Who is the real enemy?

Some of the major news of the last week has been a concerted effort by the White House on Fox News. Axelrod, Emanuel and Dunn, and the "One" himself all took shots at Fox News that they weren't a "news" organization. They come to that conclusion because of two of the "opinion" shows on Fox. Specifically on those two shows, I've never been a real Glen Beck fan, but while I disagree with Sean Hannity on some issues, I've always thought his show was very informative and very good "news". As a side note, Beck used to work for CNN. Does that mean for several year while he had a similar show, CNN wasn't a news organization? In a similar fashion, the White House has gone after the US Chamber of Commerce. They "dared" to oppose the massive government takeover of health care in this country.

At the same time as this "war" on Fox and the Chamber, USA Today reported this week that a bipartisan commission came to the conclusion that the White House was neglecting the threat of bio-terrorism. While spending billions of dollars on pet projects, and "stimulus", the White House has not funded the defenses against bio-terrorism.


Similarly, at the same time as this effort to discredit any "opponents" of the White House policies and ignoring established threats to this country, they have been wishy-washy at best on their policy in Afghanistan. Despite candidate Obama declaring that the war in Afghanistan was a "war that must be won", and declaring it the "good" war, he has dithered on his military commander's recommendations of increasing troop strength in order to bring that war to a successful conclusion. His advisers have stated that they would allow the Taliban a role in any Afghanistan government. They tried to distinguish the Taliban from Al Quaeda. I guess they must have short term memory loss. It was the Taliban that gave Bin Laden refuge when the Clinton administration passed on the opportunity given to them when the Sudan government kicked Osama out of their country. Deciding that they didn't have enough evidence to prosecute Osama in a civil court, they let him go and he established training bases in Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban. Those training bases led directly to the terrorists who carried out the 911 attacks. But somehow, the Taliban have suddenly become not threat and not the target of the Obama administration.

You know, it certainly makes one wonder where the priority lies with this president. Fox News and the US Chamber of Commerce are enemies but the Taliban isn't. It makes one wonder when you spend more time attacking Fox News and the Chamber than you do legitimate enemies of this country. It makes one wonder where the priorities are when you spend more time talking to David Letterman than you have talking to your personally appointed commanding general in the "war that must be won" in Afghanistan. And then, you declare that the enablers of Al Quaeda are not the enemy either. When the president and the White House are more concerned with labeling opponents of their domestic agenda as enemies rather than being concerned about foreign enemies who have actually killed American citizens and soldiers it makes one wonder who they consider the real enemies.

Where's the Party for Me?

The other day I posted a link on my facebook page to an article calling for an American Capitalist Party. Within the last week, during a political conversation, I was once again called a RINO, (Republican in name only). This comment came in a conversation about abortion. Being pro-choice on abortion and very moderate on most other social issues championed by many in the Republican Party, I and many others, have been marginalized in my party activities. I believe there is a very "Republican", limited government argument in favor of abortion rights. I've never felt that government as the "morals" nanny was any better than government as the "economic" nanny, but that will be left for another blog. Over the last several years I've felt that if a 3rd major political party appeared on the scene in the US, it would be a split in the Republican Party between what I have called the "traditional" Republicans and the social conservatives. The social issues have never been the "holy grail" of politics for what I call the "traditional" Republicans. Their major concern has been the economics of government. Some of those "traditional" Republicans agree with the social conservatives, some do not. In any event over the last several years most of the Republicans, at least in elective office, seem to have gotten away from the economic conservative aspects which draws me that direction.

Although there are signs that the Republicans are moving back to the core values of fiscal conservatism which they seem to have abandoned over the last several years, it may be too little too late. None of the current political parties seem to stand for those values that I find important. I know over long years of my political involvement there are lots of people that agree with me on basic points of what I am viewing as needed in a new political party.

While I certainly am borrowing part of these values from the American Capitalist party article, I am adding some more of what I feel needs to be there.

On the economic front the government should be very limited. Both individual and corporate taxes should be low. There should be effective support of the infrastructure in order to promote economic growth. There should be a strong belief in and support of the freedom and meritocracy that has been the foundation of what makes this country great. There should be a recognition that the government may be called on for situational help when things get bad, but such help should never be institutionalized.

