Corruption in High Office


Legal Dictionary

Main Entry: bribe
Function: noun
: a benefit (as money) given, promised, or offered in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust (as an official or witness) —compare KICKBACK
Main Entry: bribe
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Forms: bribed ; brib·ing
: to influence (a person) by giving a bribe

Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Senator Mary Landrieu BRIBED with $300,000,000 in taxpayer money

Senator Ben Nelson BRIBED by a an amendment forcing 49 OTHER states to pay increased Medicaid costs to cover HIS state.
(If bills singling out one citizen for a law, how is this legal? In addition to the bribery?)

Senator Harry Reid BRIBES fellow Senators to the tune of $1.2 BILLION OF YOUR MONEY!

I am willing to bring charges and/or a lawsuit against Reid and the Democrats for corruption. Unfortunately, I have no idea on how to do so properly.

AG Cuccinelli’s first act should be to bring suit to prove that this bill is unconstitutional.

Update: Michelle Malkin has the list of those being bribed

DemCare Bribe List #1

DemCare Bribe List #2

Rope. Tree. Democratic Senators. Assembly required.


Milblogs censored. Going silent. Support them.


Blackfive Blackout: MilBloggers Supporting CJ Grisham
Posted: 15 Dec 2009 10:59 PM PST
FOR TODAY, Wednesday 16 December 2009, many if not most, fellow milblogs — including This Ain’t Hell, From My Position, Miss Ladybug, Boston Maggie, Grim’s Hall, and those participating in the Wednesday Hero program — are going silent for the day. Some are choosing to go silent for a longer period of time.
The reason for this is two-fold. First, milblogs are facing an increasingly hostile environment from within the military. While senior leadership has embraced blogging and social media, many field grade officers and senior NCOs do not embrace the concept. From general apathy in not wanting to deal with the issue to outright hostility to it, many commands are not only failing to support such activities, but are aggressively acting against active duty milbloggers, milspouses, and others. The number of such incidents appears to be growing, with milbloggers receiving reprimands, verbal and written, not only for their activities but those of spouses and supporters.

Read the rest at Blackfive.

Update by Cargosquid: Aaaand we’re done for the day. Good luck CJ.


The Cold, Hard Facts


Emails! Junk Science! Global Warming! Deniers! Warmists! Global Cooling! The Sky is Falling!

We have all been told that Antarctica is warming at a tremendous rate. Well, one source of the “AGW” scam is the GHCN, the Global Historical Climate Network. And they measured the temperatures in the Antarctic for the last seventeen years at this place, Rothera Station.

THIS ONE PLACE.

FOR THE ENTIRE CONTINENT.

AND ITS NOT EVEN IN THE ANTARCTIC POLAR CLIMATE ZONE.

Its amazing what happens to that “warming trend” when you take location of the sensor and factor in other measurements…..

In case it has escaped those of you that still believe in AGW, this is how big Antarctica truly is:


Would you trust the scientists that based the average temperature of the United States measured by one thermometer in Miami, Florida? Let’s add these to the 100 Reasons why AGW is false.
Update!: (Yes, I am that quick)

In case one of you poor, poor deluded fools that still believe that AGW is “settled science” here is what happens when data from MORE Antarctica measurements are reconstructed….

And here is yet a completely different take on the subject of Antarctic warming in the western half: Volcanoes.

Quote of the Decade:

There is a reason why geologists are not included in the IPCC process – we can explain observations using known scientific facts without inventing scientific novelties. The IPCC, by ignoring the geology of the Earth, can then invent novel explanations for the same observations, the existing one being human emission of some CO2.


Sec. Gates: “We Are In It To Win”……………….not so much


The total incompetence is heart breaking. The lies and misrepresentations to the American people are outrageous. The press should be hounded for its failure to cover the dishonesty inherent in this administration. I can no longer recommend to young men and women that they join the military under this President. He will send them into harm’s way while lying about their mission and using them for short term political gain. Obama wants to quit without giving that appearance.

Secretary Gates told the public as of December 9th, "We are in it to win!"

Except, we’re not.

President Obama declared that Health Care and Global Warming are crises demanding IMMEDIATE passage of bills that could destroy our economy without discussion. Meanwhile he dithered for months on his strategy in Afghanistan, his "necessary" war, stating that the situation demanded a thorough review. His general in charge of the theater was unable to fully brief the so-called Commander-in-Chief UNTIL OCTOBER. According to the Washington Post , upon review by the administration, they were amazed to learn that General McChrystal intended to defeat the Taliban, with this response from our leaders:

In June, McChrystal noted, he had arrived in Afghanistan and set about fulfilling his assignment. His lean face, hovering on the screen at the end of the table, was replaced by a mission statement on a slide: "Defeat the Taliban. Secure the Population."

"Is that really what you think your mission is?" one of those in the Situation Room asked.

Apparently, defeating the enemy is not worth our efforts. President Obama revealed his new strategy of sending in the "surge" demanded by patriotic Americans and also declaring that we were leaving without finishing the job……Cut and Run, I think that’s called….

This review is now complete. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.

Of course, this has NO affect on our allies….Pakistan has just refused to go after a major Taliban Commander and ally of Al Queda because they say that this man can help THEM influence the Taliban once WE LEAVE…..depending upon the "conditions on the ground," of course…..

…..and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground.

And now, along comes Vice President Biden , he of the Golden Tongue.

Vice President Biden said that U.S. troops would rapidly withdraw from Afghanistan. "You’re going to see that [troop numbers] chart coming down as rapidly over the next two years," Biden said after looking at a chart showing troop numbers surging from 33,000 at the beginning of 2009 to 98,000 in the summer of 2010. "This is not a Coin [counterinsurgency] strategy," Biden said. "We just want to make sure that the Taliban is diminished enough so that the Afghan government can contain it."

Perhaps most troubling, Biden said: "the president has made something exquisitely clear to each of the generals: He said do not occupy any portion of that country that you are not confident within 18 months you’re going to be able to turn over to the Afghans. Do not occupy what you cannot turn over."

So…….if our troops are victorious in a province, we must just turn it back over to the Taliban. For the above strategy to work, we cannot go on the offensive. So much for that "surge"……..

And no, the Afghans WILL NOT be ready in 18 months. The Iraqi Army took years to re-train and they had a somewhat modern army. The Afghans barely have a central government, much less a modern military.

