George A. Sprecace M.D., J.D., F.A.C.P. and Allergy Associates of New London, P.C.
Dr. Sprecace's Home Page...
Information categories at this site...
About Dr. Sprecace and this site...
Access related links...
Terms for usage of this site...

RAPID RESPONSE (Archives)...Daily Commentary on News of the Day
This is a new section.  It will offer fresh, 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 campaigns, 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 military campaign must maintain to be effective.  But the mission will always be the same: common sense, based upon facts and "real politick", supported by a visceral sense of Justice and a commitment to be pro-active.  That's all I promise.

Click here to return to the current Rapid Response list

MONDAY, May 30, 2011



SATURDAY and SUNDAY, May 28 and 29, 2011

Sounds right to me.  Or is this another example of cynical expediency,  like "mainstreaming" those with mental illness since the 1960's without providing professional and community support - and producing "homelessness"?   GS

Practical prison policy trumps raw emotion
Published 05/29/2011 12:00 AMUpdated 05/26/2011 05:28 PM

For the past two decades a state by state debate has taken place about crime and punishment.

From one side has come the emotional response to "lock 'em up," leading to "three strikes" laws and other harsh sentencing mandates requiring long-term incarceration and providing judges little or no leeway to evaluate individual cases. With every sensational, violent crime came new calls for tougher penalties.

Countering that argument have been those who contend that when substance abuse, mental illness or both are at the root of criminal behavior, alternatives to imprisonment should be available. Opponents of the life imprisonment after three strikes approach contend that the justice system needs the leeway to consider the unique circumstances of every offense.

For the most part, Connecticut and its elected leaders have fallen on the side of reason, rather than emotion. A majority of lawmakers have resisted the politically attractive, tough-on-crime mantle that the three-strike approach provides, instead opting for good public policy.

The evidence continues to mount that Connecticut made the right choice.

In Connecticut the prison populations are declining. Outside of a brief increase during the recent recession, criminal behavior has been on a downward trend for two decades. Conversely, in state's adopting a harsh sentencing approach, prison populations continue to swell, but with no corresponding abatement in criminal activity.

If locking people up were the answer, the United States would be the safest place on Earth. It's not. According to statistics compiled by The Economist, the U.S. prison population is 2.3 million, which would make it the 36th largest state. That figure well surpasses any other nation, with China a distant second at 1.6 million. No other country imprisons more than 1 million of its people.

With 753 people in prison for every 100,000 citizens, the U.S. leads that category, too.

This past week the U.S. Supreme Court issued a controversial 5-4 decision upholding a lower court ruling ordering California to release tens of thousands of prisoners. California must reduce overcrowding so out of control that state officials acknowledge it creates conditions that violate the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

In California, direct ballot initiatives have led to three strikes and other harsh sentencing laws, while at the same time blocking the taxes needed to build prisons. A state prison system designed for 80,000 inmates holds twice as many. Supreme Court justices viewed photos of mentally ill inmates confined in cages, gyms turned into massive prisoner dorms and viewed statistics showing that suicides and medical neglect kill one prisoner weekly,

In the 1970s California prisons held a little more than 20,000 inmates. Now, thanks in large part to tough-on-crime laws, the number approaches 160,000. Discharged prisoners are more hardened, hopeless and likely to reoffend than ever before. The state is not alone. In Alabama, another law-and-order, but anti-tax state, prison populations are also double capacity, with resulting deplorable conditions.

Conversely, Connecticut's prison population is 17,486, the lowest since May 2000. Prisons are closing. The population will decrease by another 3,000 over the next two years. As for the violent crime rate, Connecticut ranks 38 among the states, while tough-on-crime California is the 15th highest violent-crime state.

Newly passed legislation will continue to move Connecticut in the right direction. It gives greater leeway to the Department of Correction to transfer inmates serving time for certain drug possession crimes, drunken driving and suspended licenses to home confinement, using new global positioning technology to track them.

Another measure allows sentence reductions for some offenders (no more than five days per month) who exhibit good behavior and participate in education, mental health or substance abuse programs. It aims squarely at reducing recidivism.

It may feel good to "lock 'em up and throw away the key," but it hasn't made California safer and created a nightmare prison system. Connecticut has made the better choices and continues to do so.

FRIDAY, May 27, 2011

Let's all jump on this band wagon: Here's to cultural diversity.

Bedbugs And Islamic Maniacs At The UN

If you haven't seen this Brit before, you've missed an extraordinarily erudite speaker. He is serious when he is funny and he is funny when he is serious. And, boy, is he on point! This (see link below) is his latest, and I think the first of 2011.

