Pelosi Defends Right to Vocal Protest!

Click on Mrs. Pelosi to see and hear her express her views on disruptive protestors in townhall settings.

Ronald Reagan Takes Responsibility for Recession!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRUbwnkEPqc

Ronald Reagan Speaks On National Healthcare

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs

Obama "Pragmatic" On Medical Decisions

The President has been misleading the people of America as he has discussed his health care take over plans.

On 14 April 2009 President Obama was interviewed about medical care and economic reforms. During the course of the interview he waxed philosophical and questioned whether or not his grandmother - or any other terminally or CHRONICALLY ill person - should receive quality of life care, such as hip replacement surgery.

Here's an article from Bloomberg.com from 29 April 2009.

Obama Says Grandmother’s Hip Replacement Raises Cost Questions
By Hans Nichols
April 29 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama said his grandmother’s hip-replacement surgery during the final weeks of her life made him wonder whether expensive procedures for the terminally ill reflect a “sustainable model” for health care.
The president’s grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, had a hip replaced after she was diagnosed with cancer, Obama said in an interview with the New York Times magazine that was published today.
Dunham, who lived in Honolulu, died at the age of 86 on Nov. 2, 2008, two days
before her grandson’s election victory.
“I don’t know how much that hip replacement cost,” Obama said in the interview. “I would have paid out of pocket for that hip replacement just because she’s my grandmother.”
Obama said “you just get into some very difficult moral issues” when considering whether “to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill.
“That’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues,” he said in the April 14 interview. “The chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health- care bill out here.”
Obama promised during his presidential campaign that a health-care overhaul would be a top priority, and he said at a Missouri town hall meeting today that he hopes Congress will pass health-care legislation this year.
The issue has been divisive, and finding an answer that will keep costs down while extending coverage to the estimated 46 million Americans without health insurance has eluded past presidents.
‘Ruthless Pragmatism’
Obama also said his economic advisers aren’t constrained by ideology or connections to former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin. “What I’ve been constantly searching for is a ruthless pragmatism when it comes to economic policy,” he said, in the interview.
Obama also pointed to Canada as an example of a country that has effectively regulated commercial and investment banking without requiring legal separation of those activities.
“When it comes to something like investment banking versus commercial
banking, the experience in a country like Canada would indicate that good,
strong regulation that focuses less on the legal form of the institution and
more on the functions that they’re carrying out is probably the right approach
to take,” he said.
To contact the reporter on this story: Hans
Nichols in Washington at hnichols2@bloomberg.net

Your Mom Was Right.... Don't Swallow Your Gum!

A Conversation With My Aunt

My Aunt Mary commented on my Independence Day post. She took my post apart, piece by piece. Here's my reply to her:

It’s July 4th today.

On 2 July I did something I’ve never done before. And something I hope I never have to do again. I laid-off one of my guys because of budget cuts at work. In total, I’ve reduced my staff by 7 people this year and the economy appears to be the
driver.

I’ve been working to avoid this reduction for the past 6 months, but it was inevitable.

It seems that every time our government announces a “fix” to a problem” the economic condition of the country drops.

M: Actually, the problem was the lack of regulation and accountability allowed the economy to run away from sound fiscal practice. The "fix" was needed well before the drop. It was dropped in the lap of the new administration.

J: Actually the problems were self-interested congressmen, interference by those congressmen into the lending practices of banks, a Federal Reserve policy of cheap money, and rampant consumerism on the part of nearly all Americans. Those things,
combined with the fact that our economy is nearly devoid of manufacture and
production for export, makes for the perfect economic storm.

The fix was needed before the drop. No question.

The new administration did inherit the crap-pile we call our economy, but they did it
knowingly and willingly. They even told us that they knew how to fix it, promising that if the first stimulus package were passed unemployment would not rise above 8%.

They overreached.