Bring the troops home. If you are not going to fight to win, no further action is justifiable or moral. Obama will not be able to paper over this surrender by declaring "victory."

h/t Ace of Spades


Text of Obama’s Speech – No mention of Victory


Good evening. To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our armed services, and to my fellow Americans: I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan – the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my Administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion. It is an honor for me to do so here – at West Point – where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security, and to represent what is finest about our country. (Chris Matthews refers to West Point as an “enemy camp.”)

To address these issues, it is important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, nineteen men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people.

They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of the passengers on board one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.

As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda – a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam (Really? According to whom? I’ve seen proof that they are following core tenets), one of the world’s great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban – a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere. (And the Taliban were initially applauded by the Democrats for rooting out corruption.)

Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them – an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to 0. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 – the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda’s terrorist network, and to protect our common security. (Too bad so many refuse to actually, you know….fight.)

Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy – and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden – we sent our troops into Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the UN, a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.

Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq War is well-known and need not be repeated here (It might remind people how wrong Obama was and make him look bad.). It is enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq War drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention – and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world. (So, extensive history lesson in detail for Afghanistan, but, no lesson for Iraq? What’s the matter? If you go into detail, your arguments founder? Doesn’t fit your script?)

Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of our men and women in uniform. Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance , we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people. (NO thanks to you, Mr. Cut and Run. And you’re still quitting before we are finished.)

But while we have achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated (Of course it has. When the terrorists can’t win in Iraq, they go to the ‘stan. DUH.). After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda’s leadership established a safe-haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it has been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient Security Forces.

Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to take control over swaths of Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating acts of terrorism against the Pakistani people.

Throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq (um,….. because THAT was where the battle was.). When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 (a peak that you voted against and wanted to stop.) in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive.(NOR HAVE THEY YET……we’re waiting…..)

That’s why, shortly after taking office, I approved a long-standing request for more troops. After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan, and the extremist safe-havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian effort. (Soooooo, you followed GWB’s plan…….)

Since then, we have made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we have stepped up the pressure on al Qaeda world-wide. In Pakistan, that nation’s Army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and – although it was marred by fraud – that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan’s laws and Constitution.

Yet huge challenges remain. Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. There is no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe-havens along the border.

And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan Security Forces and better secure the population (That would be YOU.). Our new Commander in Afghanistan – General McChrystal – has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short: the status quo is not sustainable. As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. Some of you have fought in Afghanistan. Many will deploy there. (And yet……you continue to dither!)

As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service. That is why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy. Let me be clear (DRINK!): there has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war.(Now…why don’t I believe him? Hmmmmmm……)

Instead, the review has allowed me ask the hard questions, and to explore all of the different options along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and with our key partners. Given the stakes involved, I owed the American people – and our troops – no less. (So, in other words, its taken you a year to actually use that intellect you touted and still go with GWB’s plan, except now, its too little, too late, and a dollar short.)

This review is now complete. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan. (I bolded this because it is UNFREAKING BELIEVABLE THAT HE JUST TOLD OUR ENEMY OUR TIMETABLE FOR SURRENDER! IT TOOK YEARS TO TRAIN IRAQIS. HE WANTS TO START LEAVING IN 18 MONTHS AFTER A SURGE, ONE THAT WE DON’T EVEN KNOW WILL WORK. HE IS CRIMINALLY STUPID.)

I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions. We have been at war for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. (Let me fix that: “I think the US is bad and shouldn’t use its military. The GWOT is a fake.)

Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters (YOUR FAULT, ALONG WITH PELOSI AND REID), and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort (SEE ABOVE). And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression (SEE ABOVE), the American people are understandably focused(ON VICTORY AGAINST THE ENEMY) on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home (WHICH YOU AREN’T).

Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you – a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens. As President, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars. I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed. I have visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed.

I have traveled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place (Photo ops all). I see firsthand the terrible wages of war(translation: IT DISTRACTS FROM MY TRANSFORMATION OF AMERICA). If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow. (TRANSLATION: IF I DID NOT THINK THAT PATRIOTIC AMERICANS WOULD GET RID OF ME…..)

So no – I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan(BULLSH#T). This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. (SO, OF COURSE, YOU APPROVE OF A SHOW TRIAL FOR THE WORST ONE AND DEGRADE THE CIA.)

This danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region. (YET WE START LEAVING IN 2011…….WTF?)

Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America’s war. Since 9/11, al Qaeda’s safe-havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them. (Ummm, what about Iran? If we’re willing to blow up Al-Queada to stop them from getting nukes, why not the Iranian gov’t?)

These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future. (And yet you surrender.)

To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe-haven (BS, Surrendering……). We must reverse the Taliban’s momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government (Surrendering…….). And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan’s Security Forces and government, so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan’s future. (What part of Surrendering, did you miss?)

We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban’s momentum and increase Afghanistan’s capacity over the next 18 months. (HAHAHAHAHAHAHA………yeah, I know, I have to laugh to keep from crying.)

The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 – the fastest pace possible (especially since you waited for MONTHS SINCE THE REQUEST) – so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They will increase our ability to train competent Afghan Security Forces (OXYMORON), and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans. (WHETHER THEY ARE READY OR NOT)

Because this is an international effort, I have asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we are confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. Now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what’s at stake is not simply a test of NATO’s credibility (what credibility? Thank God the Russians can barely invade Georgia) – what’s at stake is the security of our Allies, and the common security of the world. (The usual suspects have done wonderfully while the others have ROE that would embarrass a Girl Scout.)

Taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces (Surrender), and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. (If we are “taking into account conditions on the ground”, how can you provide ANY date? Why should ANY Afghani put themselves in danger for us. The Taliban will NEVER go away until Afghanistan is transformed.)

We will continue to advise and assist Afghanistan’s Security Forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government – and, more importantly, to the Afghan people – that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country. (Yep. We’ll do that until we can leave July 2011……just in time for the US elections…..)
Second, we will work with our partners, the UN (who? Oh, them. Yeah, they can be depended upon. They left.), and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security.

This effort must be based on performance (Whose performance?). The days of providing a blank check are over. (Repeat of his lame Iraqi statements. He’s planning to cut an run.) President Karzai’s inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We will support Afghan Ministries, Governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas – such as agriculture – that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people. (Agriculture? Oh, poppies…….)

The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They have been confronted with occupation – by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign Al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes (Not to mention shooting at each other in tribal warfare for 1000 years). So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand(Yep. I just bet that the Afghanis were just glued to their TVs.) – America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country (And that’s just how he sees our actions.).