Along the lines of this clip there was a story in today's WSJ about a woman being arrested in Saudi Arabia for driving a car.

THURSDAY, May 26, 2011

The best analogy yet!

I bought a bird feeder. I hung
It on my back porch and filled
It with seed. What a beauty of
A bird feeder it was, as I filled it
lovingly with seed. Within a
Week we had hundreds of birds
Taking advantage of the
Continuous flow of free and
Easily accessible food.

But then the birds started
Building nests in the boards
Of the patio, above the table,
And next to the barbecue.

Then came the poop. It was
Everywhere: on the patio tile,
The chairs, the table ..

Then some of the birds
Turned mean. They would
Dive bomb me and try to
Peck me even though I had
Fed them out of my own

And others birds were
Boisterous and loud. They
Sat on the feeder and
Squawked and screamed at
All hours of the day and night
And demanded that I fill it
When it got low on food.

After a while, I couldn't even
Sit on my own back porch
Anymore. So I took down the
Bird feeder and in three days
The birds were gone. I cleaned
Up their mess and took down
The many nests they had built
All over the patio.

Soon, the back yard was like
It used to be .... Quiet, serene....
And no one demanding their
Rights to a free meal.

Now let's see.
Our government gives out
Free food, subsidized housing,
Free medical care and free
Education, and allows anyone
Born here to be an automatic

Then the illegal's came by the
Tens of thousands. Suddenly
Our taxes went up to pay for
Free services; small apartments
Are housing 5 families; you
Have to wait 6 hours to be seen
By an emergency room doctor;
Your child's second grade class is
Behind other schools because
Over half the class doesn't speak

Corn Flakes now come in a
Bilingual box; I have to
'press one ' to hear my bank
Talk to me in English, and
People waving flags other
Than 'Old Glory' are
Squawking and screaming
In the streets, demanding
More rights and free liberties.

Just my opinion, but maybe
it's time for the government
To take down the bird feeder.

MONDAY through WEDNESDAY, May 23 through 25, 2011

Excellent.  And nothing has changed, except for the worse.


Winston Churchill .....prescient as always

Sir Winston Churchill 1899  (He would only have been 24 at the time.)

This is amazing.  Even more amazing is that this hasn't been published long before now.


Unbelievable, but the speech below was written in 1899... (check Wikipedia - The River War).

The attached short speech from Winston Churchill, was delivered by him in 1899 when he was a young soldier and journalist.  It probably sets out the current views of many, but expresses in the wonderful Churchillian turn of phrase and use of the English language, of which he was a past master.  Sir Winston Churchill was, without doubt, one of the greatest men of the late 19th and 20th centuries.

He was a brave young soldier, a brilliant journalist, an extraordinary politician and statesman, a great war leader and British Prime Minister, to whom the Western world must be forever in his debt.  He was a prophet in his own time.  He died on 24th January 1965, at the grand old age of 90 and, after a lifetime of service to his country, was accorded a State funeral.


"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!  Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.  The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity.  The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of
slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.

No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.  Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.  It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome ."

Sir Winston Churchill; (Source: The River War, first edition, Vol II, pages 248-250 London).

Churchill saw it coming...

FRIDAY through SUNDAY, May 20 through 22, 2011

It's time for another update on your future health care.  This industry and the related professions are undergoing a revolution whose outcome is very much in doubt: for the ever - increasing number and severity of sick people, for the physicians and other health care workers who provide that care in return for progressively reduced reimbursement over the last twenty years,  and for the economic health of the Nation. 
Obama-Care is a Christmas Tree of "wants" without hardly any consideration of health reform "needs" that are begging to be addressed.  This is tantamount to returning to the "bleeding" treatment of the Middle Ages instead of the judicious use of antibiotics. 
To document some of the problem, I offer several readings:

Pay attention, folks.  This is your welfare...and your life.   GS




APRIL 21, 2011

Three tiers of ACO’s have been described.   The following refers only to Tier lll, involving partial or full capitation.  A bibliography of supporting articles and data is available. 

A)     A QUESTION OF ETHICS.  Tier lll ACO’s, and any other system involving “capitation”, a form of health care payment wherein the provider agrees to provide all necessary health care for a patient for a period of time for a fixed and pre-determined fee – in effect becoming the insurer of that patient’s health or disease needs – is Unethical: 1) it is a breach of the physician’s fiduciary responsibility to the patient in that it is based upon an inherent conflict of interest that cannot be waived by the patient; 2) it properly undermines the critical trust of a patient in his or her physician; 3) it undermines the integrity of a learned profession and should therefore be considered as against public policy; 4) it is a blatant attempt on the part of the government to make the physician impose a rationing of health care, an action properly in the realm only of the public in a democracy; 5) it is an insane risk for any physician to take upon himself, given the fact that about 50% of all health care needs are life-style related, under no control of the physician.

