge.
Menendez said candidates seeking the GOP
nominations in many states "are facing tremendous pressure from the tea
party, from the party base" to embrace a position that could hurt them
when more independent and moderate voters turn out in the general
He said Democrats will ask these GOP
opponents why they want to restore insurance companies' ability to deny
coverage to people with medical problems and to young adults who
otherwise can stay on their parents' health plans until age 26.
Brian Walsh, spokesman for the National Republican
Senatorial Committee, doesn't think Menendez's plan will work.
"If Democrats genuinely believe this is a
winning political issue for them in November," Walsh said, "it's
obvious they haven't learned a thing from their losses in New Jersey,
Virginia and Massachusetts."
Those losses — in two governors' races
and a special Senate race — occurred before the health bill became law,
and Democrats predict a dramatically different landscape by November.
Unsavory dealmaking and arm-twisting, which Democratic congressional
leaders used to pass the measure without a single GOP vote, will soon
be forgotten, these strategists say.
The GOP candidates who have embraced
repeal-the-bill pledges all over the country are counting on them to be
Associated Press writer Erik Schelzig in
Nashville contributed to this report.
SUNDAY, March 28, 2010
irony of this article appearing in the English edition of Pravda
(Russian newspaper) defies description. Why can a Russian
newspaper print the following yet the American media can't/won't see it?
American Capitalism Gone With
must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American
descent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the
back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant
True, the situation has been well
prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty
years... The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia
and a bloody test it was.. But we Russians would not just roll over and
give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall
Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.
Those lessons were taken and used to
properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their
freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.
First, the population was dumbed down
through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop
culture, rather than the classics. Americans know more about their
favorite TV dramas than the drama in DC that directly affects their
lives.. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds
burger or a Burger King burger than for their constitutional rights.
Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our
"democracy". Pride blind the foolish.
Then their faith in God was destroyed,
until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and
denominations" were for the most part little more than Sunday circuses
and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more
than happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning"
side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another.. Their flocks may
complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side,
their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly
power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously
liberalized in America ..
The final collapse has come with the
election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has
been truly impressive.. His spending and money printing has been
a record setting, not just in America 's short history but in the
world. If this keeps up for more than another year, and there is
no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Weimar
Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.
These past two weeks have been the
most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a
planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very
thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, losses, and swindles of
hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs
look little more than ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes,
the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes.
Should we congratulate them?
These men, of course, are not an
elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial
oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on
trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They
are also usurping the rights, duties, and powers of the American
congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more
than a whimper to their masters.
Then came Barack Obama's command that
GM's (General Motors) president step down from leadership of his
company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of "pure" free
markets, the American president now has the power, the self-given
power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private
companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion
commands his minions.
So it should be no surprise, that the
American president has followed this up with a "bold" move of declaring
that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now
redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee
of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they
would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too.
Prime Minister Putin, less than two months ago, warned Obama and
UK's Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to
disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this
Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken
Russians, so let our "wise" Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of
their own pride.
Again, the American public has taken
this with barely a whimper...but a "free man" whimper.
So, should it be any surprise to
discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is
working on passing a new regulation that would give the American
Treasury department the power to set "fair" maximum salaries, evaluate
performance, and control how private companies give out pay raises and
bonuses? Senator Barney Frank, a social pervert is not only
not a looked down upon life choice, in his Marxist enlightenment, has
led this effort.. He stresses that this only affects companies
that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a
logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has
ever received a tax break or incentive.
The Russian owners of American
companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the
option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red
as fast as possible.. In other words, divest while there is still value
The proud American will go down into
his slavery without a fight, beating his chest, and proclaiming to the
world, how free he really is.. The world will only snicker.
Stanislav MishinA(C) 1999-2009.
SATURDAY, March 27, 2010
sums up the health care bill
Let me get
this straight. We're going to be gifted with a health care
plan written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it,
to be signed by a president who also hasn't read it and who smokes, with
funding administered by
a treasury chief who didn't pay his
taxes, to be overseen by a surgeon
general who is obese,
by a country that's broke.
the hell could possibly
FRIDAY, March 26, 2010
THE HEALTH CARE "REFORM" BILL
Having a published track record on this subject going back to 1978, I
keep getting asked my opinion . So, here's an Executive Summary.
- Our health care system has needed reform since the 1970's.
- Previous efforts, and certainly the current effort, have
studiously avoided the real problems and merely addressed constituent
pay-back and "pay-forward".
- Please see my previous productions on this web-site, under
"Health Law" and "Managed Care" Categories. In addition, check
out the following reasons why the current Bill / Law is absolutely the
wrong response to our needs:
The Articulate, Arrogant and Asinine
Democrats have pushed through major legislation with no regard for the
will of the majority of the people - or even of Due Process. And
they now wonder at the anger that approach has engendered. In no way can violence or threats
of physical harm be condoned.
However, although free speech does not include "the right to cry 'Fire'
in a crowded theater", what happens when a fire has indeed been
started in that theater...in this case by the Democrats
- Reasons # 1 through 10: WE
CANNOT AFFORD IT!;
- Reasons # 11 through ...:What needs to be corrected is ignored:
a) meaningful Tort Reform, the direct cause of "Defensive Medicine,
which accounts for over 25% of all health care costs; b) discouraging
unhealthy life-styles with a major increase in "sin taxes" on tobacco,
alcohol, soft drinks....; c) promoting the use of Advanced Directives
by all adults; d) establishing priority guidelines for health care
delivery through broad public discussion - rational rationing; e)
requiring all patients to have significant personal financial exposure
for their health care decisions; and
CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?
SUNDAY through THURSDAY, March 22
through 25, 2010
ZENIT, The world seen from Rome
Archbishop Decries Deeply Flawed Health Bill
Denounces Catholic Groups That Opposed Bishops
DENVER, MARCH 24, 2010 (Zenit.org).- The archbishop of Denver is
expressing disappointment regarding the health care legislation moving
through Congress, and the so-called Catholic groups that are supporting
it in opposition to the U.S. bishops.
Archbishop Charles Chaput stated this in a column, titled "A Bad Bill
and How We Got it," written for publication today in the Denver
"As current federal health-care legislation moves forward toward law,
we need to draw several lessons from events of the last weeks and
months," he pointed out.
"The bill passed by the House on March 21 is a failure of decent
lawmaking," the prelate asserted. "It remains unethical and defective
on all of the issues pressed by the U.S. bishops and prolife groups for
the past seven months."
He added that "the Executive Order promised by the White House to ban
the use of federal funds for abortion does not solve the many problems
with the bill, which is why the bishops did not -- and still do not see
it as a real solution."
U.S. President Barack Obama promised to issue an Executive Order today
that would affirm existing law prohibiting federal funding of
abortions, a deal which some have claimed was simply a negotiation
technique to gain more votes for the health care bill.
The archbishop also pointed out that "Executive Orders can be rescinded
or reinterpreted at any time."
"Some current congressional leaders have already shown a pattern of
evasion, ill will and obstinacy on the moral issues involved in this
legislation, and the track record of the White House in keeping its
promises regarding abortion-related issues does not inspire
confidence," he added.
"The fact that congressional leaders granted this one modest and
inadequate concession only at the last moment, and only to force the
passage of this deeply flawed bill, should give no one comfort,"
Archbishop Chaput stated.