We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens (WTF? They’re TALIBAN! And the Afghanis are fundamental muslims. Respect human rights according to whom?). And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect – to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron. (In other words, “blah, blah, blah, blah, blah…..)

Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.

We are in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That is why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.

In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who have argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani Army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy. (And yet, Obama wants to cut and run, and treat enemy combatants as ‘criminals’.)

In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interests, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe-haven for terrorists whose location is known, and whose intentions are clear (And yet, God forbid, the CIA use harsh language in finding out that information.).

America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan’s democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistani people must know: America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan’s security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed. (Translation: Here’s your money. We’ll print more.)

These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan. (No mention of victory. Cut and run…..)

I recognize that there are a range of concerns about our approach. So let me briefly address a few of the prominent arguments that I have heard, and which I take very seriously.

First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we are better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. Yet this argument depends upon a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. (Unlike Vietnam, we have alternative media sources that won’t demonize our efforts. We all know that you are ” cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing” for the domestic reasons and because you don’t know how to lead.)

Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency(Really? The Taliban appear to have support ACROSS THE COUNTRY BECAUSE WE’RE LEAVING.). And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now – and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance – would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies. (And yet that was your very plan. How will we keep pressure on them after we leave?)

Second, there are those who acknowledge that we cannot leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan Security Forces and give them the space to take over. (Key words: Go forward. That would translate into “win” for most……apparently you don’t understand that concept.)

Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a time frame for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort – one that would commit us to a nation building project of up to a decade.

I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what we can achieve at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a time frame for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan. (THIS IS SUCH UNMITIGATED BS! REASONABLE COSTS? SINCE WHEN IS THAT A REASON TO END A WAR? OH. MY. GOD. Reasonable compared to what? Is VICTORY beyond what we can achieve? Was transforming Japan and Germany into civilized countries beyond reasonable costs? What price Victory?)

As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, our or interests (ie, victory?). And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I do not have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I am mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who – in discussing our national security – said, “Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs.” (Translation: I need the money for the slush fund and have to keep my left wing base happy with handouts.)

Over the past several years, we have lost that balance, and failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy (Um, no WE didn’t. YOU did. You have killed the economy.). In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our friends and neighbors are out of work and struggle to pay the bills, and too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce (because YOU keep screwing with the economy). So we simply cannot afford to ignore the price of these wars. (Nope, so GM is to big to fail, but, national security can go begging.)

All told, by the time I took office the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars.(Which he beat in just ONE YEAR! ONE FRIGGIN’ YEAR!) Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly (HAHAHAHAHAHA!). Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly 30 billion dollars for the military this year, and I will work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit. (YOU LIE! I cannot believe that he said that! He is spending more money than ever and he said this?)

But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility (ie, surrender), we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. That is why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended – because the nation that I am most interested in building is our own. (And so I am going to kill our medical industry, destroy small business, and bankrupt our energy industry. And I will provide free money, food, housing, and TV from unicorn farts.)

Let me be clear(DRINK!): none of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly (according to you: July 2011), and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan (according to DHS, its every conservative). It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership (whose leadership? Where?) in the world. And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions and diffuse enemies.

So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict. (And there you have the Obama Doctrine. We Surrender) We will have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold – whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere – they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships. (But never military might. How the hell do you “pressure” a dispersed fanatical enemy that wants you dead?)

And we cannot count on military might alone. We have to invest in our homeland security (And so you cripple the CIA), because we cannot capture or kill every violent extremist abroad. We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence, so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks. (And yet, we couldn’t stop Ft Hood because of Political correctness.)

We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction (Except by, you know, actually TAKING them away). That is why I have made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to pursue the goal of a world without them. Because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever-more destructive weapons – true security will come for those who reject them. (Hey Iran! STOP! Or I’ll say “STOP” again!)

We will have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone. I have spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships. (And we’re STILL HATED. And YOU are laughed at. ANGERING LONG TERM ALLIES AND SUCKING UP TO SOCIALISTS. Great job, Barry!) And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim World – one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict, and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity. (Ok, where are those Muslims, exactly? Show me ONE muslim country that does that? Turkey comes closest and that’s because their military seize control if the “fundamentalists” get too crazy.)

Finally, we must draw on the strength of our values – for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not (Except you don’t believe in the same things that most Americans appear to.). That is why we must promote our values by living them at home – which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay (Btw, where are you planning to put any FUTURE captured terrorists? Or are you planning to just stop that altogether?) . And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights (Unless you’re Honduras. And we will DO exactly ZIP, ZILCH,NIL, NADA, NOTHING), and tend to the light of freedom, and justice, and opportunity, and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the moral source of America’s authority.

Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions – from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank – that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings. (And today it ends.)

We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades – a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, markets open, billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress, and advancing frontiers of human liberty. (No thanks to Obama’s kind. His ilk were usually on the OTHER side.)

For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for – and what we continue to fight for – is a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity.

As a country, we are not as young – and perhaps not as innocent – as we were when Roosevelt was President(Innocent? Apparently you haven’t read any history of the Progressive movement). Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom. Now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age.

In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people – from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children, and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people, and for the people a reality on this Earth.

This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue – nor should we. But I also know that we, as a country, cannot sustain our leadership nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse. (So, why do you keep DOING IT?)

It is easy to forget that when this war began, we were united – bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack, and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. I believe with every fiber of my being that we – as Americans – can still come together behind a common purpose. For our values are not simply words written into parchment – they are a creed that calls us together, and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, one people.

America – we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes. Thank you, God Bless you, God Bless our troops, and may God Bless the United States of America.

(God I miss Ronald Reagan. Heck, even Bill Clinton.)


Why KSM is getting a show trial?


Remember, everything is about Obama’s legacy. Nothing else.

After all the legal wrangling, Obama may very well be out of office by the time any civilian trial is concluded. Holder did not tell Sen. Graham that KSM would be re-imprisoned. He said that Congress would not allow KSM to "be released in THIS country."

Obama could be accused of biasing any jury pool with his statements. If KSM is found "not guilty", Obama can point to that as an example of how fair HIS administration is and that HE has restored America to the fair and wonderful place it was before…..fill in the blank.

All of the ramifications on KSM and other terrorists custody status has been done. No one wants a clear definition. One that we could use is the old term OUTLAW. They are outside the law, and therefore free game for anyone. Just as we will never see a return to the standards of piracy prosecution from the past (can you see any modern skipper of a warship hanging pirates caught in the act?), our society will not allow itself to treat these mad dogs appropriately.