B)       FINANCES. 



E)       THE REAL NEEDS (vs WANTS) FOR HEALTH CARE REFORM.  Please see my articles and analyses dating back to the 1970’s, to be found on



TUESDAY through THURSDAY, May 17 through 19, 2011

Finally lancing a festering boil called Public Education.  GS

New London's courageous reading and writing policy

Published 05/22/2011 12:00 AM
Updated 05/19/2011 11:09 PM

The most surprising thing about the New London Public Schools' new policy that will require high school graduates to demonstrate proficiency in reading and writing is that it wasn't required already.

How is it possible that students at New London High, or any high school in the state for that matter, could obtain a diploma without demonstrating their English literacy ability? It would appear a basic assumption that high school graduates be able to write complete and coherent sentences and speak intelligently and logically.

As it turns out colleges and universities across the country, including even the most prestigious, are forcing some freshmen into remedial classes before allowing them to participate in the usual higher education curriculum because they cannot read or write at a high school level. Too many high school graduates are not prepared for college, or the workplace. And educators and employers know that.

That sad reality is in part what prompted the Connecticut General Assembly to pass a sweeping reform of the state's secondary education laws last spring - legislation that is now stalled because of a shortage of funds. New high school graduation requirements - including end-of-senior-year proficiency tests - were supposed to take effect with the class of 2017. The state is now delaying implementation, possibly until 2020.

Students can make their way through the school system unable to read or write, but lawmakers are going to wait nine years to fix the problem? That's unacceptable, and fiscal constraints should not be an excuse for allowing the mediocrity to continue.

Thank goodness New London is forging ahead.

Concerns that high school graduates were not ready for the workplace or higher education prompted the district's new policy, said the city's superintendent of schools, Nicholas A. Fischer. The school board approved the policy May 12, starting with the graduating class of 2015.

"As I have listened to employers and colleges and community colleges and vo-tech schools, the message is clear," said Dr. Fischer. "Our kids need to be coming in with a higher level of skills.

"I think our expectations need to be higher, and we need to be more demanding," he said.

New London's new literacy policy will be a district-wide effort, focused on the necessary reading and writing skills for every class at every level with a goal of helping students to become proficient at the 10th-grade level. There will be various testing options and mechanisms, including a separate evaluation for special education and English Language Learners, and students will have to prove they meet the criteria to get a diploma.

Support in this effort will be available for every student up to age 21. For some students that might mean taking online courses or attending adult education, whatever is necessary to reach the new standard.

Connecticut is a home rule state where local districts can implement their own tougher standards without a state mandate. That is what New London is doing with its new literacy policy.

"It is going to be more work," said Dr. Fischer. "But obviously we need to do it because we're not where we need to be.

"But with this policy, if we send students out there with diplomas, what we'll be saying to the community at large is that these students have the skills that will help them to be successful as adults."

Now that's a very good policy.

TUESDAY through THURSDAY, May 17 through 19, 2011

Dear Atty. Sekulow,

As I told the Syrian Ambassador about a year ago when he made a presentation to the Southeastern Connecticut Committees on Foreign Relations at Connecticut College, the U.S. will forever defend Israel exactly as we would defend the State of Connecticut.  He seemed taken aback by that statement.
However, as I have posted several times on my website (, and as I have discussed a number of times with some Jewish friends and meighbors:

George A. Sprecace, M.D., J.D.

Dear George,

Today, President Obama delivered an unprecedented rebuke of the Israeli people by an American president. In words that were designed to reach more Muslim citizens than United States citizens, Obama called Israel's legitimate West Bank settlements an "occupation"; and by calling for a return to the 1967 borders, he is calling for a divided Jerusalem. He continued to press Israel to negotiate with the Palestinian Authority (PA) and, subsequently, with the "Unity Government" the PA has formed with the terrorist group, Hamas.

If there was ever any question about the intent of those whom President Obama expects Israel to negotiate with, this week's news report gives a clear answer: "A member of the Palestinian Authority parliament spelled out his organization's vision for the genocidal annihilation of the Jewish people ... [giving] Arabs 'the honor' of annihilating 'the evil of this gang.'"

While President Obama may not recognize the threat a terrorist-run Palestinian government poses to Israel, we do and we're taking action. The ACLJ is stepping up its efforts to defend Israel in the diplomatic and legal war being waged by Hamas.