He asserted that "the combination of pressure and disinformation used
to break the prolife witness on this bill among Democratic members of
Congress -- despite the strong resistance to this legislation that
continues among American voters -- should put an end to any talk by
Washington leaders about serving the common good or seeking common
"At many points over the past seven months," the prelate affirmed,
"congressional leaders could have resolved the serious moral issues
inherent in this legislation."
"They did not," he stated. "No shower of reassuring words now can wash
away that fact."
The archbishop stated that in this matter "self-described 'Catholic'
groups have done a serious disservice to justice, to the Church, and to
the ethical needs of the American people by undercutting the leadership
and witness of their own bishops."
He continued: "For groups like Catholics United, this is unsurprising.
In their effect, if not in formal intent, such groups exist to advance
the interests of a particular political spectrum.
"Nor is it newsworthy from an organization like Network, which --
whatever the nature of its good work -- has rarely shown much
enthusiasm for a definition of 'social justice' that includes the
rights of the unborn child."
"But the actions of the Catholic Health Association (CHA) in providing
a deliberate public counter-message to the bishops were both surprising
and profoundly disappointing; and also genuinely damaging," Archbishop
He explained: "In the crucial final days of debate on health-care
legislation, CHA lobbyists worked directly against the efforts of the
American bishops in their approach to members of Congress.
"The bad law we now likely face, we owe in part to the efforts of the
Catholic Health Association and similar 'Catholic' organizations."
The prelate acknowledged the "many thousands of ordinary, faithful
Catholics, from both political parties," who "have worked hard over the
past seven months to advance sensible, legitimate health-care reform."
"If that effort seems to have failed, faithful Catholics don't bear the
blame," he said. "That responsibility lies elsewhere."
The archbishop expressed gratitude to everyone "who has worked so hard
on this issue out of love for God's people and fidelity to their
Catholic faith," affirming that no matter what happens, "that kind of
effort is never wasted."
SATURDAY, March 21, 2010
The Clergy Child Abuse Disaster.
Although I am a product of 12 years of Catholic school
education...until I intentionally attended New York University, then a
hotbed of Agnosticism and Atheism, I was totally surprised when this
story began coming out. I had neither heard of nor witnessed
anything of the kind. As a result, I was both saddened and
enraged by not only the actions of priests but especially the
irresponsibility of their superiors...the Bishops with whom I thought I
had a good relationship. Then came the "assignment" of Boston
Cardinal Bernard Law to Rome, or rather an exile as I like to think of
it. His departure was preceded by a solemn religious send-off at St.
Patrick's Cathedral in Norwich, Ct, attended by over 50 Bishops from as
far away as Washington, DC. It rivaled the coronation of
Charlemagne in the Middle Ages...and was scandalous so far as I was
I have already expressed myself on these matters in the Catholic Church section of this
web site. But now comes "the rest of the story": the Irish and
European experiences, clearly involving the Vatican and even
then-Cardinal Ratzinger in the decades of cover-up. Not even
Mario Puzo could have made this up. One must go back to
earlier centuries, as documented by Paul Johnson in his book "A History of Christianity" (Simon
and Schuster, 1976) to find anything comparable in Church
What is needed now is not the bloviating found in multiple articles on Zenit: The World From Rome
(www.zenit.org), or even the political "mistakes were made" comments of
the Pope in his letter to the Irish Bishops. What is needed now
is a complete exposition and a personal apology from the Pope
himself...who now as Pope must strive to be "infallible in matters of
Faith and Morals"...of which this is one. Only then would most of
the Faithful be able to forgive, in accordance with today's Gospel
about Jesus and the adultress.
TUESDAY through FRIDAY, March 16
through 20, 2010
I couldn't resist.... GS
The liberals are asking us to give
Obama more time. We agree . . . and think 25 to life would be
appropriate. - Leno
America needs Obama-Care like Nancy Pelosi needs a Halloween mask. -
Q: Have you heard about McDonald's' new Obama Value Meal?
A: Order anything you like and the guy behind you has to pay for it. -
Q: What does Barack Obama call lunch with a convicted felon?
A: A fund raiser. - Leno
Q: What's the difference between Obama's cabinet and a penitentiary?
A: One is filled with tax evaders, blackmailers and threats to society.
The other is for housing prisoners. - Letterman
Q: If Nancy Pelosi and Obama were on a boat in the middle of the ocean
and it started to sink, who would be saved?
A: America! - Fallon
Q: What's the difference between Obama and his dog, Bo?
A: Bo has papers. - Kimmel
Q: What was the most positive result of the "Cash for clunkers" program?
A: It took 95% of the Obama bumper stickers off the road. -
MONDAY, March 15, 2010
Are we just more informed, or is this the worst Federal government
Ten more reasons to vote everyone out. -
Most Corrupt Politicians. Republicans garnered only one spot on this
top 10 list. Obviously, we must work harder at being corrupt.
Announces List of Washington's "Ten Most Wanted
Corrupt Politicians" for 2009
Press Office 202-646-5172, ext 305
Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes
government corruption, today released its 2009 list of Washington's
"Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians." The list, in alphabetical order,
Christopher Dodd (D-CT): This marks two
years in a row for Senator Dodd, who made the 2008 "Ten Most Corrupt"
list for his corrupt relationship with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and
for accepting preferential treatment and loan terms from Countrywide Financial, a scandal
which still dogs him. In 2009, the scandals kept coming for the
Connecticut Democrat. In 2009, Judicial Watch filed a Senate ethics complaint against
Dodd for undervaluing a property he owns in Ireland on his Senate
Financial Disclosure forms. Judicial Watch's complaint forced Dodd to
amend the forms. However, press reports suggest the property to this
day remains undervalued. Judicial Watch also alleges in the complaint
that Dodd obtained a sweetheart deal for the property in exchange for
his assistance in obtaining a presidential pardon (during the Clinton
administration) and other favors for a long-time friend and business
associate. The false financial disclosure forms were part of the
cover-up. Dodd remains the head the Senate Banking Committee.
- Senator John
Ensign (R-NV): A number of
scandals popped up in 2009 involving public officials who conducted
illicit affairs, and then attempted to cover them up with hush payments
and favors, an obvious abuse of power. The year's worst offender might
just be Nevada Republican Senator John Ensign. Ensign admitted in June
to an extramarital affair with the wife of one of his staff members,
who then allegedly obtained special favors from the Nevada Republican
in exchange for his silence. According to The New York Times:
"The Justice Department and the Senate Ethics Committee are expected to
conduct preliminary inquiries into whether Senator John Ensign violated
federal law or ethics rules as part of an effort to conceal an affair
with the wife of an aide…" The former staffer, Douglas Hampton, began
to lobby Mr. Ensign's office immediately upon leaving his congressional
job, despite the fact that he was subject to a one-year lobbying ban.
Ensign seems to have ignored the law and allowed Hampton lobbying
access to his office as a payment for his silence about the affair.