Also this trial will set precedent. This is the first step in turning the War on Terror into a criminal investigation. Obama and his far left allies want the war to end. They have never believed in it.

This "trial" could be held anywhere. NY will be picked for the theater. Why not Pennsylvania? Or Virginia? Holder refused to answer any questions about conflict of interest because of past associations with firms that DEFENDED the terrorists. This is about Obama’s legacy. Holder is his pet.


Obama lies to the Chinese and Americans. Again.


President Obama is clueless.

"Too much debt could fuel double-dip recession"

Ya think? Of course, remember his audience….his bankers in China.

BEIJING, Nov 18 (Reuters)

President Barack Obama gave his sternest warning yet about the need to contain rising U.S. deficits, saying on Wednesday that if government debt were to pile up too much, it could lead to a double-dip recession.

With the U.S. unemployment rate at 10.2 percent, Obama told Fox News his administration faces a delicate balance of trying to boost the economy and spur job creation while putting the economy on a path toward long-term deficit reduction.

His administration was considering ways to accelerate economic growth, with tax measures among the options to give companies incentives to hire, Obama said in the interview with Fox conducted in Beijing during his nine-day trip to Asia.

“It is important though to recognize if we keep on adding to the debt, even in the midst of this recovery, that at some point, people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy in a way that could actually lead to a double-dip recession,” he said.

Long term deficit reduction? Recovery? People COULD lose confidence? Is he smoking crack?

He has trillions in debt coming on line and has spent more in the last two months than Bush did in a year. Recovery? Hello, McFly! Double digit unemployment, bank bail outs, and businesses closing. People DON’T HAVE CONFIDENCE IN YOU OR THE ECONOMY!

This is just more smoke to hide what is really going on. He thinks that the American public is either stupid (some evidence there-look who they voted for) or blind (What? Don’t bother me! Dancing with the Stars is on!). Apparently, he thinks that China is going to believe his lies too.

Obama lied. Jobs died.

Category: , , ,

Smart Diplomacy


Apparently they all look alike to the “Smartest President Evah”.

I mean, if our President is going to break 200 years of tradition and bow to a foreign leader…..

if our President is going to embarrass our country…..

if our President is going to show slavish subservience…..

null

Then, at least get it right.

This is the man that deserve Obama’s, if not America’s bow…..

null

I mean, he is lending us all of that money that Obama is trying to bribe Congress with spend……


The Wall – Never Forget


Tyranny cannot tolerate opposition or escape. The Iron Curtain was the symbol of Soviet oppression of Eastern Europe. Children and young adults today cannot comprehend what it was like to live in such a world. Even the countries involved were labeled. Today no one speaks of Eastern Europe. Rather the world now speaks of Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Bulgaria, etc. No longer are these free countries lumped together under a label of “the oppressed”.

Even in the Free West, the Cold War and Soviet oppression was a dank blanket over the world. Its existence, though dismissed and minimized by many, including some in Congress today, was a blight upon the world. Millions were prisoners of that system, and millions died because of that system. Socialist/Communist oppression killed over 100 million in the 20th Century alone.

The greatest symbol of that oppression was the Berlin Wall. Erected in 1961 to stop East Germans from fleeing the country, it split towns, villages, and families. Ostensibly a wall to imprison West Berlin and separate it from East Germany, the effect was to accentuate the freedom of the West and the imprisonment of communist occupied countries. The attempts to cross the Wall showed all of us that freedom is priceless. Every success was a cause for rejoicing as if someone was back from the dead.

Fine words were spoken in support of the West Berliners. The evil was confronted at the border. Kennedy, after the Cuban Missile Crisis, went to West Berlin after the building of the Wall that split families asunder, apparently forever.


The Cold War was a constant. The Wall was its symbol. However, no Western country actually confronted the Soviet Union directly over the monstrosity of the Wall. No American president was actually willing to challenge the Soviet Union oligarchy about the morality of the Iron Curtain on fear of escalation.

Until Reagan.

His speech electrified the world. Lovers of freedom applauded while useful idiots disparaged him. His challenge illuminated the fact that it was the responsibility of the occupying power to destroy the Wall; that the only way for peaceful coexistence to continue was for the Soviet system of oppression to end. This speech was the first step that led to the fall of the Wall two years later. Confronted with an increasing exodus of East Germans fleeing to the West via Hungary and Czechoslovakia, political concessions were granted, allowing freer travel between the countries. Freedom cannot be constrained once fetters are loosened.


Foreclosure follies


When I take a break from blogging, I’m a real estate title abstractor. I’m….in-between…. employers at the moment. Why? Nope. Not because of the foreclosures. If every house on the market that should be foreclosed was being sold, I would have a job. My industry depends upon the transaction, the sale, of homes. And responsible banks and buyers get titles checked before they buy. And lenders and buyers need title insurance.

THIS is why I’m sittng at home, blogging.

About 1.2 million loans out there are in limbo : The borrower is in serious default yet the bank has not started the foreclosure process. Another 1.5 million are in early stages of the foreclosure process but the bank hasn’t yet taken possession of the home. Counting these and loans that are highly likely to end up in default, one analyst estimates three million to four million foreclosed homes will come on the market over the next few years.

…state mortgage-mediation schemes as well as the Obama Administration’s Home Affordable Modification Program, which at last count had managed to prevent 235,247 homes from coming onto the market…

Between ACORN (ie, the government) pressuring banks to give out bad loans, bank bailouts reducing the risk of the banks, and Barney Frank and co. wanting to reignite the housing mortgage bubble, and the press not wanting to give any bad news to the public because that would make their heroes look bad, we are screwed. The banks don’t want to take the loss that reduced prices would bring. Remember, when the owner is the bank on an "underwater" mortgage, they are in the same boat as the previous owner. They want the money to pay their debts. No one is willing to take the loss and Congress wants to save their investment money bail them out.

You think that the FDIC is broke now? That banks are going under now? Just wait.

A comment from the post:
The FHA is writing about a third of all purchase mortgages, most of them with no money down (after the 8% tax credit). Believe it or not, USDA mortgages are gaining market share too. Yeah, USDA. And the mortgages the private sector writes, it quickly turns around and sells. The biggest buyer is, you guessed it, the government.

God forbid that any possible Democrat voters have pain. We must buy their vote help them! The government can buy all that debt! We have our money invested in those banks! We have to help the poor! We’re with the government and we’re here to help.

But all that money is going to be for naught.

Because the commercial real estate foreclosure crisis is on the way. Won’t THAT be fun?