Will you stand with the ACLJ and Israel by supporting our efforts to defend America's greatest ally in the region? Please make a tax-deductible contribution in defense of Israel today.

I am now en route to Washington, D.C., to personally lead our legislative team's work with Congress to prevent U.S. tax dollars from going to the terrorist-run government and to coordinate our work at the United Nations (U.N.) to prevent the U.N. from recognizing the Palestinian Authority as an independent nation. I have also assembled a special senior legal team that will be in Israel to work in conjunction with Israeli officials on our legal efforts.

President Obama's disconnect from the facts on the ground in the Middle East is obvious. News reports show that the Hamas terrorist group has "not given Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas permission to negotiate with Israel," and now he all but abandons Israel in favor of giving in to the demands of terrorists.

Even members of President Obama's own party have recognized that we cannot support the Palestinian Authority now that the terrorist organization, Hamas, has joined the "Unity Government." Twenty-seven Democratic Senators have sent a letter urging President Obama to defund the new terrorist-run government.

Hamas continues to refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist, emphatically stating that it will stick with its "plan of resistance and not negotiations." How can President Obama demand that Israel negotiate with an organization that continues to utilize terrorism against it? It's absurd.

If President Obama will not defend Israel and continues to tell them to negotiate with terrorists, we must take a stand.

Support our senior ACLJ legal team in its mission to Israel by making a tax-deductible contribution today. Your gift will help provide the resources we need to prepare this critical defense of Israel in Congress and at the U.N.

It is abundantly clear that as long as Hamas is a part of the Palestinian government, there can be no peaceful solution in the Middle East. We must not allow American funds to be used to support this terrorist-run government, nor can we allow Israel to be pressured into negotiating with terrorists.

Thank you for your continued support as we engage in this battle to defend America's most trusted ally, Israel. It is through your generosity that we are able to mount this legislative and legal defense.

As always, I will continue to keep you informed as developments unfold in this critical fight. Thank you again.


Jay Sekulow
ACLJ Chief Counsel

MONDAY, May 16, 2011

May 8th, 2011

Jerry Taylor & Peter Van Doren
Cato Institute
1000 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20001-5403

Dear Mr. Taylor and Mr. Van Doren,

I appreciate your credentials as Senior Fellows at the Cato Institute, but after reading your April 25th Forbes
Magazine article, I decided that the subject warranted a detailed, direct response. You claim that “renewable
energy is quite literally the energy of yesterday”, specifically the “13th century”. This is akin to saying that planting
food crops in soil also practices 13th Century technology. Responding point by point:

First, your negative description of green energy as “diffuse” is easily applied to certain conventional fuels. One
could argue that the trainloads of fossil fuel energy in one nuclear pellet make them too “diffuse” for their own
good. These fuels do not simply materialize from the ground (often half a world away) directly into a generator
furnace. The extraction, transportation, and refinement (all requiring large amounts of energy) that are necessary
before they can be used do much to “diffuse” the nature of these fuels.

Second, your claim that green energy is too costly to efficiently implement lacks context. Capital costs are by
definition high whenever new technology develops. But, they drop precipitously when they are affected by
improvement, market share, and the laws of supply and demand. There is no aspect of life or sector of an
economy that is more affected by supply and demand (often needlessly, in the case of the fossil fuel industry)
than energy production. Just as automobiles and telecommunication technologies entered the free market as
toys for the rich, mass production enabled most people to reap the benefits of their mobility and networking, not
the least of which was a sharp increase in popular self-reliance. Mass-produced, varied sources of energy would
do the same for us as individuals, and as a nation. Also, forty years ago when computer and materials
technologies were in their relative infancy, the claim was that efficient green technology development would take
decades. Forty years have come and gone, with monumental advances in these technologies, yet we have
virtually nothing to show for it in large-scale green energy, thanks to the continued parroting of this ‘the technology
just isn’t here yet’ claim.

You noted that wind and solar are “generally produced far from where consumers happen to live”. Conventional
power contracts throughout the country often involve generators residing hundreds of miles from consumers. If
the significant cost of long-distance transmission and line loss inherent in these systems were crucial to the
economics of energy, power generation would be restricted to proximity to its users regardless of its source.