(These are potentially criminal offenses.) It looks as if Ensign
misused his public office (and taxpayer resources) to cover up his
- Rep. Barney Frank
(D-MA): Judicial Watch is
investigating a $12 million TARP cash injection
provided to the Boston-based One United Bank at the urging of
Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank. As reported in the January 22, 2009,
edition of the Wall Street Journal, the Treasury Department indicated
it would only provide funds to healthy banks to jump-start lending. Not
only was One United Bank in massive financial turmoil, but it was also
"under attack from its regulators for allegations of poor lending
practices and executive-pay abuses, including owning a Porsche for its
executives' use." Rep. Frank admitted he spoke to a "federal
regulator," and Treasury granted the funds. (The bank continues to
flounder despite Frank's intervention for federal dollars.) Moreover,
Judicial Watch uncovered documents in 2009 that
showed that members of Congress for years were aware that Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac were playing fast and loose with accounting issues,
risk assessment issues and executive compensation issues, even as
liberals led by Rep. Frank continued to block attempts to rein in the
two Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs). For example, during a hearing on September 10,
2003, before the House Committee on Financial Services considering a
Bush administration proposal to further regulate Fannie and Freddie,
Rep. Frank stated: "I want to begin by saying that I am glad to
consider the legislation, but I do not think we are facing any kind of
a crisis. That is, in my view, the two Government Sponsored Enterprises
we are talking about here, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a
crisis. We have recently had an accounting problem with Freddie Mac
that has led to people being dismissed, as appears to be appropriate. I
do not think at this point there is a problem with a threat to the
Treasury." Frank received $42,350 in campaign contributions from Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac between 1989 and 2008. Frank also engaged in a relationship with a
Fannie Mae Executive while serving on the House Banking Committee,
which has jurisdiction over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
- Secretary of
Treasury Timothy Geithner: In 2009, Obama
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner admitted that he failed to pay $34,000 in Social
Security and Medicare taxes from 2001-2004 on his lucrative salary at
the International Monetary Fund (IMF), an organization with 185 member
countries that oversees the global financial system. (Did we mention
Geithner now runs the IRS?) It wasn't until President Obama tapped
Geithner to head the Treasury Department that he paid back most of the
money, although the IRS kindly waived the hefty penalties. In March
2009, Geithner also came under fire for his handling of the AIG bonus
scandal, where the company used $165 million of its bailout funds to
pay out executive bonuses, resulting in a massive public backlash. Of
course as head of the New York Federal Reserve, Geithner helped craft
the AIG deal in September 2008. However, when the AIG scandal broke,
Geithner claimed he knew nothing of the bonuses until March 10, 2009.
The timing is important. According to CNN: "Although
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told congressional leaders on
Tuesday that he learned of AIG's impending $160 million bonus payments
to members of its troubled financial-products unit on March 10, sources
tell TIME that the New York Federal Reserve informed Treasury staff
that the payments were imminent on Feb. 28. That is ten days before
Treasury staffers say they first learned 'full details' of the bonus
plan, and three days before the [Obama] Administration launched a new
$30 billion infusion of cash for AIG." Throw in another embarrassing
disclosure in 2009 that Geithner employed "household help" ineligible
to work in the United States, and it becomes clear why the Treasury
Secretary has earned a spot on the "Ten Most Corrupt Politicians in
- Attorney General
Eric Holder: Tim Geithner can
be sure he won't be hounded about his tax-dodging by his colleague Eric
Holder, US Attorney General. Judicial Watch strongly opposed Holder because of
his terrible ethics record, which includes: obstructing an FBI
investigation of the theft of nuclear secrets from Los Alamos Nuclear
Laboratory; rejecting multiple requests for an independent counsel to
investigate alleged fundraising abuses by then-Vice President Al Gore
in the Clinton White House; undermining the criminal investigation of
President Clinton by Kenneth Starr in the midst of the Lewinsky
investigation; and planning the violent raid to seize then-six-year-old
Elian Gonzalez at gunpoint in order to return him to Castro's Cuba.
Moreover, there is his soft record on terrorism. Holder bypassed
Justice Department procedures to push through Bill Clinton's scandalous
presidential pardons and commutations, including for 16 members of
FALN, a violent Puerto Rican terrorist group that orchestrated
approximately 120 bombings in the United States, killing at least six
people and permanently maiming dozens of others, including law
enforcement officers. His record in the current administration is no
better. As he did during the Clinton administration, Holder continues
to ignore serious incidents of corruption that could impact his
political bosses at the White House. For example, Holder has refused to
investigate charges that the Obama political machine traded VIP access to the White House in
exchange for campaign contributions – a scheme eerily similar to one
hatched by Holder's former boss, Bill Clinton in the 1990s. The Holder
Justice Department also came under fire for dropping a voter
intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party. On
Election Day 2008, Black Panthers dressed in paramilitary garb
threatened voters as they approached polling stations. Holder has also
failed to initiate a comprehensive Justice investigation of the
notorious organization ACORN (Association of Community Organizations
for Reform Now), which is closely tied to President Obama. There were
allegedly more than 400,000 fraudulent ACORN voter registrations in the
2008 campaign. And then there were the journalist videos catching ACORN
Housing workers advising undercover reporters on how to evade tax,
immigration, and child prostitution laws. Holder's controversial
decisions on new rights for terrorists and his attacks on previous
efforts to combat terrorism remind many of the fact that his former law
firm has provided and continues to provide pro bono representation to
terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. Holder's politicization of the Justice
Department makes one long for the days of Alberto Gonzales.
- Rep. Jesse
Jackson, Jr. (D-IL)/ Senator Roland Burris (D-IL): One of the most
serious scandals of 2009 involved a scheme by former Illinois Governor
Rod Blagojevich to sell President Obama's then-vacant Senate seat to
the highest bidder. Two men caught smack dab in the middle of the
scandal: Senator Roland Burris, who ultimately got the job, and Rep.
Jesse Jackson, Jr. According to the Chicago Sun-Times,
emissaries for Jesse Jackson Jr., named "Senate Candidate A" in the
Blagojevich indictment, reportedly offered $1.5 million to Blagojevich
during a fundraiser if he named Jackson Jr. to Obama's seat. Three days
later federal authorities arrested Blagojevich. Burris, for his part,
apparently lied about his contacts with Blagojevich, who was arrested
in December 2008 for trying to sell Obama's Senate seat. According to Reuters: "Roland Burris
came under fresh scrutiny…after disclosing he tried to raise money for
the disgraced former Illinois governor who named him to the U.S. Senate
seat once held by President Barack Obama…In the latest of those
admissions, Burris said he looked into mounting a fundraiser for Rod
Blagojevich -- later charged with trying to sell Obama's Senate seat --
at the same time he was expressing interest to the then-governor's
aides about his desire to be appointed." Burris changed his story five
times regarding his contacts with Blagojevich prior to the Illinois
governor appointing him to the U.S. Senate. Three of those changing
explanations came under oath.
- President Barack
Obama: During his
presidential campaign, President Obama promised to run an ethical and
transparent administration. However, in his first year in office, the
President has delivered corruption and secrecy, bringing Chicago-style
political corruption to the White House. Consider just a few Obama
administration "lowlights" from year one: Even before President Obama
was sworn into office, he was interviewed by the FBI for a criminal
investigation of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's scheme to
sell the President's former Senate seat to the highest bidder. (Obama's
Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and slumlord Valerie Jarrett, both from
Chicago, are also tangled up in the Blagojevich scandal.) Moreover, the
Obama administration made the startling claim that the Privacy Act does not apply to the
White House. The
Obama White House believes it can violate the privacy rights of
American citizens without any legal consequences or accountability. President
Obama boldly proclaimed that "transparency and the rule of law will be
the touchstones of this presidency," but his administration is addicted
to secrecy, stonewalling far too many of Judicial Watch's Freedom of Information Act requests and is
refusing to make public White House visitor logs as federal law
requires. The Obama administration turned the National Endowment of the
Arts (as well as the agency that runs the AmeriCorps program) into propaganda machines, using tax
dollars to persuade "artists" to promote the Obama agenda. According to
documents uncovered by Judicial Watch, the idea emerged as a direct result of the
Obama campaign and enjoyed White House approval and participation.