On foreign affairs and military issues, there needs to be a strong support for the military and for providing the military with the appropriate tools and weapons in the event their services are necessary. There needs to be a recognition and willingness to utilize that military power when necessary because we live in a dangerous world with lots of bad actors that would like to see nothing better than our destruction. We need to be engaged and work with other governments around the world on these issues, but recognize that to protect our interests we will act on our own if necessary. There needs to be a recognition that while not the first choice, military force is the only way to solve some situations. The military needs to be equipped and supported to fully do whatever job is needed, with the hope they aren't needed. Basically the old philosophy of Theodore Roosevelt should be in play, "Speak softly, but carry a big stick." The US must act to protect our interests no matter what.

The final issues are the "social" issues like abortion and gay rights. I've never quite understood how many of the people who contend, rightfully so, that the government fails miserably when meddling in economic matters are more than willing to let that same government meddle in private matters. Some of the same people that are arguing in the current health care debate that the government shouldn't come between a patient and doctor turn around and argue that same government should step in and regulate what happens between a woman and her doctor if she is considering an abortion. Unfortunately through the years, the 10th Amendment which reserves rights to the people not specifically enumerated to the government has been largely ignored. I believe that amendment provides a strong foundation for basic privacy rights. Similarly with gay marriage, the same people that don't trust the government on most things want them to step in and actively discriminate against a certain class of people. Not only do they advocate discrimination by the government, they want to enshrine that discrimination in law. Basically, if the government is going to be in the business of advocating marriage, through the passage of tax laws, inheritance laws and custody laws, etc., they shouldn't be in the business of denying those benefits to certain classes of people who would otherwise qualify.

Currently, the Democrats fail miserably on the economic and foreign policy/military aspects. The Republicans fail miserably on the social issues and for the last several years on the economic issues. The Libertarians, at least recently have failed on the foreign/policy aspects. They also fail with the lack of support of infrastructure and education that I find important.

So where does a anti-tax and spend, pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-national defense person go for a political party? Certainly none of the parties that exist now fit that bill. It seems like every choice I am having to make forces me to compromise on a major factor that I consider important. Maybe, just maybe one of the existing parties will evolve into something I'm looking for, or a new party will develop. I'm hoping so.

Random Thoughts

Just a whole lot of things on my mind but don't feel like writing a whole blog on any of them. So I'm just going to give it the old shotgun approach.

Last week the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a $5 million verdict against the Phelps cult. A federal jury in Maryland had awarded the father of a slain Marine $5 million for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Phelps cult, as is their practice, protested outside the funeral of the plaintiff's son. Having witnessed first hand the vile, despicable things the Phelps have on their signs and what they say to people at their protests, I have lots of sympathy for the plaintiff. The Phelps cult has regularly picketed outside my church for years. Additionally I've been to funerals where they've protested. For those that haven't had the misfortune of crossing paths with these nut jobs, their pickets are repulsive and contemptible. However, I think it sets an extremely dangerous precedent to use the civil courts and something as slippery as the torts of intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy to try to silence free speech. The first amendment protects speech of even despicable people like the Phelpses. The 4th Circuit got it right, the First Amendment protects even distasteful and repugnant speech. That said, I also think that there are some reasonable "time and place" restrictions that are in place and could be passed elsewhere that limit how close to a funeral and time restrictions that can be used to prevent these bozos from interfering with other funerals.

I truly don't understand all the hubbub over the President going to Copenhagen to support the Chicago bid for the 2016 Olympics. I have plenty of beefs with "The One", as anyone who reads my blog or my facebook page could attest. The other heads of states from the countries of the finalist cities are also going to be there. I think it is totally appropriate for him to go. I think making such a big deal out of it only serves to provide ammunition to marginalize Obama's critics. When they look foolish on issues like this, it is easier to contend that all of their legitimate concerns are just as foolish.

Isn't the silence of the left deafening? During the campaign Obama promised the most transparent administration in history. However, today it was announced that the Obama administration was limiting access to Guantanamo Bay. Previously under the Bush Administration,the reporters who covered the military beat were invited trips to the detention camps when they were covering the hearings. They could write about, film and photograph the camp and the conditions there. Those side trips have been halted under Obama. The left would be screaming bloody murder if that had happened under Bush, but I've hardly heard a whimper. Aren't double standards wonderful?