Third, you note that “the wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine”. Varied power sources
accommodate these inconsistencies. Just as we have learned to build homes and transportation systems that
deal with the “vagaries of the weather”, the consistency of energy needs requires that we diversify its production
so that the limitations of no one type of production physically, economically, or geo-politically interrupt that

Fourth, the “reliably continuous” qualifier you place on the real estate needed by wind and solar to meet energy
demand does not hold up. Wind, solar, and biomass energy do not have to be produced by potentially monolithic
companies which would have undue influence on rates and availability. This means that a home in Minnesota or
North Dakota won’t rely on solar as much as one in the Southwest. It means that energy independence can be
focused toward regionally efficient power sources. Other examples are wave-motion plants providing power to
the Nova Scotia region. Granted, there is no better place on Earth to exploit tidal energy, but as with anything in
life one must build on one’s strengths. These regional systems do not suffer the degree of line loss created by
transporting electrons over great distances; neither do they incur the added support costs for large-scale
transforming that is necessary in systems requiring millions of volts to move long-distance power.

Finally, regarding inefficient battery technology, remember the Chinese adage about the journey of a thousand
miles. I agree that power doesn’t like to sit around, but it would be more stable in a local battery (whose efficiency
can only improve) than it would in its raw state under the culturally, politically, religiously, and/or economically
shifting sands of the Middle East, Russia, Venezuela, Mexico, Africa, and many regions outside North America
and Northern Europe.

Green energy is not a panacea. But, your claim that fossil fuels are comparatively cheap is not intellectually
honest. I agree that government subsidies are most often wasteful. But, their inefficiency is also directly related
to incessant attempts by conventional energy concerns to smother this baby in the cradle. What do you think
happens to the cost of wind power when a conventional company refuses to allow a privately-financed wind
turbine to power a region of homes in that company's politically-determined, monopolized sphere of influence,
AND who lobbies for laws preventing those homeowners from either tying in to company lines OR cabling their
homes privately? How’s that for government waste? This is a true story. Repeat this scenario nationwide and
you will see one reason why green energy is so “comparatively” expensive.

It is true that fossil fuels “will burn and produce energy whenever you want it”, provided the people who control the
ground from which they come sell them at a reasonable price without interruption. What is the reliability of
cleaner-burning low-sulfur coal (most from Colombia, Venezuela, and Indonesia) from which a growing
percentage of America’s electricity derives? What about the approximately 25% of our total fossil-fuel energy that
comes from comparatively UNreliable sources in the Middle East, Africa, South America, and Southeast Asia?
Please use these added unnecessary real and speculative fossil fuel costs in your calculations of comparison to
green energy. Regarding nuclear subsidies and “impossible-to-price regulatory preferences”, the fact that it is
nuclear power helps explain decades of government waste. Rube Goldberg could not have devised a more
needlessly complicated method of boiling water.

I understand enough about power generation, transmission, and storage to see its direct relationship to both
individual and national prosperity. I also understand the simplistic notion that peddling a bicycle in motion
requires less energy than getting one started from a standstill. A growing part of the world no longer accepts the
age-old claim that fossil fuel delivers the most bang for its buck. There is more than enough information,
innovation, and growing economic and geo-political variability to round out the field in that race. Fossil fuels
cannot be reasonably and efficiently substituted overnight with green technology. In some sectors they will
remain staples. But, the longer they remain THE source of the vast majority of global power generation, the
higher the price we will pay when we transition out of them. At that point, your $2.5-4 trillion dollar building cost
and writedown estimate will seem like a bargain.

Thank you for your time.


Perrin Sprecace
La Crescenta, CA

SUNDAY, May 15, 2011

In the Sunday edition of The Day, May 15, 2011, and reprinted from the Washington Post, is an Op-Ed article entitled "The Muslim - American: Reclaiming My Identity".  Well written, and upsetting to me for what the author and others have evidently had to endure in this "Land of the Free", the exposition articulated for me what I, as an American - American of Italian heritage, am having to endure at the same time from the Articulate, Arrogant and Asinine Far Left of America's current political spectrum. Many of the Rights guaranteed to us Americans in the U.S. Constitution Bill of Rights are now being denigrated, attacked and endangered by a political point of view which is foreign to me and to most other Americans...and which is really un-American.  And it is far more dangerous than what occurred in Germany in the 1930's and in Russia in the 1920's and 1930's. For there are no Black Shirts or Red Shirts marching in the streets carrying weapons and destroying persons and action which would immediately mobilize the largest army in the world:  American citizenry.  Rather, and despite the loud and crass support given to it by its deluded supporters, it presents as a siren-song. 

WAKE UP, AMERICA.  Just as Moderate Muslims will have to deal assertively and effectively with the Fundamentalist cancer in their midst, we who have learned and recall the true nature of this country will have to deal assertively and effectively with a similar...if more slow-growing...cancer in our midst.  So, GET INVOLVED IN THE POLITICAL LIFE OF YOUR COUNTRY.  Get and stay informed.  Advise your legislators of your positions; for they should be operating only with your consent.  And VOTE...AND GET OUT THE VOTE AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY.  The life and future you save may be your own, and that of your children and grandchildren.  I assure you: this is not an over-reaction on my part.