President Obama has installed a record number of "czars" in positions
of power. Too many of these individuals are leftist radicals who answer to no
one but the president. And too many of the czars are not subject to
Senate confirmation (which raises serious constitutional questions).
Under the President's bailout schemes, the federal government continues
to appropriate or control -- through fiat and threats -- large sectors
of the private economy, prompting conservative columnist George Will to
write: "The administration's central activity -- the political
allocation of wealth and opportunity -- is not merely susceptible to
corruption, it is corruption." Government-run healthcare and car
companies, White House coercion, uninvestigated ACORN corruption,
debasing his office to help Chicago cronies, attacks on conservative
media and the private sector, unprecedented and dangerous new rights
for terrorists, perks for campaign donors – this is Obama's "ethics"
record -- and we haven't even gotten through the first year of his
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi
(D-CA): At the heart of
the corruption problem in Washington is a sense of entitlement.
Politicians believe laws and rules (even the U.S. Constitution) apply
to the rest of us but not to them. Case in point: House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi and her excessive and boorish demands for military
travel. Judicial Watch obtained documents from the Pentagon in 2008
that suggest Pelosi has been treating the Air Force like her own
personal airline. These documents, obtained through the Freedom of
Information Act, include internal Pentagon email correspondence
detailing attempts by Pentagon staff to accommodate Pelosi's numerous
requests for military escorts and military aircraft as well as the
speaker's 11th hour cancellations and changes. House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi also came under fire in April 2009, when she claimed she was
never briefed about the CIA's use of the waterboarding technique during
terrorism investigations. The CIA produced a report documenting a
briefing with Pelosi on September 4, 2002, that suggests otherwise.
Judicial Watch also obtained documents, including a CIA Inspector General report, which
further confirmed that Congress was fully briefed on the enhanced
interrogation techniques. Aside from her own personal transgressions,
Nancy Pelosi has ignored serious incidents of corruption within her own
party, including many of the individuals on this list. (See Rangel,
Murtha, Jesse Jackson, Jr., etc.)
- Rep. John Murtha
(D-PA) and the rest of the PMA Seven: Rep. John Murtha
made headlines in 2009 for all the wrong reasons. The Pennsylvania
congressman is under federal investigation for his corrupt relationship
with the now-defunct defense lobbyist PMA Group. PMA, founded by a
former Murtha associate, has been the congressman's largest campaign
contributor. Since 2002, Murtha has raised $1.7 million from PMA and
its clients. And what did PMA and its clients receive from Murtha in
return for their generosity? Earmarks -- tens of millions of dollars in
earmarks. In fact, even with all of the attention surrounding his
alleged influence peddling, Murtha kept at it. Following an FBI raid of
PMA's offices earlier in 2009, Murtha continued to seek congressional
earmarks for PMA clients, while also hitting them up for campaign
contributions. According to The Hill, in April,
"Murtha reported receiving contributions from three former PMA clients
for whom he requested earmarks in the pending appropriations bills."
When it comes to the PMA scandal, Murtha is not alone. As many as six
other Members of Congress are currently under scrutiny according to The Washington Post.
They include: Peter J. Visclosky (D-IN.), James P. Moran Jr. (D-VA),
Norm Dicks (D-WA.), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), C.W. Bill Young (R-FL.) and
Todd Tiahrt (R-KS.). Of course rather than investigate this serious
scandal, according to Roll Call House Democrats circled the
wagons, "cobbling together a defense to offer political cover to their
rank and file." The Washington Post also reported in 2009 that Murtha's
nephew received $4 million in Defense Department no-bid contracts: "Newly obtained
documents…show Robert Murtha mentioning his influential family
connection as leverage in his business dealings and holding unusual
power with the military."
- Rep. Charles
Rangel (D-NY): Rangel, the man
in charge of writing tax policy for the entire country, has yet to
adequately explain how he could possibly "forget" to pay taxes on $75,000 in
rental income he earned from his off-shore rental property. He also
faces allegations that he improperly used his influence to maintain
ownership of highly coveted rent-controlled apartments in Harlem, and
misused his congressional office to fundraise for his private Rangel
Center by preserving a tax loophole for an oil drilling company in
exchange for funding. On top of all that, Rangel recently amended his
financial disclosure reports, which doubled his reported wealth. (He
somehow "forgot" about $1 million in assets.) And what did he do when
the House Ethics Committee started looking into all of this? He
apparently resorted to making "campaign contributions" to dig his way
out of trouble. According to WCBS TV, a New York CBS affiliate:
"The reigning member of Congress' top tax committee is apparently
'wrangling' other politicos to get him out of his own financial and tax
troubles...Since ethics probes began last year the 79-year-old
congressman has given campaign donations to 119 members of Congress,
including three of the five Democrats on the House Ethics Committee who
are charged with investigating him." Charlie Rangel should not be
allowed to remain in Congress, let alone serve as Chairman of the
powerful House Ways and Means Committee, and he knows it. That's why he
felt the need to disburse campaign contributions to Ethics Committee
members and other congressional colleagues.
SUNDAY, March 14, 2010
Amazing...but maybe not. "Those
who can, do. Those who can't, teach"...or pontificate.
What Percentage of each President's
Cabinet appointees have previously worked in the private sector.
It keeps getting better!
CHANGE IS GOOD?
Did you happen to catch this particular Glenn Beck show a couple weeks
He put up a graph up that showed past presidents and the percentage of
president's cabinet appointees who had previously worked in the private
sector. You know a real life business, not a government job?
that is? A private business?
* T. Roosevelt - 38%*
*Taft - 40%*
* Wilson - 52%*
*Harding - 49%*
*Coolidge - 48%*
* Hoover - 42%*
*FDR - 50%*
*Truman - 50%*
*Eisenhower - 57%*
*Kennedy - 30%*
*LBJ - 47%*
*Nixon - 53%*
*Ford - 42%*
*Carter - 32%*
*Reagan - 56%*
*GHWB - 51%*
* Clinton - 39%*
*GWB - 55%*
*And the Winner is..........................*
*BHObama - 8%*
*YEP, EIGHT PERCENT! And these are the guys holding a "job
summit" this week?
This ought to go really well! I'm 'gonna go out on a limb here, I know,
but I'm 'gonna go ahead and predict. . . WE'RE in BIG trouble here!
SATURDAY, March 13, 2010
A "strict constructionist" would argue that the Founders provided for
their own health care and did not envision or arrange for such services
being provided by the government. They they passed Amendment X of
the Constitution, regarding reservation to the States...something they
were really interested in. Finally, anything is "arguable".
Lawyers are professionally bound to take care of that in our Common Law
- adversarial system. That would include "...the General
In my opinion, personal health care is a personal right and personal
responsibility...and not a general entitlement from the
government. Given what the government does to everything it
touches, the "penumbra of Privacy"
discovered by the majority in Roe v Wade would be much better suited to
my argument than to its tortured life regarding the abortion of human
The "General Welfare Definition" argument would first have to be
made in front of the Supreme Court since they are the only branch of
the Federal Government that is authorized to interpret the
The U.S. Supreme Court has not often defined "general
welfare," leaving the political
question to Congress. In United
States v. Butler (1936), the Court for the first
time construed the clause. The dispute centered on a tax collected from
processors of agricultural products such as meat; the funds raised by
the tax were not paid into the general funds of the treasury, but were
rather specially earmarked for farmers. The Court struck down the tax,
ruling that the general welfare language in the Taxing and Spending
Clause related only to "matters of national, as distinguished from
local, welfare". Congress continues to make expansive use of the Taxing
and Spending Clause; for instance, the social
security program is authorized under the Taxing and
So, as with most political issues, it boils down to
interpretation, timing, popularity, and party dominance. The
Social Security Act, as originally written, drew ONE percent of
workers' paychecks, to be gradually raised to 3% over the next 12
years. This tells me that it was supposed to be a supplemental source
of support for retirees, not (in spite of the 620% increase in
withholding since its inception) as the sole source of a retiree's
income, as many people--mostly in the Democratic Party--would have you
believe. Over the decades, the citizens of this country have
allowed, or slept their way through, a process whereby
government continues to creep further and further
into their lives.