Got my flu shot on Sunday. The health ministries committee of the board of deacons at church offers the shots every year at cost. My arm is still aching. There have been stories recently about health care workers and the military being "required" to take the H1N1 vaccine. I don't have a problem with flu shots in general. I do have a problem with the government mandating certain people have to have the shot. That problem exists even ordering military personnel who are trained to take orders, that they have to take a flu shot. I don't know that even if I fell into the "high risk" category, I would get the swine flu shot. It seems that this was so rushed, I'm not sure I trust the safety of the shot. And having a government "require" personnel to take a shot goes against every fiber of my being.

The city council in Topeka passed a no-smoking ordinance last night. This is another example of a situation where I am extremely conflicted. On the one hand, I am very anti-smoking. I grew up in a house where my dad smoked for years and I think the second hand smoke I was around made my sore throat/sinus issues I had as a kid much worse. I avoid being around smoke as often as I can. As much as I hate being around smoke, I'm not sure a municipal government passing an anti-smoking is appropriate. If the majority of the population really were against smoking in public, let their pocketbooks do the talking for them. There are certainly restaurants and bars that already don't allow smoking. If the people truly support non-smoking public places, they should frequent those bars and restaurants, and let the owners know why. Adam Smith's "invisible hand" is a much better regulator of conduct than any government regulation.

The Last Refuge of a Scoundrel

English writer Samuel Johnson once famously said that "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." The context of the quote was primarily directed at the British Prime Minister and aimed at what Johnson felt was false patriotism. Fast forward 230 years or so and I think the current version of this quote should be, "racism is the last refuge of a scoundrel". And just as in Johnson's day, it isn't actual racism that the quote is targeted at, it is the false racism used by many of today's politicians. Jimmy Carter (you know the ex-president who penned an anti-Semitic book) lectured us that the strong opposition to the Obama healthcare proposal was based on racism. Several Congressmen and women and liberal columnists have raised the issue that the opposition to the Obama health care plan is based on race. What do these people think? That the American people didn't know Barack Obama was black when they voted for him? We suddenly woke up 9 months into his administration and realized he was black so we have to oppose him?

I believe that the major reason why we are hearing this charge now is that the liberals through the years have found crying racism is an effective political tool. It neutralizes opposition. It attacks presumed motives not actual actions or words. The idea they are attempting to propagate is since the "speaker" is operating from "hate" every possible criticism by that "speaker" is racist, and thus they don't even have to answer any criticism. It is easier to demonize the opposition with a bogus charge of racism than it is to argue the facts of the proposal that the majority of people don't want. The left is attempting to "shame" the white moderates who supported Obama in 2008 into supporting his healthcare plan or risk being labeled as a racist.

The numbers however, just don't add up. Like I wrote above, a large portion of the 69 million American people who voted for him last November just didn't wake up and realize Obama was black. In fact, Obama got 41% of the white male vote, the largest percentage of white males to vote for a democrat presidential candidate since Jimmy Carter in 1976. Race wasn't a major factor in the election, why is it suddenly the factor now? The latest polls show 53% of the country approve of the job Obama is doing as President while 44% disapprove. That doesn't strike me as racism. If racism truly was behind the opposition to the Obama healthcare plan, wouldn't those numbers be significantly worse?

An even more telling story of numbers is the comparison at comparable times in the process of Obamacare now and Hillarycare some 18 years ago. At about the same time in 1991, 44% of the population supported the massive federal takeover of healthcare. The latest poll I saw shows that 41% of the population support Obamacare. Those similar numbers show that the issue isn't race. The issue is, that despite being the holy grail of the left wing in this country for over 30 years, a federal takeover of healthcare is not something the majority of Americans support. It is that policy, not whatever race the proponent happens to be, that is the cause of the strong opposition.

Despite the ease which charges of racism seem to flow from the left in this country,they are actually doing more harm than good. By glibly charging racism on legitimate policy differences, the left is diluting the impact that any legitimate charge would carry. It is a sad day in this country when we can't criticize our president on policy issues without a bogus charge of racism being bandied about. It really has become that racism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

The Shell Game

There is an old saying, that laws are like sausage, it is better not to see either being made. This whole health care fiasco is a case in point. However, we are all fortunate that there are lots of people watching it being made. For some unknown reason, on his "signature" issue, "The One" chose not to propose anything specific, but just leave it up to Congress. Virtually every president I can think of "proposed" legislation and had someone or a committee in Congress introduce it. In this instance, Obama just left it up to Pelosi, Reid and their minions to come up with legislation for "his" plan. In typical fashion, Congress responded and we have 5 different health care bills working their way through the process. If I had better feelings for the motivation of Obama, Emanuel, Axelrod and company, I might chalk it up to politcal naivete. However, these are seasoned veterans of Chicago machine politics. It appears to me that something else is in play. It basically reminds me of the old shell game.