SATURDAY, May 14, 2011

Once again, I draw the reader's attention to an article by Charles Krauthammer ("It's Demagoguery 101", in The Day Saturday May 14, 2011, pA7).
My reason for doing so is not to underline that Barack Obama is a much better politician than he is a President.  The main reason is to publicize the facts about our lack of control of our southern border, and to point out Dr. Krauthammer's position on comprehensive immigration reform.  That his position coincides precisely with mine, as articulated several times in this section, is "purely coincidental".


WEDNESDAY through FRIDAY, May 11 through 13, 2011


Dear Dr. Sprecace,
Thank you for contacting me regarding the No Social Security for Illegal Immigrants Act.  I appreciate your comments and having the benefit of your views.
Current law prohibits any individual living and working in the United States illegally from receiving Social Security payments or other forms of government assistance.   In many cases, an individual's entire work history – even work done while they were in the country illegally – can count toward Social Security benefits if the individual later becomes a legal resident.  However, under the Social Security Protection Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-203), signed into law by President Bush on March 2, 2004, those individuals that did not have authorization to work in the U.S. before January 1, 2004 would not receive credit towards Social Security benefits, even if they receive work authorization or become a citizen after that date. 
As you are aware, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher has introduced the No Social Security for Illegal Immigrants Act of 2011 (H.R.787).  This legislation amends the Social Security Act to exclude all wages earned while an individual was working in the U.S. illegally from being credited towards Social Security benefits they may earn when they become a citizen.  This legislation has been referred to the House Ways and Means Committee, where it awaits further consideration.  Please be assured that I will strongly consider your views on this legislation come before me for a vote in the House.
You  may  be interested to know that I have been a consistent supporter of the E-Verify program, which allows participating employers to confirm that their newly hired workers are in the country legally.  Although initially proposed as a temporary five-state pilot program in 1998, the program has grown nationwide with more than 125,000 businesses voluntarily participating.   In addition, as of September 8, 2009, all contractors and  subcontractors with federal contracts over $100,000 are required to use the E-Verify system.  Under the requirement, contractors will have 30 days after receiving a contract to enroll in the program, and 90 days to begin verifying the immigration status of their workers.  This is an important step towards ensuring that those receiving federal funding are complying with our immigration laws.
Finally, on October 15, 2009, I voted for the  Fiscal  Year  2010 Homeland Security Appropriations Act (H.R. 2892).  This measure extends authorization of  E - Verify for three more years and provides $137 million to operate and improve the program.  President Barack Obama signed this bill on October 28, 2009, which is now law (PL 111-88). 
Should you have any additional comments or suggestions, please do not hesitate to contact me in the future.  For more information on my views on other issues or to see what I have been working on in Congress, please feel free to visit my official website at and sign up for my e-newsletter.

Member of Congress      

TUESDAY, May 10, 2011


SECCFR members:

Ambassador Donald Gregg, whose topic at the March SECCFR meeting was "Update on North Korea," recently wrote a letter to the New York Times.

I am sending it to you after it appeared in yesterday's ACFR NewsGroup.

As a SECCFR member, you may subscribe to the NewsGroup gratis and receive foreign affairs articles from various sources several times weekly.  If interested, go to the ACFR web site,, and follow the prompts.

Best regards,

Virginia Montgomery


ITEM 21a: Don Gregg: "Hooray for the professionals!"

NY Times, May 6, 2011

To the Editor:

As one who long ago directed rudimentary C.I.A. paramilitary operations in Vietnam, I believe that the “new raid detail” referred to in your May 5 front-page article should not diminish our admiration for the Seal team’s professionalism as the commandos attacked the Bin Laden compound, or President Obama’s courage in using their skills.

The president could easily have had the compound bombed, leaving all its occupants dead and the United States with no intelligence and no idea of whom we had killed. Today, thanks to the Seal team’s split-second judgments, women and children are alive, we have a trove of intelligence, and Bin Laden is at the bottom of the sea.

A live Bin Laden in our hands would have provoked widespread retaliatory kidnappings, something we should be very grateful not to have to deal with. Today, intelligence should be a scalpel, as it was in this case, not a broadsword. Hooray for the professionals!


Armonk,. N.Y., May 5, 2011#

The writer served with the C.I.A. from 1951 to 1982 and was ambassador to Korea from 1989 to 1993.