The point here is that, as it relates to the possibility of
nationalized healthcare, there is no doubt that the Social Security
system has been abused, mismanaged, and robbed to the tune of
billions of dollars. Add at least three zeros to that level of
abuse if, God forbid, Congress or the Supreme Court agree that "general
welfare" includes nationalized healthcare. I shudder at the
Here's a legal challenge for you: if nationalized healthcare
is determined to be legal under the Tax and Spending Clause,
what rational argument would one have for opposing the
Federal Government (as they HAVE done with Social Security and they
WILL do with healthcare) wildly expanding the powers of the FDA to ban
any food that they deem (for whatever political reasons they choose, or
are paid by lobbyists to specify) as not promoting the "general
welfare"? This slope is much too slippery to throw something as
influencial as nationalized healthcare onto it.
I have seen these intrusions attempted and, in many cases
enacted, every year at the local and state level in
California since I arrived here in 1988. That is more than enough
time to confirm that this behavior among politicians here (and in a
growing number of states) is an obsessive compulsion. As
they are allowed more power, they will attempt more power. And,
remember what the wise man said: "As California goes, so goes the rest
of the country."
It is bad enough that individual citizens must spend an
ever-increasing amount of time, energy, and money beating back the
attempts of government to intercede in an ever-increasing number of
aspects of their lives. Must we be like lambs to
the slaughter and allow (more accurately, actually PAY) the government
to define and control what is arguably the single most important and
life-altering (if not life-threatening) aspect of our lives? -Perrin
I’m certainly not for nationalized health care, but couldn’t someone
make the argument that Congress does have the power to do this since
the Constitution says in Article I Sec. 8, “The Congress shall have
Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the
Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United
States” Couldn’t nationalized health care be considered general
welfare? - Adam
My Message: VOTE OUT OF OFFICE
EVERY STATE AND FEDERAL OFFICE-HOLDER, REGARDLESS OF POLITICAL
AFFILIATION, AT THE NEXT TWO ELECTION CYCLES. A MESSAGE MUST MUST
BE SENT AND RECEIVED ABOUT "WE THE PEOPLE". GS
If you don’t listen to anything else,
listen to this speech. It is very important!
This is truly frightening and REPEAT; IT IS NOT POLITICAL
Please listen to every minute of this video and then pass it on.
It must be viewed by as many freedom loving Americans, as
possible. Thank you.
Andrew P. Napolitano is a 59 year old former New Jersey Superior Court
Judge. He is a graduate of Princeton University ,
and Notre Dame Law School .
At Princeton he was a founding member of the Concerned Alumni of
Princeton along with Justice Samuel Alito.
Judge Napolitano is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in
the history of the State of New Jersey .
Click below and listen to Judge Napolitano's important message to all
FRIDAY, March 12, 2010
Time for another installment of "Around The
World In 80 Opinions", + or -.
hear me now?
- Pakistan. Their
military seems of late to be cooperating with the U.S. in attacking the
Taliban. But they and we distrust each other...with good reason
given the history of the last 25 years. That's OK, for now.
- Afghanistan. The
recent American military campaign was wrong-headed, in my
opinion. Instead of marching our fighting men through long areas
of flat and open opium fields in direct view of Taliban guns and then
into difficult street-to-street fighting, we should have set the fields
afire, thereby drawing the enemy out to protect those fields and out of
their rabbit warrens where they were using ordinary Afghans as human
shields. Then finish destroying all opium production and
immediately provide the local farmers with al the means necessary to
farm different crops. I've said this before; but it seems that
General McChrystal was not listening.
- Iran. The Obama
administration may evidently be willing to live with a nuclear
Iran. But Israel is not. A serious miscalculation here,
which may well set the entire Middle East tinderbox on fire. "You're doing a heck of a job, Barack".
- Israel. Why am I not at all
surprised by the substance and timing of the recent
news about settlement expansions? Israel is
committed, as a Theocracy, to keeping the "Israel of the Bible",
complete with all of Jerusalem in perpetuity...as promised to them by
God. To achieve this, they have to maintain the total guarantee
of protection and absence of meddling by America. To achieve
that, they have to maintain the perception - if not the actuality - of
constant danger from the surrounding Arab world through its persistent
and foolish proclamations of imminent death to Israel...a position
guaranteed by Israel's settlement expansions over the last 30
years. I shared this analysis a few days ago when I had the
opportunity to discuss the matter with the Syrian Ambassador to the
U.S. after his presentation to the Southeastern Connecticut Committee
on Foreign Relations here in New London, Ct. He seemed a little taken
aback when I assured him that...until the Arabs stop playing directly
into Israel's hands...the U.S. will defend Israel as it defends the
State of Connecticut and will also have no opportunity to exert strong
leverage on Israel's actions. I hope he got the message.
- Haiti. That
bedeviled land is the way it is because of the past and continuing
meddling of France since it was infuriated by the Haitians successful
fight for independence around 1803. Add to that the posturing of
the U.N. and the self-interest of a corrupt Haitian government...and
you have the spectacle of thousands of American troops and materiel
being prevented from effectively helping immediately upon their arrival
after the earthquake...and even to the present, as they rightly prepare
to leave the island. As frequently happens, I expressed this
observation very shortly after the disaster in this
- The EU...and the Euro. Is
this another Potemkin Village? Or is it simply the just desserts of
debilitating Socialism run amok? Citizens of America, there's a
valuable lesson to be learned here.
- The continuing Health Care
Reform debate. Reasons 1 thru 10 for scrapping the current
Bills and starting over and honestly: WE
CAN'T AFFORD IT!
THURSDAY, March 11, 2010
...and has President Obama looked any
more "Presidential" since delivering that performance? GS
and politicians should boycott the State of the Union
By George F. Will
Friday, March 12, 2010
The increasingly puerile spectacle of presidential State of the Union
addresses is indicative of the state of the union and is unnecessary:
The Constitution requires only that the president "shall from time to
time give to the Congress information of the state of the union." But a
reaction may be brewing against these embarrassing events. Speaking in
Alabama, Chief Justice John Roberts said "to the extent that" this
occasion "has degenerated into a political pep rally," he is "not sure
why we're there." He was referring to Supreme Court justices. But why
is anyone there?
Roberts was responding to a question concerning the kerfuffle about
Barack Obama's January address, wherein Obama criticized -- and
flagrantly mischaracterized -- a recent Supreme Court decision that
loosened limits on political speech. The decision neither overturned "a
century of law" nor conferred an entitlement on foreign corporations to
finance U.S. candidates. Nevertheless, the Democratic donkeys arrayed
in front of Obama leapt onto their hind legs and brayed in unison,
while the six justices who were present sat silently. Justice Samuel
Alito, in an act of lèse majesté, appeared to mutter "not
true" about Obama's untruths.
When Republican presidents deliver these addresses, Republican
legislators, too, lurch up and down like puppets on strings. And
Congress wonders why it is considered infantile.