Case in point, the Joe Wilson, "you lie" comment. President Obama during his umpteenth speech on healthcare (even though he hasn't proposed a single plan yet) said it was a lie that illegal aliens were covered. That prompted the heckling by a sitting member of Congress. (The first time in memory that has occurred!) The Democrats proudly point to a provision in one of the 5 bills that excludes illegal aliens, saying that proves this idiot Republican doesn't know what he is talking about. However according the the Congessional Research Service, none of the other 4 bills contain that provision. In fact a headline on an article I read today stated, "Rep Wilson Outburst Leads Senate Dems to Close Loophole." So the Senate version now contains that language. But to take it one step further, during the committee hearing on the 1 house bill that does contain the prohibition, there were a number of votes to add enforcement language to that provision. They were all defeated on a party line vote.

Similar to that story is the one about the "death panels". Whether one agrees or disagrees with the interpretation that there were "death panels", within a couple of days of that story breaking, there was great hoopla that the Senate version of the bill had stricken that language that led people to that conclusion.

All of this basically reminds me of the old shell game. Obama is the shell man. He is peddling a great story. Pelosi, Reid and their allies are the shills, crowding around us to prevent us from leaving or seeing for sure what is going on. If someone objects to something...not in this bill, you don't know what you're talking about. On another objection they point to another bill. Oops, you missed. The American people are the mark. We're getting taken if we let it happen. We've all seen too many stories too many times where a single Congressman or Senator inserts provisions in bills at 2 am behind closed doors during "conferences" and then that being passed into law to feel comfortable with the assurances of what is and isn't in this bill. When you see the games being played around what is or isn't in the bills that makes me even more leery.

I only see one way around this. Obama on Wednesday "promised" he wouldn't sign anything into law that added one dollar to the deficit. According the the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, none of the 5 bills that are being considered meet that requirement. So, President Obama, propose a new piece of legislation that carries out your objectives and won't add to the deficit. Let's have a debate about the merits of YOUR proposal. Let there be enough time that those that are interested can provide their input. Let Congress vote that up or down. In my opinion, that is the only way for you to regain credibility on this issue.

Mixed emotions

All the furor over President Obama's "Back to School" speech has really left me with mixed emotions. A president making a speech to school children about studying hard, taking responsibility for your actions and behaving is something that we should embrace wholeheartedly. That is basically what the speech is, at least the version that has been released. No one will know whether the furor caused a change in the text or not. What was disturbing to me was the Department of Education's "proposed" lesson plans that talked about having kids write letters to be collected by the teachers of how they were going to "help" President Obama. As I've blogged before, I feel there is a "cult of personality" that is being developed around the president. With the mainstream media adulation of Obama, the fact that candidate Obama, who promised to change the way Washington does business, has as President Obama, made the partisan divides even sharper in the last six months has fed into that. I obviously am not the only one that is feeling that sentiment. In that context, I understand the furor.

The flip side of the coin bothers me as bad. The people who are pulling their kids out school or opting out of having their kids listen to the speech are to put it bluntly, scary. It always strikes me that someone is very insecure in their own beliefs that they can't even dare to hear an opposing view. I know over the years, that my opinions on issues have changed and nuanced because of listening to the "opposite" side. While I always thought I had a normal childhood, I sometimes now wonder. I can remember vividly a number of times where as a family we "talked" about stuff that had occurred at school. My sisters or I would talk about what our teacher had said, and my parents would certainly share their views. There were certainly times that my parents didn't agree with what the teacher had said. On the ones where they disagreed, I remember I believed my parents over my teachers, but I still remember those discussions. Even if the parents disagree with the message, not allowing their kids to hear it isn't the answer. If parents are that concerned it needs to be a topic of conversation around the supper table. Keeping them from hearing the message isn't a reasonable or responsible answer.