Carbon Taxes? Aren’t YOU a carbon based life form?


As Robert Heinlein put is so succintly, TANSTAAFL.

Why Drill Here, Drill Now is not just a political slogan but necessary for the continuation of civilization as we know it and carbon taxes are the ruination of us all. Mostly Cajun explains the real world of energy and why expecting to replace "fossil fuels" anytime soon is as naive as expecting Obama to be honest about his agenda.

Read the whole thing. And the comments.

Damn those Laws of Thermodynamics!


Obama Administration believes Russia


when they say that, "Of course we’ll help you with that Iranian problem…..We’ll get them to put away the nukes. We’ve only invested millions in helping them develop nuclear power….Don’t worry about it. The check is in the mail. And we have a bridge to sell you. I promise not to c…"

You get the idea.

So…..Obama has betrayed two allies, Poland and the Czech Republic, by killing the missile defense idea. Russia is upset that we want to put DEFENSIVE, anti-missile systems in Europe. Why? Oh, that’s right….they’ve already bullied two countries. Why not more? Georgia and Ukraine are screwed.

Let’s see who is the wonderful negotiator for this travesty: Under Secretary of State for Arms Control Ellen Tauscher ‘The first member of her family to attend college, she graduated in 1974 from Seton Hall University, where she obtained a Bachelor of Science degree in early childhood education.

I’m sure THAT will help in international relations. (Actually, it probably would.)

Here’s the news from abroad:

From the AP: Obama scrapping missile shield for Czech, Poland

Premier Jan Fischer told reporters that Obama phoned him overnight to say that "his government is pulling out of plans to build a missile defense radar on Czech territory."

"The same happened with Poland. Poland was informed in the same way about this intention," Fischer said.

Under the plan, which had been proposed by the Bush administration to defend the United States and its European allies against a possible missile attack from Iran or elsewhere in the Middle East , 10 interceptor rockets were to have been stationed in Poland and a radar system based in the Czech Republic.

So, Obama called them up like a unfaithful girlfriend and said, "Honey, I think we should start seeing other people. Its not you. Its me….."

He’s doing this WITHOUT Russian guarantees of sanctions against Iran. He’s HOPING that Russia will CHANGE its mind about helping the US.

Kinda of like an insecure girl putting out just so the quarterback will date her.

Alexei Arbatov, head of the Russian Academy of Science ‘s Center for International Security, told a Moscow radio station Thursday that the U.S. was giving in on missile defense to get more cooperation from Russia on Iran .

"The United States is reckoning that by rejecting the missile-defense system or putting it off to the far future, Russia will be inclined together with the United States to take a harder line on sanctions against Iran ," he said.

But what happens to her reputation? Lets see:

The decision to scrap the plan will have future consequences for U.S. relations with eastern Europe.

"If the administration approaches us in the future with any request, I would be strongly against it," said Jan Vidim, a lawmaker with Czech Republic’s conservative Civic Democratic Party , which supported the missile defense plan .

The Czech government stood by us against opposition in their country because they knew it was the right thing to do. Too bad they trusted us. I wonder why we have such a poor reputation among allies……..

And Niles Gardiner of the UK Telegraph puts it just right: Barack Obama surrenders to Russia on Missile Defence.

He wrote:

“if enacted, this would represent a huge turnaround in American strategic thinking on a global missile defence system, and a massive betrayal of two key US allies in eastern and central Europe. Such a move would significantly weaken America’s ability to combat the growing threat posed by Iran’s ballistic missile program, and would hand a major propaganda victory to the Russians.”

This is bad news for all who care about the US commitment to the transatlantic alliance and the defence of Europe as well as the United States. It represents the appalling appeasement of Russian aggression and a willingness to sacrifice American allies on the altar of political expediency. A deal with the Russians to cancel missile defence installations sends a clear message that even Washington can be intimidated by the Russian bear.

President Jimmy Carter Barack Obama is swallowing it all,…….hook, line, and sinker.


Reactions to Obama Flipping Us The Finger


Since there are just too many better writers out there, and many of you are working too hard to take the time to find them, here’s a round up of reactions to ObamaCare.

Roger Kimball at Roger’s Rules talks about Obama as Tony Soprano.

He introduces Thomas Sowell’s piece on Obama vs. Common Sense.

But he absolutely loves Shikia Dalmia’s PutUp or Shut Up.

Obama swears that there will be no rationing. But he’s going to cut costs. TigerHawk and Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) talk about how ObamaCare will cut investments in medical innovation.

TigerHawk: As we have long predicted on this blog, the health care “reformers” propose to finance at least part of the “savings” or new benefits — it is impossible to know which — by decreasing the rate of return on medical technology. There are many ways in which this might be done, but the Senate Democrats are proposing to do so directly, by levying a “value added tax” on medical device companies according to their proportion of U.S. sales. This tax would be without regard to profitability, so it would amount to a capital tax on start-ups and a massive income tax surcharge on profitable companies, varying as net margins do.

Glenn Reynolds: The normal critique of socialized medicine is to point out that people have to wait a long time for these kinds of treatments in places like Britain. And that’s certainly a valid critique. I’m sure my mom and daughter would still be waiting for their treatments, while my father and wife would probably be dead.

The key point, though, is that these treatments didn’t just come out out of the blue. They were developed by drug companies and device makers who thought they had a good market for things that would make people feel better.

But under a national healthcare plan, the “market” will consist of whatever the bureaucrats are willing to buy. That means treatment for politically stylish diseases will get some money, but otherwise the main concern will be cost-control. More treatments, to bureaucrats, mean more costs.

Obama Care. Flipping you the finger while you wait to die.

cross posted at United Conservatives of Virginia


I’m sorry. Your operation is on hold. Your DNC dues haven’t been paid.


The Left always attacks its critics. Always.

From the Clinton machine to Obama’s minions, the left has attacked every critic. Pelosi calls concerned citizens, many of them democrats, nazis. The administration tells its people to “punch back twice as hard.” This is against private, albeit loosely organized, citizens. Joe the Plumber was investigated and his private information used against him. The press pilloried him for daring to question “the One.” Do you think Gov. Palin would have had so much trouble if she had never left Alaska, or hadn’t attracted so much support? Now, private citizens are getting calls and emails for questioning and contradicting their representatives in public. Many have gotten threats to their lives. Katy Abrams dared to question Arlen Spector and her family is now getting threats. Kenneth Gladney was beaten by SEIU thugs for daring to be a conservative black man.