MONDAY, May 9, 2011

On the one hand we have a President whose left-wing partisans insist on increasing the size, intrusion and spend-thrift ways of Federal Government at the expense of and to the detriment of average Americans, present and future. 
On the other hand, we have a strained Republican Party which has difficulty maintaining and developing constituencies, whether by its principled stands (ie. regarding Abortion) or by its unnecessarily doctrinaire positions on homosexuality, immigration, anti-taxation, pro-Wall Street, anti-environmental protection, etc. 
And then we view an excellent interview with President Obama on 60 Minutes regarding the bin Laden affair, wherein he actually looked and sounded Presidential.  I am far from making my mind up about 2012.  But let's just say that I will finally remove my McCain bumper sticker from my car.    Is that progress...or just more confusion?


SUNDAY, May 8, 2011


Listen up. Folks: The life you save will be your own.




SATURDAY, May 7, 2011

Run, Peter, Run!!

Fine platform for New London mayor, but I won’t run
Publication: The Day
Published 05/01/2011 12:00 AMUpdated 04/28/2011 08:37 PM

New London will elect a strong mayor in November and many are flexing their biceps. (How much can you bench press?) To end rampant speculation, I make the following announcement.

I am not running.

I could win in a landslide, of course. I'm not an attorney, which would help get the honesty vote, and I don't have a Napoleonic complex. I've not been on the City Council, so what we've got ain't my fault.

If I were mayor, I'd be a benevolent despot.

My strong-mayor rule would begin with the annexation of Fishers Island. The residents of this moated community need to join the real world and there's no better place to start than in our hip, little city. Welcome to New London.

Meanwhile, New London's homeless would be shipped off to a few mansions on New London's newly acquired Fishers Island. Taken by eminent domain. I would transform the island into a luxury spa for the indigent and vacationers. The ferry to the island would be free.

I'd ban all gambling and lottery sales in New London, putting more money into resident's pockets. Stores could use the freed shelf space to sell fruit, vegetables and real food.

Drive-through fast food windows would be outlawed. New Londoners would have to walk a few feet for their three-pound burger with extra cheese. They could use the exercise.

Throwing a bone to convenience, however, I would give pizza delivery cars the same status as emergency vehicles. There'd be no cold pizza in New London. "Move over buddy. I've got two extra large pies. This is an emergency."

On taxes, the Roberts administration would offer an ala carte tax menu; pick what you want to pay for. (If your house is on fire and you didn't pay for the fire department, you'd better grab a hose.)

I'd keep the mayor's annual salary at the median income for the city, around $33,000. Half the city would make more than the mayor and half less. I think the mayor should have to live like everyone else. A strange concept I know, but even as a despot, I'm old school.

There would, however, be a special tax exemption for males born in Brooklyn, N.Y. in November of the mid-year of the last century. (These qualifications just came to me, but they seem both familiar and entirely reasonable.)

As for our school system, New Londoners would have to go back to the eighth grade for two weeks a year. Residents would learn how to make change without a machine, what side America was on in World War II and why the flag has 50 stars and 13 stripes. Anyone who thinks afterwards that teachers are overpaid, will then have to teach for two weeks.

There'd be a citywide dress code. Cotton would be mandatory as would button-down oxfords. No clothing would be allowed to shine and pajamas allowed only indoors.

Everyone in New London would get an award; a job I'd leave up to the Supreme Citizens Award Commission (SCAC). (Attorneys may not compete.)

I'd ban profanities and the word "Mystic."

Expanding on the city's enlightened deforestation program (it's a brave tree that has its roots in New London), I'd cut them all down, replaced by plastic facsimiles for each of the seasons. The October Plastic Foliage Tree Festival would prove to be quite the draw.

That's my platform, if I were running, which I'm not.

Peter Roberts lives in New London. In lieu of contributions to his political action committee, donations may be sent to New London Breakfast, care of First Church (where he is a deacon), 66 Union St., New London, CT 06320. Funds received will be used to feed the homeless.

TUESDAY through FRIDAY, May 3 through 6, 2011

MAKING A LEMON OUT OF LEMONADE.  Thank God for the Navy Seals.  But this White House is "The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight".  From the White House spokesman to the White House halls, these people act like a bunch of teenagers.  Or is it that all that happens in the world has to be seen by them through the prism of their far left-leaning, U.N hugging and very insecure psyche?  You did something really good.  Now, stop messing it up.
And then there are the media types, who must find controversy in every story...or make it up.  The talking heads are in a full frenzy.  Why not follow the lead of the New York Daily News headline: "ROT IN HELL".  And let it be!