Most of the blame for the State of the Union silliness, as for so much
else, goes to The Root of Much Mischief, a.k.a. Woodrow Wilson. But a
president whose middle name was Wilson made matters worse.
George Washington delivered his report on the state of the union in
person, as did John Adams. But the third president, Thomas Jefferson,
put his thoughts in writing and dispatched them to Congress. Such
presidential reticence is impossible to imagine in the Age of Obama,
but Jefferson disliked the sound of his voice and considered it
monarchical for the executive to stand above the legislature and
In 1913, however, Wilson, whose guiding principle was that the world
could not hear too much from him, delivered his report in person. He
thought the Founders had foolishly saddled the nation with a
Constitution of checks and balances that made government sluggish or
paralytic. Hence charismatic presidential leadership was needed to
arouse public opinion that could compel Congress to bow to the
president's will. The Founders thought statesmanship should restrain
public opinion. Wilson's watery Caesarism preached that presidents
should spur that dangerous stallion. He just knew he could control it.
He learned otherwise when trying to ratify the Versailles Treaty.
George Washington considered Congress "the first wheel of the
government, a wheel which communicates motion to all the rest." Wilson
thought the presidency was the only office able to, or even entitled
to, impart movement to the government.
Many conservatives were congressional supremacists until Ronald Wilson
Reagan arrived possessing the rhetorical skills requisite for a
Wilsonian presidency. His unfortunate filigree on the dramaturgy of
State of the Union addresses was to begin the practice of stocking the
House gallery with ordinary but exemplary people whose presence touches
the public's erogenous zones.
The prolixity that is the defining characteristic of modern presidents
blurs the distinction between campaigning and governing, and positions
the presidency at the center of the nation's consciousness. This gives
presidents delusions of omnipotence and makes Americans susceptible to
perpetual disappointment and political dyspepsia.
We could take one small step toward restoring institutional equilibrium
by thinking as Jefferson did about State of the Union addresses.
Justice Antonin Scalia has stopped going to them because justices "sit
there like bumps on a log" in the midst of the partisan posturing --
the political pep rally that Roberts described. Sis boom bah humbug.
Next year, Roberts and the rest of the justices should stay away from
the president's address. So should the uniformed military, who are out
of place in a setting of competitive political grandstanding. For that
matter, the 535 legislators should boycott these undignified events.
They would, if there were that many congressional grown-ups averse to
being props in the childishness of popping up from their seats to
cheer, or remaining sullenly seated in semi-pouts, as the politics of
the moment dictates.
In the unlikely event that Obama or any other loquacious modern
president has any thoughts about the State of the Union that he does
not pour forth in the torrential course of his relentless rhetoric, he
can mail those thoughts to Congress. The Postal Service needs the
FRIDAY through WEDNESDAY, March 5
through 10, 2010
Dissecting the Real Cost of ObamaCare
The President's own chief Medicare actuary says the Senate
and House bills are bending the cost curve up.
more in Opinion
The following are remarks made by Congressman Paul Ryan of
Wisconsin , the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, about
the cost of the House and Senate health-care bills at President Obama's
Blair House summit on health care, Feb. 25:
Look, we agree on the problem here. And the problem is
health inflation is driving us off of a fiscal cliff.
Mr. President, you said health-care reform is budget reform.
You're right. We agree with that. Medicare, right now, has a $38
trillion unfunded liability. That's $38 trillion in empty promises to
my parents' generation, our generation, our kids' generation.
Medicaid's growing at 21 percent each year. It's suffocating states'
budgets. It's adding trillions in obligations that we have no means to
pay for . . .
Now, you're right to frame the debate on cost and health
inflation. And in September, when you spoke to us in the well of the
House, you basically said—and I totally agree with this—I will not sign
a plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or in the future.
Since the Congressional Budget Office can't score your bill,
because it doesn't have sufficient detail, but it tracks very similar
to the Senate bill, I want to unpack the Senate score a little bit.
And if you take a look at the CBO analysis—analysis from
your chief actuary—I think it's very revealing. This bill does not
control costs. This bill does not reduce deficits. Instead, this bill
adds a new health-care entitlement at a time when we have no idea how
to pay for the entitlements we already have.
Now let me go through why I say that. The majority leader
said the bill scores as reducing the deficit $131 billion over the next
10 years. First, a little bit about CBO. I work with them every single
day—very good people, great professionals. They do their jobs well. But
their job is to score what is placed in front of them. And what has
been placed in front of them is a bill that is full of gimmicks and
Review and Outlook: Paul Ryan v. the President
Review and Outlook: Abuse of Power
Holman Jenkins: The President vs. Health-Care Reform
Mitch Daniels: Hoosiers and Health Savings Accounts
Now, what do I mean when I say that? Well, first off, the
bill has 10 years of tax increases, about half a trillion dollars, with
10 years of Medicare cuts, about half a trillion dollars, to pay for
six years of spending.
Now, what's the true 10-year cost of this bill in 10 years?
That's $2.3 trillion.
[The Senate bill] does [a] couple of other things. It takes
$52 billion in higher Social Security tax revenues and counts them as
offsets. But that's really reserved for Social Security. So either
we're double-counting them or we don't intend on paying those Social
It takes $72 billion and claims money from the CLASS Act.
That's the long-term care insurance program. It takes the money from
premiums that are designed for that benefit and instead counts them as
The Senate Budget Committee chairman [Kent Conrad] said that
this is a Ponzi scheme that would make Bernie Madoff proud.
Now, when you take a look at the Medicare cuts, what this
bill essentially does [is treat] Medicare like a piggy bank. It raids a
half a trillion dollars out of Medicare, not to shore up Medicare
solvency, but to spend on this new government program.
. . . [A]ccording to the chief actuary of Medicare . . . as
much as 20 percent of Medicare's providers will either go out of
business or will have to stop seeing Medicare beneficiaries. Millions
of seniors . . . who have chosen Medicare Advantage will lose the
coverage that they now enjoy.
You can't say that you're using this money to either extend
Medicare solvency and also offset the cost of this new program. That's
And so when you take a look at all of this; when you strip
out the double-counting and what I would call these gimmicks, the full
10-year cost of the bill has a $460 billion deficit. The second 10-year
cost of this bill has a $1.4 trillion deficit.
. . . [P]robably the most cynical gimmick in this bill is
something that we all probably agree on. We don't think we should cut
doctors [annual federal reimbursements] 21 percent next year. We've
stopped those cuts from occurring every year for the last seven years.
We all call this, here in Washington , the doc fix. Well,
the doc fix, according to your numbers, costs $371 billion. It was in
the first iteration of all of these bills, but because it was a big
price tag and it made the score look bad, made it look like a deficit .
. . that provision was taken out, and it's been going on in stand-alone
legislation. But ignoring these costs does not remove them from the
backs of taxpayers. Hiding spending does not reduce spending. And so
when you take a look at all of this, it just doesn't add up.
. . . I'll finish with the cost curve. Are we bending the
cost curve down or are we bending the cost curve up?
Well, if you look at your own chief actuary at Medicare,
we're bending it up. He's claiming that we're going up $222 billion,
adding more to the unsustainable fiscal situation we have.
And so, when you take a look at this, it's really deeper
than the deficits or the budget gimmicks or the actuarial analysis.
There really is a difference between us.
. . . [W]e've been talking about how much we agree on
different issues, but there really is a difference between us. And it's
basically this. We don't think the government should be in control of
all of this. We want people to be in control. And that, at the end of
the day, is the big difference.