Do you really think that, under a Progressive government, who you know and what you say won’t be held against you? Who invented anti-2nd Amendment political correctness? Who invented the idea of hate crimes and hate speech? And, of course, we always hear that “right wing” talk is “hate speech,” thereby making conservative talk, or thought, a crime, if taken seriously.

Now, picture these same tyrants in charge of your health care……

Who did you vote for? Are you a union member? Do you support the unions? Are you a member of the right ethnic group? Which candidate did you send money to? Have you sent your donation to the DNC?

These questions, or similar ones, could appear on your standard medical questionnaire.

Tell me that’s not a possibility with what you’ve seen this administration do. Tell me that, with what you’ve seen appear on the census, this couldn’t happen. Tell me, with the incorporation of ACORN, etc, into the government, that this wouldn’t matter.

Let’s hope that you are right.

But it would be safer if we just don’t have government run health care.

That said, take a look at what the “health care” plans would do.  Even if the following ideas were not implemented, since unions are exempted from the public plan, citizens would unionize just to get good health insurance….

h/t Flopping Aces

Read the Union Health-Care Label
Get ready for Detroit-style labor relations in our hospitals.
By Mark Mix
Wall Street Journal
SEPTEMBER 10, 2009

In the heated debates on health-care reform, not enough attention is being paid to the huge financial windfalls ObamaCare will dole out to unions—or to the provisions in the various bills in Congress that will help bring about the forced unionization of the health-care industry.

Tucked away in thousands of pages of complex new rules, regulations and mandates are special privileges and giveaways that could have devastating consequences for the health-care sector and the American economy at large.

The Senate version opens the door to implement forced unionization schemes pursued by former Govs. Rod Blagojevich of Illinois in 2005 and Gray Davis of California in 1999. Both men repaid tremendous political debts to Andy Stern and his Service Employees International Union (SEIU) by reclassifying state-reimbursed in-home health-care (and child-care) contractors as state employees—and forcing them to pay union dues.

The current House version of ObamaCare (H.R. 3200) goes much further. Section 225(A) grants Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius tremendous discretionary authority to regulate health-care workers “under the public health insurance option.” Monopoly bargaining and compulsory union dues may quickly become a required standard resulting in potentially hundreds of thousands of doctors and nurses across the country being forced into unions.

Ms. Sebelius will be taking her marching orders from the numerous union officials who are guaranteed seats on the various federal panels (such as the personal care panel mentioned above) charged with recommending health-care policies. Big Labor will play a central role in directing federal health-care policy affecting hundreds of thousands of doctors, surgeons and nurses.

The House bill has a $10 billion provision to bail out insolvent union health-care plans. It also creates a lucrative professional-development grant program for health-care workers that effectively blackballs nonunion medical facilities from participation. The training funds in this program must be administered jointly with a labor organization—a scenario not unlike the U.S. Department of Labor’s grants for construction apprenticeship programs, which have turned into a cash cow for construction industry union officials on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars each year.

There’s more. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus has suggested that the federal government could pay for health-care reform by taxing American workers’ existing health-care benefits—but he would exempt union-negotiated health-care plans. Under Mr. Baucus’s scheme, the government could impose costs of up to $20,000 per employee on nonunion businesses already struggling to afford health care plans.

Mr. Baucus’s proposal would give union officials another tool to pressure employers into turning over their employees to Big Labor. Rather than provide the lavish benefits required by Obamacare, employers could allow a union to come in and negotiate less costly benefits than would otherwise be required. Such plans could be continuously exempted.

Americans are unlikely to support granting unions more power than they already have in the health-care field. History shows union bosses could abuse their power to shut down medical facilities with sick-outs and strikes; force doctors, nurses and in-home care providers to abandon their patients; dictate terms and conditions of employment; and impose a failed, Detroit-style management model on the entire health-care field.

ObamaCare is a Trojan Horse for more forced unionization.

Mr. Mix is president of the National Right to Work Committee.


ERISA – Do you know what it means?


Neither did I. And the powers that be don’t want you to know either. Have you seen how these “health care” bills are written? Or the existing regulations?

During the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church was in charge. All power was based on God’s approval. And only the priesthood could read Latin….
Similarly, the mullahs do the same thing in the muslim world. The Koran is in Arabic. And only the imams read Arabic…..

Now, power seeking entities seek control over your lives. Insurance companies, governments, lobbyists, etc, all want to control and guide your choices.

William Tucker at The American Spectator explains it all:

But let’s get back to my original point, which is that liberals speak a different language when they talk about healthcare. Here’s what the Brookings Institution recommends for resolving the problem:

• Link “meaningful use” health IT [Information Technology] bonuses to achieving better results as part of systems of quality measurement, quality improvement, and care coordination.

• Create interoperability and provider communications standards, with a focus on filing priority gaps in standards for practical exchange.

• Fund technical support programs to ensure providers adopting health IT have access to comprehensive support for overcoming implementation challenges.

• Create an entity [that means a federal government panel] to allocate CER [Comparative Effectiveness Research] based on the expected value of the evidence to be developed, including the national burden of disease and the likelihood that the research will lead to real improvements in care.

• Emphasize areas of medical uncertainty, public health interventions, and broad provider practice patterns and the policies that influenced them.

I don’t know about you but most of these sentences sound like the kind you compose with refrigerator magnets. What in god’s name are they talking about?

Now I know what the answer will be. “You don’t have the expertise to know what they’re talking about.” I’m sure that’s true. There must be a level of non-profit, policymaker executive authority at which this all jargon makes sense.

But that’s the whole point. None of this is supposed to be comprehensible to ordinary individuals. It’s not written for people who take part in the system. It’s written for people who see the major players as chess pieces to be moved around the board.

Obama wants us all to have choice. Apparently, through ERISA, unions, large corporations, and the self insured, perhaps 90% of the insured, already have choice. Governments don’t like that.

Go read the rest.

cross posted at United Conservatives of Virginia


Its not about Health Care. Its about Power.


What is it that the Left promises?

Yes, I know, but free energy from unicorn farts IS mythical. Well, then again, so is most of what the Left says is mythical…..but I digress.

The Progressives promise more efficient government services. The Progressives promise that the government will help you. The Progressives promise that THEY will save you through the power of this or that government scheme.

The Conservatives (not necessarily the GOP) want the government to return to its Constitutional role of leveling the playing field for its citizens so that they may freely pursue their dreams. The Conservatives want the government to only referee, not be in the game.