Five Mistakes the Obama Administration Has Made in the Aftermath of Bin Laden Killing

By MARK HALPERIN Mark Halperin – Wed May 4, 12:15 pm ET
Aftermath can be heck.

The White House's brilliant conceptualization and execution of the plan to bring Osama bin Laden to justice has, in the last 48 hours, been complicated by mistakes.

No one can question the heroism of the US military, the doggedness of the intelligence community, or the cajones of the President in making the call. But the administration has since made real errors, some with political costs, some with substantive costs, and some with both. (See pictures of Osama bin Laden's Pakistan hideaway.)

The major errors so far:

1. Not getting its story straight: Was bin Laden armed or not? What woman served as a human shield? Who actually was killed beyond the main target? The administration deserves mountains of credit for its painstaking, conspicuous effort to brief the world on the mission, knowing a lot of information would have to be held back to protect sources, operatives, methods, and sensitive data. Which makes the carelessness of the errors somewhat surprising. The costs: the media coverage sours, the President's opponents (especially on talk radio) go crazy, other details of the mission unfairly get called into question, and the wild theories of global enemies and conspiracy seekers get a foothold.

2. Not giving George W. Bush enough credit for helping bring bin Laden to justice: Even if the White House believes the previous occupant had nothing to do with OBL's ultimate demise, it would have been better for national unity and Obama's own political fortunes if he had gone out of his way to thank 43. His invitation to Bush to join the event Thursday at Ground Zero (an offer declined) was the right idea, but belated. (Watch "President Obama on the Death of bin Laden.")

3. Letting the photo debate get out of control: The decision about whether to release images of a dead bin Laden is not an easy one. But the administration's conflicting statements and public agonizing has created an extended distraction. The White House has stumbled by violating one of Washington's iron rules: when something becomes famous inside the Beltway for not being released, the pressure from the media to release it becomes unrelenting.

4. Letting the debate about the war in Afghanistan get out of control: There are signs that some of the president's advisers are looking to scale back the commitment in Afghanistan sooner rather than later. But by failing to go on the offensive in defining and defending whatever policy the President wants to pursue, the White House has allowed those pressing for an end of the war to use bin Laden's death as rhetorical leverage. (See pictures of Osama bin Laden's life of terror.)

5. Letting the debate about Pakistan get out of control: The congressional and media demand for a radical change in America's relationship with Pakistan is burning like wildfire. The administration knows that a shift in policy is complicated and compromising, and not necessarily in the United States' interest. Stoking the problem: executive branch officials, publicly and privately, are expressing incredulity that the Pakistanis were unaware bin Laden was hiding in plain sight in their country. There should be and will be a debate about all this, but the administration's actions and inactions is making it less likely it will be on their terms.

SUNDAY and MONDAY, May 1 and 2, 2011 - Supplemental


How could the death of one man be so important?  Well, it is!  For nearly a decade, and really for much longer than that, the image and taunts of one man have embodied for the world and for some in this country all that seemed feckless in America.  The gang that couldn't shoot straight.  A nation divided unto itself.  And of course: The Great Satan. 

Well, that now should be behind us.  President Obama stated it clearly, in his announcement on the evening of May 1 from the White House, that American forces had killed bin Laden and had taken custody of his body. In that announcement he emphasized the importance of unity within this great country.  He also emphasized that we are not at war with Islam.  That latter point is for the Muslims of the world to receive, to digest and to act upon. 

There is a word in the Italian language, "bestia", whose meaning is not nearly captured by its common translation, "beast".  And what could be more "bestial" than the Libyan dictator sacrificing his people and family, other "leaders" in the Muslim world attacking their own citizens in ways great and small, mobs mass-raping women - their own and ours - with a sense of entitlement, Muslim men and their "religious leaders" insisting on their right to treat and grossly maltreat their own sisters, wives and mothers as chattel?  Bestial, indeed.

But is this an aberration of Islam...or is it Islam?  If it is the former, moderate religious and secular Muslims must rise up and cleanse their Religion of this great stain on its legitimacy.  And if it is indeed the sum and substance of Islam, then there will be a great war between Islam and all the other religions of Western and Eastern civilization.  That does not need to happen.  But it will, unless the Muslim world has its own belated Renaissance of religion, of political structure and of humanity.  The choice is theirs.  And credit or blame for the outcome will also be theirs. 

Meanwhile, we are "one nation,under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all".


SUNDAY and MONDAY, May 1 and 2, 2011

Our President

President Obama Confirms Osama Bin Laden's Death

Return to:

Copyright Notice (c) Copyright 1999-2023 Allergy Associates of New London, PC