The final concern that I have over this whole issue again goes back to the partisan divide that we are seeing in this country. For 8 years I watched the left view George Bush as the devil incarnate. Nothing he could do or say was correct. Unfortunately I am seeing the same thing from the right as they view Barack Obama. Part of the blame can be placed on the doorstep of Barack Obama. During the campaign, he promised to govern from the center and to change the way things happen in Washington. His far left policies and appointments have made things even worse. A significant amount of the furor over the "Back to School" speech is simply based on that, which is absolutely idiotic. As much as I may disagree with this or that policy he is the president. Even if the left didn't treat Dubya with the respect that the office deserves, the right should treat "The One" with that respect.

What kind of service is it going to be?

Serving one's community is a great thing. I try to do that through my church involvement and involvement with various civic groups. I say this not to brag, because I'm sure even with that, I don't do enough. I like and participate in community service. I just don't want anyone to construe what I say here as being opposed to community service. However I am concerned about the "National Day of Service and Remembrance" on September 11. It is now federal law and we have federal money going to various groups to "promote" service. Good "upstanding" groups like ACORN are involved, but that is really a subject for another blog. I extremely concerned about the emphasis I'm seeing on service and the de-emphasis on the remembrance part. According to many planners their goal is to turn 9/11 into something "positive", "forward-leaning" and "productive". I think that focus is entirely wrong. 9/11 should be a time to focus on patriotism, national security and terrorism. We are in a war with Islamofacist terrorists. These religious fundamentalists want to destroy us and our way of life. 9/11 was a seminal event in that war. We have an administration that seems to think nice language and "talking" to these monsters is the best way to handle the war on terror. They won't even call it a war on terror. Is this day of service just one more attempt to sweep the monstrosities of what has occurred under the rug? We don't want to offend someone by pointing out that in the name of their religion these crazies killed thousands of innocent people on that day.

We already have too many holidays where the meaning of the holiday has been lost. Memorial Day is a perfect example where pitifully small crowds show up at events designed to commemorate those fallen in defense of this country which it was designed for. Instead we as a society have let Memorial Day become a time to open swimming pools, have "great" sales, celebrate the beginning of summer. It took years for that change to occur in our society. Now we are less than 8 years from the event which we are commemorating and we seem to have a government that is actively pursuing the task of trying to wipe out the true meaning of 9/11.

I'm sure it's not what the Obama people had in mind, but I'm tempted to find a tea party to volunteer for on September 11. That might be the best kind of community service I could provide.

Two Wrongs....

For 8 years in the eyes of the left, nothing George Bush could do was correct. He was blamed for everything from subverting the constitution to causing global warming to about anything else. However an interesting trend has developed. It has happened to me on several comments I've made on various news stories in my local paper. It has happened with comments I've made online in various forums. It has happened numerous times to comments, links and blogs made by others including my nephew Will. The most recent example was on my nephew's Facebook page where he posted a link to an article about the White House using taxpayer dollars to hire a firm to make mass emails about the benefits of the health care proposal. In other words taxpayer dollars are being used to spam people. One of the comments made by one of Will's "friends" was "So how is that different from what the "Bush" White House did to spam the entire country about WMDs." Leaving aside the factual inaccuracies of that statement and many that led me to write this, the sentiment is the same in all of the responses. When you talk about spending and the deficit, the first response is "well George Bush did spent us into the deficit." When you talk about Obama going back on his promise to close Gitmo, (which I'm glad he has by the way, I just don't appreciate his lies about it during the campaign) you get a response, well George Bush had Gitmo. The litany goes on. Every time anyone dares to criticize "The One" the first and almost immediate response is "Unhh Unhhh. George Bush did something like that." As my Mom tried to drill into my head years ago,"two wrongs don't make a right". If George Bush, in the eyes of the left was so wrong on everything, why is it all of a sudden the first line of defense that George Bush did x.

We are no longer in the Bush years. This is Obama's government. How much longer are we going to have to hear that everything bad in the world was caused by George Bush and that "The One" is only correcting those issues? How much longer are we going to have to hear the defense of any criticisms of "The One" as well how is that any different than what Bush did.

Right now, the emperor has no clothes. Whether or not the prior emperor had clothes is completely irrelevant, and I'm quite frankly tired of hearing it.