Now, we've offered lots of ideas all last year, all this
year. Because we agree the status quo is unsustainable. It's got to get
It's bankrupting families. It's bankrupting our government.
It's hurting families with pre-existing conditions. We all want to fix
But we don't think that this is the . . . the solution. And
all of the analysis we get proves that point.
Now, I'll just simply say this. . . . [W]e are all
representatives of the American people. We all do town hall meetings.
We all talk to our constituents. And I've got to tell you, the American
people are engaged. And if you think they want a government takeover of
health care, I would respectfully submit you're not listening to them.
So what we simply want to do is start over, work on a
clean-sheeted paper, move through these issues, step by step, and fix
them, and bring down health-care costs and not raise them. And that's
basically the point.
MONDAY through THURSDAY, March 1
through 4, 2010
Subject: Canadian prediction on
Here is one Canadian who got it right(no pun intended)!!!!
Ever wonder why we have to depend on the foreign press to find out
what's "really" going on in our own country. It's a good thing
that Obama and the democrats don't own the Canadian press.. Here
is what Howard Galganov predicts for Barack Hussein Obama - PLEASE
Barack Hussein Obama:
I Told You So Yes I Did
By Howard Galganov
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
When Obama won the Presidency with the help of the LEFTIST
Media,Hollywood And Entertainment Liberals, Ethnic Socialists (ACORN),
Stupid Non-Business Professionals and Bush Haters, I wrote: It
won't take six months until the People figure this guy out and realize
how horrible a mistake they've made. And when they come to that
realization, the damage to the United States of America will be so
great it will take a generation or more to repair - IF EVER.
The IDIOTS who not only voted for the Messiah, but also worked [hard]
to promote his Lordship, are now left holding the bag.
Here are two things they will NEVER do: They will NEVER admit to
making a Blunder out of all proportion by electing a snake-oil salesman
with no Positive social history or management experience of any
kind. They will NEVER take responsibility for the curse they've
imposed upon the immediate and long-term future of their country.
In essence, the people responsible for putting this horror show in
power are themselves responsible for every cataclysmic decision he
makes and the Consequences thereof.
In just six months, the Messiah's polls are showing the
following: 1. On Healthcare Reform - He's going under for the
third time with polling well Under 50 percent, even within his own
Party. Even though he might be able to Muscle a Healthcare Reform
Bill by using Chicago BULLY tactics against his Fellow Democrats, it
will just make things worse. 2. On Cap and Trade (Cap and Tax) -
The Fat-Lady is already singing. 3. On theStimulus Package (Tax
and Spend) - His popularity is in FREE-FALL. 4. On the TARP
package he took and ran with from President Bush - It's all but
Good-Night Irene. 5. On the closing of GITMO and "HIS" war on
what he no longer wants called the War On Terrorism - He's standing in
quicksand with his head just about to go under 6. On a Comparison
between himself and George W. Bush at the same six months into Their
respective first term Presidencies - Bush is ahead of him in the Polls.
7. On a comparison between He Who Walks On Water and the 12 preceding
Presidents between WW II and now - Obama ranks 10th. 8. On a Poll
just Conducted, that asks who would you vote for today between Obama
and Mitt Romney - It's a dead heat. Between Obama and Palin -
Obama's ONLY ahead by 8 Points and she hasn't even begun to
campaign. It seems to me that Obama Wants to be everywhere where
he shouldn't be.
He's personally invested in 'totally insulting' America 's ONLY REAL
Middle Eastern ally ( Israel ) in favor of Palestinian Despots and
Murderers. He's traveling the world apologizing for the USA while
lecturing others on how to do it right, when in fact and truth he has
no experience at doing anything other than getting elected.
He went to the Muslim world in Egypt to declare that America IS NOT A
CHRISTIAN NATION while he heaped praises on Islam, where he compared
the "plight" of the Palestinians to the Holocaust.
The Russians think he's a putz, The French think he's rude
The Germans want him to stop spending.
The Indians want him to mix his nose out of their environmental
The North Koreans think he's a joke, The Iranians won't acknowledge his
And the British can't even come up with a comprehensive opinion of him.
As for the Chinese, he's too frightened to even glance their way.
[After All, China now owns a large portion of the United States .]
Maybe if America's first Emperor would stay home more, travel less, and
work a little bit instead of being on television just about everyday or
stop running to "papered" Town Hall Meetings, perhaps he would have a
little bit of time to do the work of the nation.
In all fairness, it wasn't HARD to be RIGHT in my prediction concerning
Obama's presidency, even in its first six months, so I'm going to make
yet another prediction:
OBAMA WILL PROBABLY NOT FINISH HIS 4-YEAR TERM, at least not in a
He is such a political HORROR SHOW, and so detrimental to the USA and
his Own Democratic Party, that the Democrats themselves will either
FORCE him to Resign or figure out a way to have him thrown out.
Who knows, maybe he really isn't a BORN US Citizen and that's a way the
Democrats will be able to get rid of him. [He is a citizen, but
not a naturalized citizen with both mother and father being US
Or - MORE LIKELY THAN NOT, the Democrats will make Obama THEIR OWN LAME
I don't believe the Democrats have nearly as much love for their
country as they do for their own political fortunes. And with Obama,
their fortunes are rapidly becoming toast.
SUNDAY, February 28, 2010
Beautiful. I'm happy to say that I'm too action-oriented to be an
Intellectuals Step 'Off The Cliff,'
Drag Rest Of Us Down: Sowell
By DAVID HOGBERG, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILYPosted 02/26/2010 07:15 PM ET
Smart people should make smart decisions. So why do the best and the
brightest always seem to create more problems than they solve?
This is not just an academic question, precisely because academics
dominate the Obama administration and its approach to such key issues
as health care and Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. Renowned
economist Thomas Sowell argues that intellectuals have strong
incentives to step out of their area of expertise and "off a cliff."
Ultimately, everyday people pay the price when intellectuals and
abstract concepts trump real-world specifics.
Sowell explores these topics and more in a wide-ranging IBD interview
regarding his latest book, "Intellectuals and Society."
IBD: How do you define intellectuals?
Sowell: I define intellectuals as persons whose occupations begin and
end with ideas. I distinguish between intellectuals and other people
who may have ideas but whose ideas end up producing some good or
service, something that whether it's working or not working can be
determined by third parties.
With intellectuals, one of the crucial factors is their work is largely
judged by peer consensus, so it doesn't matter if their ideas work in
the real world.
IBD: What incentives and constraints do intellectuals face?
Sowell: One of the incentives is that, to the extent that intellectuals
stay in their specialty, they have little to gain in terms of either
prestige or influence on events. Say, an authority in ancient Mayan
civilization just writes about ancient Mayan civilization, then only
other specialists in ancient Mayan civilization will know what he is
talking about or even be aware of him.
So intellectuals have every incentive to go beyond their area of
expertise and competence. But stepping beyond your area of competence
is like stepping off a cliff — you may be a genius within that area,
but an idiot outside it.
As far as the constraints, since their main constraint is peer
consensus — that's a very weak constraint on the profession as a whole.
Because what the peers believe as a group becomes the test of any new
idea that comes along as to whether it's plausible or not.
IBD: You say that most intellectuals believe in the "Vision of the
Anointed." What does that mean?