Mark Steyn nails it: (emphasis mine)

Since January, his successor has used the economic slump as a pretext to “reform” health care. Most voters don’t buy it: They see it as Obama’s “war of choice,” and the more frantically he talks about it as a matter of urgency the weirder it seems. If he’s having difficulty selling it, that’s because it’s not about “health.” As I’ve written before, the appeal of this issue to him and to Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank et al is that governmentalization of health care is the fastest way to a permanent left-of-center political culture — one in which elections are always fought on the Left’s issues and on the Left’s terms, and in which “conservative” parties no longer talk about small government and individual liberty but find themselves retreating to one last pitiful rationale: that they can run the left-wing state more effectively than the Left can. Listen to your average British Tory or French Gaullist on the campaign trail, pledging to “deliver” government services more “efficiently.”

Any Republican that cooperates with this madness DESERVES to lose his/her seat. Any “conservative” Democrat that cooperates with this madness also deserves to lose their seat or be exposed for the lickspittles that they are.

Cross posted at United Conservatives of Virginia.


I’m with the government, I’m here to tax, um…..help you.


Some busybodies cannot leave well enough alone. Congress is addicted to our money. Congressmen are addicted to “fixing” what is not broken. Many want to force us into certain social pathway because they think its important.

Now, Congressman Earl Blumenauer (D) Oregon, wants to spend our money so that the government can spy on us. He wants to spend millions of dollars developing a system that tracks every motorist in America in order to tax their mileage. Apparently, he hasn’t heard about the odometer yet. He needs to also track WHERE we’re driving.

US Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon) introduced H.R. 3311 earlier this year to appropriate $154,500,000 for research and study into the transition to a per-mile vehicle tax system. The “Road User Fee Pilot Project” would be administered by the US Treasury Department. This agency in turn would issue millions in taxpayer-backed grants to well-connected commercial manufacturers of tolling equipment to help develop the required technology. Within eighteen months of the measure’s passage, the department would file an initial report outlining the best methods for adopting the new federal transportation tax.

“Oregon has successfully tested a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) fee, and it is time to expand and test the VMT program across the country,” Blumenauer said in a statement on the bill’s introduction. “A VMT system can better assess fees based on use of our roads and bridges, as well as during times of peak congestion, than a fee based on fuel consumption. It is time to get creative and find smart ways to rebuild and renew America’s deteriorating infrastructure.”

Of course, this would be on top of the gas tax. And the technology used to track which roads and bridges are most used, wouldn’t EVER be used by law enforcement, oh no…. Or be used by insurance companies to track individual driving habits.

The government controls ONSTAR. This bill would track all motorists. The government wants to control your health care. The government wants all medical records online and wants access to them. The government has shown interest in having the IRS be involved in your health care decisions and now your driving decisions. The insurance companies would love to have all this information. And if the government is running health care…….it won’t matter. Because the government will have access to all of it.

Tell me that I’m wrong that these ideas would not be abused. Tell me that I’m wrong in that these programs would, eventually, piece meal, be implemented so that more and more restrictions would be put into place. All in the name of saving taxpayer money or saving the children, of course. Politicians can’t help themselves. Everything they do is a “good idea at the time” in their eyes. THEY are not affected by any of this. They have to be seen as doing something, anything…..

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Cross posted at United Conservatives of Virginia


Forget Healthcare…Watch those town halls when the light bulb ban takes effect…


We have until 2012 until we follow where the European Union is leading.  Our fearless leaders, in order to make themselves feel better about themselves passed a bill that banned incandescent light bulbs from American shores.  The federal government believes that they have the right to interfere in our lives to that extent….

Well, here’s what’s happening in Europe:

On September 1, the European Union began to enforce a ban on incandescent light bulbs. The response was immediate outcry from thousands of EU citizens who felt the blanket ban was overdone and failed to take into account hazards from compact fluorescent bulbs containing the toxic heavy metal mercury, according to the New York Times.

Nine days later, the furor has failed to subside. Europeans are hoarding still available supplies of incandescent bulbs and the airwaves are lit up with complaints about the Draconian energy saving enforcement measure.

If this is what’s happening in Europe under socialism lite, just think what’s going to happen when this impinges on the American consciousness…..

Pssst. Hey. Want what I got? Need a bulb?

Get ‘em now and stock up. What happens in England happens here when progressives are in power. And yes, I include President Bush in that description. He signed the bill.

Millions of Britons are finally waking up to the fact that their beloved light bulb will disappear for good after 120 years.

Traditional 100-watt bulbs are vanishing from the High Street because of a controversial European Union decision.

Yesterday panic buyers were snapping up the remaining bulbs in a last-ditch attempt to stockpile the final supplies. Hundreds of leading supermarkets and DIY chains – including Sainsbury’s, Asda and Homebase – have already sold their last remaining bulbs after a surge in panic buying.

All in the name of lowering CO2 in the atmosphere. Global warming, don’cha know?

A little over a year ago, Congress decided that they knew what was best for you. (What else is new?) They banned the incandescent light bulb because Congress felt that those bulbs were destroying the planet.

The phase-out of incandescent light is to begin with the 100-watt bulb in 2012 and end in 2014 with the 40-watt.

( I think my attic could hold quite a bit of these bulbs. I see businesses forming…..)

All light bulbs must use 25 percent to 30 percent less 2014. By 2020, bulbs must be 70 percent more efficient than they are today.

My experience with the new CFL bulb is that they DO NOT last any longer than regular bulbs, put out horribly inferior light, and contain enough mercury that their manufacture is not allowed in the USA. ( See # 6 (bolded) below) Fluorescent lights cause me and many others to experience headaches, migraines, and eye strain.

(Hmmmm, I see a class action law suit……since CFL use will be mandatory. )

While they use less energy, they costs many times a regular bulb. If they don’t last the reported lifetime, all you are doing is spending more money. No savings. I wonder how much the power/electric companies like GE lobbied the government to “save the world” so that the consumer would be forced to pay them more money.