Moving the needle

I've never really been an ideologue. Oh, I'll be the first to admit I've been right of center politically my whole life. I grew up in a politically active Republican family in western Kansas, and it came naturally. (I tend to agree with some of the studies that shows there is at least a genetic disposition to political views). However needless to say as a pro-choice, pro-gay rights, anti-censorship Republican, I don't fit in well with the "socially" conservative wing of the party.

Despite all that, the first seven months of Obama, Reid and Pelosi being in power has done more to make me a right wing ideologue than anything that has happened in my entire life. The bailout of the financial industry, the bailout of the auto industry, the "stimulus" package, and now the health care debate. Obama has doubled our national debt in seven months. It took us some 233 years to do what he has done financially in seven months. Unfortunately, there seems to be no regard for who is going to pay those bills.

Simply because I am one of many that oppose the federal takeover of my health care decisions, I have been likened to a Nazi, a brown-shirt, and a mobster. The White House has asked us to "snitch" on our neighbors and report "fishy" e-mails about the health care. Amazingly though, all of a sudden people that hadn't ever signed up got emails in support of the Obamacare from the White House. Damn, apparently none of my friends emailed the White House with one of my "fishy" emails. I feel left out. However, the thought of the White House collecting email addresses for blatant political purposes either in support of their program or to collect an "enemies" list, is rather scary as I've blogged before.

All in all, the last six months of Obama, Pelosi and Reid has done more to make me a right-wing ideologue than anything in my entire life. As Thomas Paine once wrote, "It is the duty of the patriot to defend his country from his government." And to the extent that Obama, Pelosi and Reid, represent that government, anything I can do to oppose them and any success they may try to have, is in my opinion a patriotic statement.

Proud Member of the Un-American Mob

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently called many of the Americans who were showing up at town hall meetings with their Congressmen as un-American. Other Democrat elected officials have described the crowds as "mobs". These citizens were actually exercising their first amendment rights of free speech and daring to laugh at, boo, jeer and yell at their elected officials when the official responded to questions and concerns about the proposed federal takeover of the health care system by parroting the democrat party line. Funny how in just a short period of time, Queen Nancy can have done an about face on such protests. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Pelosi said in January 2006 when anti-war protesters interrupted one of her town hall meeting, "It's always exciting. This is democracy in action. I'm energized by it, frankly." At another meeting where anti-war protesters interrupted the meeting in June 2007, her comment was "just go for it. I respect your enthusiasm."

Other than the obvious double standard, I think the Democrats are missing the boat on this whole issue. I think the protests are just a tip of the iceberg with a general mistrust of government. The general populace recognizes there are issues with health care, but you don't have to turn the system on its head to solve those problems. They have seen the centrist rhetoric from candidate Obama turn into hard left policy of President Obama. They have seen massive "bailouts", the takeover of large parts of the auto industry a "stimulus" bill that hasn't stimulated anything. The economy, despite all assurances, is not improving because of the government. Huge government spending increases and huge deficit increases will not and cannot get us out of the problem, and the health care bill is going to cost us a trillion more dollars over the next 10 years. And no government program ever comes in under budget. Look at the Cash for Clunkers. One billion dollars was supposed to last for 5 or 6 months of the program, it lasted a week and they went back and gave the program an additional 2 billion dollars.

Despite claims of savings to the contrary, no one has been able to point out where any cost savings will come from. Most experts are saying the only way we can cut costs is from rationing of care. In other words, a government bureaucrat will determine that this illness can only get this treatment, or if you are over 65 forget about a heart valve replacement. These are just examples, I know there are more out there. While it isn't explicitly in the bill, that is about the only logical conclusion one can make.

Put simply the majority of Americans that I am seeing at these town hall meetings are fed up with the way Washington works. We've seen too many instances of backroom deals cut on legislation in the middle of the night to trust what the liberals are saying about what is in and not in the health care bill. Despite claims to the contrary, there is video evidence of Barack Obama supporting a single payer government health care system. He claims his proposal doesn't do that. However, when government becomes involved, the cost of doing business for the insurance companies will increase dramatically. The rules and regulations they follow will become staggering. In the end many of them will simply get out of the health insurance business, leaving the "public" option as the only option. Thus while not explicit in the bill is the most logical outcome a couple of years down the line.