Sowell: It's the theory that there is an elite group of people who are
very knowledgeable and their knowledge should be used to guide the
decisions of society. So they are not simply an elite in the sense that
sinecurists might be an elite, but they are elite with an anointed role
in the world. To put it uncharitably, as someone once said, "Born
booted and spurred to ride mankind." Examples of that would not be hard
to find in Washington, D.C.
IBD: Why shouldn't intellectuals make decisions for the rest of us?
Sowell: Because they don't know as much as the rest of us. It's one of
those non sequiturs. They have more average knowledge than the average
person in the limited sense in which knowledge is usually spoken of by
But the knowledge that has consequences in the world includes vast
amounts of knowledge that I call mundane knowledge and probably no one
on earth has 1% of that knowledge. Yet that knowledge is consequential,
and it includes knowledge that is in no way intellectually challenging
but is nevertheless crucial.
In the book, I mention the example of a pilot coming in for a landing
and the control tower notices he hasn't let his landing gear down. I
happen to have been on such a plane once. And as we came into land, I
noticed the pilot suddenly gunned the motor, took off again, circled
back around and this time let down the landing gear. So whenever I'm on
a plane and I hear the landing gear go down, I'm very pleased.
IBD: You have a lot of examples of intellectuals "in action" in your
book. Does any one stand out more than the others?
Sowell: The one that stands out more in my mind is the promotion of
disarmament during the 1930s while Hitler and Japan were arming
themselves to the teeth. Disarmament is one of those things that
probably no illiterate farmer would believe in. But some of the leading
intellectuals, if not most of the leading intellectuals, of the Western
democracies pushed that idea throughout the 1930s.
IBD: What do you think of the Obama administration when viewing it
through the many concepts laid out in your book?
Sowell: It's very hard to answer that without using language that is
totally inappropriate in polite society. But it is quite clear that
they believe it is their job to take decisions out of the hands of the
And there are any number of ways they can do that, including rushing
through huge bills faster than anybody can possibly read them,
including the congressmen who vote on them.
They made statements during the campaign that are totally the opposite
of what they will actually do. One of the more recent examples being
the notion that unlike previous administrations they'd be transparent
and broadcast the hearings on C-SPAN.
In fact, all of the big decisions are made behind closed doors, in one
case locked doors, more so than in previous administrations. They want
to supersede the public and put into operation what the anointed think
should be done.
IBD: You say that intellectuals during Hitler's rise subordinated the
mundane specifics of the nature of the German government to abstract
principles about abstract nations, by which you meant the idea espoused
at the time that "nations should be equal" and thus Germany had a right
to rearm. Does that description apply to the Obama administration's
approach to Iran?
Sowell: I hadn't thought of it, but it certainly does. In fact, there
are other people who have said, "Some countries have nuclear weapons,
why shouldn't other countries have nuclear weapons?" And they say it
with an utter disregard for the nature of the countries and what those
countries have been demonstrably doing for years and show every
intention of doing in the future.
IBD: Do you think also that the Obama administration has abstract
notions that you can negotiate with Iran the same way you can negotiate
with, say, Australia?
Sowell: Oh, yes. And the question is not whether you should negotiate.
We negotiate with all kinds of countries. The question is whether we
think negotiations will be at all effective in carrying out what we
want to do.
Reagan, after all, negotiated a disarmament treaty with Gorbachev, but
he did so only after making it clear in their first meeting that he was
not about to even consider Gorbachev's nonsensical proposal.
There was this marvelous scene, which I cite briefly in the book, where
they are in Iceland when Gorbachev shows him this proviso at the
eleventh hour. Reagan simply says, "The meeting is over, let's go,
George (Schultz, the secretary of state), we're leaving."
That was utterly unthinkable to the intellectuals and utterly
unprecedented in 20th-century democratic nations negotiating with
IBD: Let me read some quotes and you tell me what you think. First,
from Michelle Obama: "Barack Obama will require you to work. He is
going to demand that you shed your cynicism. ... That you push
yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow
you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed."
Sowell: This is bringing meaning from the top down into the unwashed
masses. This is a very old idea among the intelligentsia, that they
must bring meaning into the lives of "lesser folks," as if those lesser
folks don't have enough meaning in their lives by their standards and
by the things that matter most to them.
IBD: Next, from New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman: "There is
only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, and that is one-party
democracy, which is what we have in America today.
"One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by
a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can
also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the
politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move
a society forward in the 21st century."
Sowell: Apparently they made a big mistake at the Constitutional
Convention in 1787. If only Thomas Friedman had been there, he would
have put them on the right path, I suppose. Democracy has
prerequisites, and not all circumstances meet those prerequisites.
As to whether or not China is better off the way it is than under an
alternative system such as the one that governs the same race of people
in Taiwan, is another question entirely.
IBD: The next is from Jacob Hacker, a political science professor at
Yale who has spent his entire career in academia. Here's the title from
one of his recent papers: "How to Structure Public Health Insurance
Plan Choice to Ensure Risk-Sharing, Cost Control, and Quality
Sowell: Third parties will structure how millions of people adjust to
millions of different circumstances. In a sense, it is childish to
imagine they can do this. But central planning has been tried for a
very long time in many countries around the world.
Fortunately, most countries have discovered from bad experience — even
socialist and communist countries have jettisoned it in most cases.
IBD: Would you say his knowledge of political science is seeping into
another area where he has no experience?
Sowell: Not seeping, charging. Charging into another area. Or as I
would put it, stepping off a very high cliff.
IBD: Now, while you note in the book that intellectuals believe that
their superior knowledge in one area can be generalized to other areas,
you state that chess grandmasters, musical prodigies and others who are
remarkable within their respective specialties seldom make that
mistake. But why do so many celebrities these days pop off on matters
of foreign policy or domestic policy? The usual incentives faced by
intellectuals wouldn't seem to apply.
Sowell: To some extent they face the same incentives, but also the same
lack of serious constraints. So Rosie O'Donnell can pop off and it
won't really affect her ability to get her next job. There is no
constraint on that.
Further, fame is fleeting. And so it's not as though you can become
famous at age 25, and you will still be famous at age 50 without
lifting finger. Fame has to be constantly fed. And when the means of
feeding that fame have no restrictions that are seriously placed on it,
then you get all kinds of people popping off.
IBD: How about those who argue that we can use government to move
society in a more conservative direction, like compassionate
conservatism? Do they suffer from the vision of the anointed?
Sowell: To some extent, yes. Compassionate conservatism meant that
Republicans added to the housing problems created by the Democrats
rather than mitigating them.
George W. Bush, for example, was for a law that allowed the Federal
Housing Administration to do away with nuisances like down payments on
houses. And even his father was for the notion that the federal
government should intervene if there were statistical differences among
groups in housing or mortgage approvals.
These are people who seem to think that the way to be clever
politically is to accept some of the premises of Democrats but reach
different conclusions. But if you accept the premises, in many cases
you've accepted the conclusions.
MONDAY through SATURDAY, February
22 through 27, 2010
Sounds good to me... GS
For too long we have been too
complacent about the workings of Congress.
Many citizens had no idea that
Congress members could retire with the same pay after only one term,
that they didn't pay into Social Security, that they specifically
exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as
being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while
ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The latest is to
exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform that is being
considered.in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn't seem
logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law. I
truly don't care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or
whatever. The self-serving must stop. This is a good way to
do&nbs p;that. It is an idea whose time has
Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States
"Congress shall make no law that
applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply
equally to the Senators and Representatives; and, Congress shall make
no law that applies to the Senators and Representatives that does not
apply equally to the citizens of the United States."
(c) Copyright 1999-2017, Allergy Associates of New London, PC