There is a reason the free markets of capitalism work best when they are free, and it is a tribute to the robust nature of free markets that they continue to work as well as they do under as much regulation and handicapping as governments place on
them.

M: Free to benefit the huge corporations, who were free to operate like a Ponzi or Pyramid Scam, and then bail out?

J: Let's look at a great example of a REAL Ponzi scheme. We call it Social Security. Do you who receive a Soc Sec payout really believe that the money is being drawn from some bank account that the baby boomers paid into and that has been earning interest over the past 40 years?

No way! Your children, and some of your grandchildren, are paying for your retirement. The money for their retirement will come from yet another generation of workers (I mean "investors"). That is how Ponzis work.

The huge corporations (that employed so many of the baby boomers and their parents, providing a living that was unmatched in the history of the world, and allowing them to retire - a notion unfathomed for ages - in comfort) that were unwise and greedy in their business dealings WOULD HAVE failed if the government had not reached its hand into the pot and stopped the failure.

They would have gotten what we all agree they deserved. The only collateral damage would have been the private retirement savings of the baby boomers.

And then we have the House of Representatives passing the Climate Change Act.

M: Here is an opportunity just made for the good old American business ethic to
create products and jobs cleaning up our act.

J: Is that the "good old American business ethic" you just trashed in your comment
above?

Let's look to Europe for a guide. That seems to be the Progressive Pole Star or the Statist Oracle in matters of social engineering. In Spain, they have a "green economy" similar to the one that congress is now seeking. Spain's unemployment rate before its "greening" was below 10%. Now it enjoys unemployment rates in excess of 20% regularly. The "green jobs" that replaced the "jobs before the
Enlightenment" typically pay much less than the jobs that were destroyed.

If workers in Viet Nam can make a solar panel for less money than an American worker can today, what makes us believe that once the government mandates "green" energy, the situation will be different?

I am privy to a view on the "green jobs" in America. I am spearheading the development of a 1.5 megawatt solar power plant for Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. The solar panels we will install will be imported from Asia and Europe because their quality is superior and their cost is less than any available from American companies. The steel we will use to support the solar array will likely come from Korea or China for cost reasons. Our labor will come from a local or regional
builder who will use temporary workers overseen by a skilled crew of foremen and
superintendents. The work will take 140 days.

The future does not hold a direct replacement of that $40/hr auto worker's job. He's free to go to work for $15/hr if he's lucky.

When the only indicators in favor of a major global climate shift are based on political science fiction and Americans pass laws to regulate the emissions of a LAGGING indicator and place the biggest handicap in human history on their own means of production, I know we’ve passed the Age of Reason and entered the Age of
Insensibility.

M: I'm sorry, but this paragraph defies logic! Unless logic, common sense, and the brains God gave us are handicaps?

J: No, Mary. CO2 has been shown to be a lagging indicator of global climate change, over the past billions of years. As the temperature warms, the atmospheric levels of CO2 then rise. As the temperature cools, the atmospheric levels of CO2 then
fall.

This could have something to do with warmer temperatures leading to more animal and vegetable life, resulting in more animal and vegetable death, resulting in more methane released into the atmosphere as organic matter decays, resulting in the breakdown of methane into CO2 and other gasses, resulting in a rise in atmospheric levels of CO2.

Look at the current warming trend, if you will. We came out of the "Little Ice Age" about 200 years ago, right? Since then the earth has warmed steadily. Now, we see a recent increase in atmospheric CO2 levels. Not the other way around.

Further, some data suggest that the earth has not warmed measurably since 2000-2001.

I have to pause to reflect on what our founding fathers had in mind when they began this adventure called the United States of America.

They were living under a tyrannical government that was geographically distant and essentially out of touch. In a pinch for cash to fund its perpetual wars in Europe and around the globe, the government increased taxes. In fact, it targeted articles of subversion such as paper, ink, and printing supplies. In its quest for revenue the government ignored petition on petition from its North American colonists for relief and consideration. The representatives the colonies had in Parliament were either ineffective or ignored. Many proved to be complicit in the oppression of the colonies they pretended to represent.