Funny thing is, all the "mob" activity is taking place at the Democrat town hall meetings. The Republican meetings where the representatives are sympathetic to the concerns of the citizens are being described as crowded but polite. Maybe it is the condescension that is so typical of the left. They know what is right for everyone and anyone who disagrees with them is a lunatic.

As Thomas Jefferson once said, "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?" So Mrs. Pelosi, sign me up as one of the Un-American mob. I don't want government to take over my health care and I'll tell anyone including elected officials exactly why.

Something fishy

John F Kennedy once said, "Without debate, without criticism, no administration and no country can succeed and no republic can survive." Claiming there is a lot of "disinformation" circulating, the White House this week asked citizens if they got an email or blog from someone about the health care debate that they thought was "fishy" they should send it to the White House. So, the White House is going to be collecting names, email addresses, IP addresses and private speech of citizens who oppose their massive government takeover of health care. For what purpose? To create an "enemies list"? To target these people for government paid "propaganda" to "educate" them as to the errors or their ways? I can see no other purpose for sending private emails and blogs to the White House on this specific purpose. I'd love to hear a rational explanation, but so far have yet to even hear the White House acknowledge the program. What are we going to have a "TRUTH CZAR"?

Just a quick question, is the disinformation from the Obama White House going to be reported? Despite claims to the contrary, there is video evidence that Barack Obama wants to go to a single payer government health care system. However, he now claims he is opposed to such system. Was he lying then? Or is he lying now? Or has he changed his mind, and if so, why? Sounds fishy to me.....someone ought to report it to the White House.

Besides having serious issues with the policy direction of this administration, the political power grabs are even more disconcerting. Government has taken over large parts of the financial system, the automotive manufacture and is now proposing a health care takeover. More "czars" have been appointed than I think Russia ever had. These shadowy positions bypass the ordinary "checks and balances". There was a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth about the alleged attempts by the Bush administration to consolidate power in the executive branch. Yet the appointment of all these czars and the government takeover of industry and finance is the biggest power grab going.

As I wrote before, there is a disturbing cult of personality rising around Obama. And just one more step in that direction is the White House request for us to "snitch" on our neighbor who disagrees with the President. It is quite frankly getting scarier by the day.

A Clunker of a Law

The "Cash for Clunkers" law ran out of money today. The program, funded by a billion dollars, that is BILLION, went into effect a week ago and was supposed to last through November. The law gives taxpayer dollars away, up to $4500, as an allowance for a trade in, for a new car purchase. The cars that are traded in have to be destroyed. They can't be resold, they can't be salvaged out for parts.

The government completely blew it in their forecast for the cost of this program. (Is it any wonder that many of us are skeptical of the claims of cost savings on things like healthcare? But that is the topic of another blog.) In addition to another major cost overrun by a government program, the Law of Unintended Consequences has reared its head in a major way. The "Cash for Clunkers" law sacrafices the middle class and the poor on the altar of the Goddess of the Environment. The alleged benefit of the "Cash for Clunkers", in addition to allegedly stimulating the auto industry, was that it would get gas guzzlers off the road, thus saving oil, reducing one's carbon footprint and stopping global warming. As a result of this program we are taking perfectly good operating vehicles and removing them from the marketplace. Many middle and lower income people cannot afford new cars. They shop in the marketplace of used. The law of supply and demand is one that even Congress has difficulty in screwing up. When we take perfectly good used cars out of the marketplace, the supply will go down, thus,the price will go up. When we take parts to repair these cars out of the marketplace, we raise costs of repairs to keep those cars going. And who pays the bill? The middle and lower income people who shop in that market of used cars. It's not the Congressmen and women that drive up to Capitol Hill in their new Lexus. It is the poor averge Joe like me that drives a 12 year old car with 175,000 miles on it and will have to pay out the nose to replace it because Congress didn't know or care about the fact that they will raise the costs of buying used cars.

Figures don't lie...but liars sure as hell figure

The American Recovery and Reinvestmet Act, the stimulus bill is getting some headlines in Kansas. A top Treasury official will be in Kansas tomorrow to celebrate the first project in Kansas using stimulus funds. The event is the grand opening of a senior citizen housing project in Osawatomie. That this project is being touted as an example of the success of the stimulus bill is an amazing stretch of reality.