Here’s a quick list of the problems. From a commenter at Treehugger.com

Here’s a short critique of the bogus argument that there will be a reduction in toxic mercury into the environment with CFL’s due to the energy reduction from coal plants:
(1) The EPA figures are incorrect for several reasons. The basic one is that they assume 100% of electricity in the US is from coal plants. Not true. 50% of electricity does not come from coal plants in the US and coal plants are now mandated to reduce their mercury emissions by between 70% and 90% in the next several years.
(2) Places like California produce little energy from coal plants, so CFL energy reductions will not cut much mercury there.
(3) The 5mg of mercury generally claimed for CFL’s is largely a goal and not the current reality which can be 300% to 600% higher, depending on the manufacturer. The EPA assumes just 4mg.
(4) CFL’s are made in China with energy from mostly very dirty coal plants that emit much more mercury than US coal plants.
(5) CFL’s made in China spill as much mercury into the environment as goes into the CFL’s.
(6) CFL’s are delivered here on ships using bunker oil, the worst mercury producer of the fuel oils. Incandescent bulbs are still almost all made in the US.
(7) There is no recycling program in place or planned that could handle the number of CFL’s proposed. And after many years, even the industrial recycling programs only handle 25% of the mercury from fluorescent lights.
(8) It is likely that if any major recycling program is set up, the CFL’s will be shipped back to China for reprocessing.
Thus, a massive CFL program will put a massive amount of toxic mercury into the environment and very likely into our kid’s bodies. And the EPA says that a sixth of them already have too much mercury in them. Given the danger, it might be wise to believe the EPA in this case.

(Besides, Obama has said the he is going to END the coal powered plants. Alternative energy! Heck, how about nuclear power, then? No mercury then. CFLs are then a pollutant, not a “solution”.)

While I believe that the danger of the amount of mercury in these bulbs might be overblown, see below:

“And although one dot of mercury might not seem so bad, almost 300 million compact fluorescents were sold in the United States last year.” (NY Times Feb. 17, 2008)

5mg x 300,000,000 = 1500kg = 3306lbs (Dominion Virginia Power has partnered with the Home Depot and Honeywell since October 2007 to offer energy-efficient compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) at discounted rates, and the program passed two million sales this week.) 10,000,000 mg of mercury. Is that all being recycled or is it going into Virginia landfills?)

How many of you are going to recycle their light bulbs in special bulb recycling centers? Oh, wait, where are the centers? What happens when EVERY light bulb is a CFL? And how about the additional mercury that is in the normal fluorescent tube lights? Why don’t those get recycled?

From Quest, which actually promotes CFL’s

Of course, recycling is best, and that is still a problem. Alan Meier, Home Energy’s senior executive editor, admits to turning part of his garage into a “temporary hazardous waste holding facility” to hold his family’s used CFLs, since the nearest CFL recycling center is 13 miles away from his home in Berkeley, through “one of the worst traffic jams in the United States.”

“temporary hazardous waste holding facility”? That assumes that you HAVE a place to store the bulbs. I don’t have a garage. What about you? What about broken bulbs? Where do you store them?

Recycling center is 13 miles away? That’s 26 miles round trip. In traffic, with the stop at the center, that’s about an hour.That’s over a gallon of fuel in most vehicles. Hmmm, more pollution. And that gas cost just added to the increased cost and inconvenience of the CFL’s.

(Is there one in Richmond? ) Aha! Here’s some:

Home Depot
1.3 mi Commercial Drop-Off
1400 County Road SOUTH HILL, VA 23970

(434) 955-2477 Web Site

Schedule:

Please call for hours.

Notes:

Materials:

Compact Fluorescent Lightbulbs.

Atlantic Electrical Supply Corp
3.4 mi Commercial Drop-Off
2117 Westwood Avenue RICHMOND, VA 23230

(804) 358-6737 Web Site

Schedule:

Monday to Friday 8am to 5pm and Saturday 8am to noon

Notes:

Materials:

Compact Fluorescent Lightbulbs, Fluorescent Bulbs.

Advanced Technologies, Inc.
4.5 mi Commercial Drop-Off
4300 Eubank Road RICHMOND, VA 23231

(804) 222-6076 Web Site

Schedule:

Monday to Friday 8am to 4pm

Notes:

This site is located near Richmond Airport. Please contact in advance to schedule a drop-off time and date.

Materials:

Cell Phones, Compact Fluorescent Lightbulbs, Computer Monitors, Computer Recycling, Electronics, Office Machines, Telephones, Televisions.

Home Depot
5.9 mi Commercial Drop-Off
6501 West Broad Street RICHMOND, VA 23230

(804) 289-6020 Web Site

Schedule:

Please call for hours.

Notes:

Materials:

Compact Fluorescent Lightbulbs.

Home Depot

6.1 mi Commercial Drop-Off
7251 Bell Creek Road MECHANICSVILLE, VA 23111

(804) 559-7333 Web Site

At least Richmond, Virginia has more recycling than Berkeley, CA. Oh, the irony….

So, make sure you hit Wal-Mart today. Buy some incandescent light bulbs. Stock up. The environmentalists have gotten them banned by 2012.

The phase-out of incandescent light is to begin with the 100-watt bulb in 2012 and end in 2014 with the 40-watt.

So now we get to import mercury filled Chinese light bulbs, built in EPA exempt, slave labor factories, powered by dirty coal, in the the great environmental paradise of Communist China and transported to the USA in  huge ships, built in non-American shipyards, powered by OPEC oil. So, we have that going for us……


And this is why we need to actually, you know, REFORM Medicare….


Obama wants to “fix” our ENTIRE system.  Yet, he won’t touch Medicare, unless its to gut it of money to pay for HIS plan. He wants to hand over hour health system to the same idiots that do piecemeal planning like this in order to “save money”.  They want to overhaul the private system but won’t fix what THEY broke….

h/t MSNBC

Although the government regularly pays $100,000 or more for kidney transplants, it stops paying for anti-rejection drugs after only 36 months.The health care bill moving through the House of Representatives includes a little-noticed provision that would reverse the policy, but it is not clear whether the Senate will follow suit.

Bills have been introduced in Congress since 2000 to lift the 36-month limit and extend coverage of immunosuppressant drugs indefinitely. They have never made it to a vote, largely because of the projected upfront cost; the Congressional Budget Office estimates that unlimited coverage would add $100 million a year to the $23 billion Medicare kidney program.

Category: , ,

Government Knows Best


How many examples like this do you need to convince you that socialized medicine does not work?

A MUM suffering chest pains died in front of her young son hours after being sent home from hospital and told to take painkillers.

Debra Beavers, 39, phoned NHS 24 twice in two days before getting a hospital appointment. But a doctor gave what her family described as a cursory examination lasting 11 minutes, before advising her to buy over-the-counter medicine Ibuprofen.

Family members claim the medic was abrupt and rude – and when Debra clutched her chest, he told her: “Your heart is on the other side.”

Seven hours later, the mum-of-two collapsed and died from a heart attack in front of her 13-year-old boy.

Read the rest.

Welcome to government run medicine. Didn’t Doctor Obama prescribe pain pills….