The Woodland Hills Estates is a senior citizen housing project that was planned as replacement housing for residences that were destroyed in a 2007 flood. It is 22 two-bedroom units. The timeline here is extremely important. The city council of Osawatomie gave approval to the zoning for this development on October 9, 2008. The "stimulus bill" was signed by the president on February 13, 2009. The tenants started moving in the first part of July. Now it is very clear that the project was well underway by the time the "stimulus" became law. If it wasn't I'm not sure that I'd want to be in a housing development of 22 units that was built in less than 4 months.



The developer is getting a tax credit of slightly over 2 million dollars from the stimulus bill. That kind and amount of a tax credit certainly raises issues about overall tax policies and the adverse effect that high taxes have on economic growth, but those issues are best left for another blog.



It is clear that this project was well underway prior to the "stimulus" bill even being considered. While I don't begrudge the developer taking advantage of the tax credit., to claim that this is a success of the stimulus bill stretches the facts to an incredulous level.



We were told by the president that if the stimulus bill was not rammed through congress back in February, unemployment would rise to 9%. Even with it being rammed through, unemployment now stands at 9.5% and climbing. The administration has used the phrase, jobs created or saved, even though that "saved" job figure is something that is completely unmeasurable. Now projects like the one described above are being used as "success" stories of the stimulus. As my dad used to say, "figures don't lie, but liars sure as hell figure", using this and similar projects as successes for the stimulus bill just make the administration into even bigger liars than they've proven to be so far.

Peace for our time.

Two years ago, in a speech in Washington D.C., candidate Barack Obama stated, "It is time to turn the page. It is a time to write a new chapter in our response to 9/11....When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won......getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan." WE WILL WAGE THE WAR THAT HAS TO BE WON. Just yesterday, President Obama stated, that he was uncomfortable using the term "victory " to describe the goal in Afghanistan. So, while we are in a war that "has to be won" we aren't working for victory???????? So, Obama is Commander in Chief of a military that he has claimed that are in a war that "has to be won", but he is uncomfortable with using the term "victory" in describing the goal of that war. What the hell are we fighting for if it isn't victory? How can you put soldier's lives in danger if you aren't aiming for victory in this war? We are in a battle for our very survival with fundamental Islamofacists. We have been in this battle for the last 25 years. They want to see our way of life destroyed. And we have a Commander in Chief of our military that isn't concerned about victory.....isn't concerned about winning a war. Kind of reminds me of Neville Chamberlain announcing to great cheers in 1938, after he gave in to Hitler's claims on Czechoslovakia that we would have "peace for our time". Weaklings who exhibit no backbone about defending themselves and "winning" a contest, only invite more abuse. By claiming we aren't in Afghanistan for victory, we are only making the target on us bigger.

Cult of Personality

A recent column appeared in the Topeka Capital-Journal entitled "No joke: Democrats are touchy" It appears that a Republican candidate for Kansas Secretary of State made a joke about Barack Obama's birth certificate. The Kansas Democrats apparently issued a press release claiming that such a joke made the candidate unfit for office. In less than 2 days, the column generated almost 60 comments. The bulk of them taking the author to task for his "slanted" column and another large amount just attacking Republicans in general and those that wrote comments in general as these right wing zealots. This is just one example, I can point to many others, but the cult of personality that is forming around Barack Obama is quite frankly a little scary. According to many, we aren't allowed to oppose his proposals or make jokes about him.

Wikipedia states "A cult of personality arises when a country's leader uses mass media to create a heroic public image, often through unquestioning flattery and praise. Cults of personality are often found in dictatorships and Stalinist type governments....Generally personality cults are most common in regimes with totalitarian systems of government that seek to radically alter or transform society according to (supposedly) revolutionary, new ideas. Often a single leader becomes associated with this revolutionary transformation and comes to be treated as benevolent 'guide' for the nation without whom the transformation to a better future cannot occur."

We aren't there yet, but we are coming dangerously close to creating a cult of personality. The mass media, for the most part, has done no hard questioning of BHO or his policies. In fact many are his biggest cheerleaders. We have way too manyof the elements of a "cult of personality" in play here to feel very comfortable. If you listen to Barack talk about health care, the economy, energy, the auto industry or about anything else, he is "the One" to radically transform society. All in all, it is just a bit too scary for me.