The founders envisioned a country free of that oppression. Free of the fear that came with being a British subject. They saw a country where citizens would be free to pursue their dreams. To believe according to their conscience. To work hard and earn the rewards of their labor. Citizens would be free to fail as well as to succeed. To speak their minds as well as express their ignorance.

M: Nice bit of fiction. Here is my version: I think the original idea was to explore and exploit new territory for the King. The Colonists then saw the opportunity to benefit from a change in leadership style. Some were pretty good at it. We have been working on it ever since. The idea was for the "common good". But as we well
know, POWER corrupts, and so it goes! We all have taken part in the corruption. Now it is about time to pay the piper.

J: That's not fiction, Mary. I'm not talking about the Spanish or about the first English colonists. Although many of the English and Dutch came to escape tyranny in Europe and to seek freedom. Specifically, many were seeking freedom of conscience.

I'm talking about the group of men and women who joined in reason and in purpose to break away from England in the mid-1700s.

For an outstanding look into the time, read David McCullough's biography John Adams.

I look today and see only a shadow of that dream in the direction our country has been going for decades.

M: We got fat and lazy.

J: Yes, we did. Your parents came "home" from winning World War II and settled
into life. They trusted the government to look out for them, as they had sacrificed so much for so long. They deserved a peaceful life.

Your generation was spoiled. You grew to despise the "system" that had given you so much as children. You became infatuated with your own pleasure and invented new social constructs that allowed you to immerse yourselves in things once forbidden. You sought to destroy wisdom and replace it with your own reasoning (Don't trust anyone over 30!).

My generation was born drifting without a moral compass. We could look to our grandparents for a sense of morality and purpose, but our parents had set themselves up as the final authority in the universe. There was no respect for state, no respect for others, and no respect for God. Life's only purpose was pleasure. Drugs and sex were rampant in our culture. We acted with only our desires in mind,
regardless of how our actions would impact other human beings around us.

In the meantime, the Statists in the government slowly and insidiously worked to expand the "system's" control over our lives, reaching into places the state had never gone before.

We all, fat and lazy, sat back and watched it happen.

Rather than statesmen and representatives of the people, I see career politicians who are interested first in their own well-being and who are beholden to political parties and special interests.

M: Working on the "ABSOLUTE POWER Totally CORRUPTS, and we all jump on the bandwagon when we vote for special interests.

J: Absolutely correct, Mary. None of us should be "single-issue" voters. We should look at the whole platform and the entire values set and vote our
conscience.

Rather than laws that ensure all an equal opportunity, I see laws that seek to guarantee equal results for all – regardless of their input.

M: Back to your dilemma, John, you must have felt that your work was more valuable input than the 7 workers you reduced from your staff. If they could vote, ever wonder?

J: Yes. I wonder all the time. I know that my salary would have provided nearly half of the budget cut I needed if I had "fired myself".

If they could vote, I'm not sure how things would have shaken out. I had a staff of 43, so it might have been good odds in my favor.

But your question is a powerful and a poignant one. It's one I wrestled with for months before the reduction. In the end, a cynic could argue I acted in my self
interest. I believe, and am confident, that the value I bring to my company and to my client exceeded the value that those workers brought.

Go ahead and call me all kinds of names, now. I probably deserve some of them.

Rather than citizens who have a stake in the future of the country, I see dependents with their hands out willing to take from the “haves” in order to make their life
easier.

M: It is a Bible principal that teaches there is enough for all. How to see that our neighbor gets his fair share is the task given to us. Trouble is we seem to have blinders on. We (mankind) are able to feed the world with our leftovers
given the will to do so.

J: Agreed, Mary. The difference between government redistribution and voluntary, or "Christian" giving is clear, however.

Jesus told the rich young man who had lived a righteous life that he needed one more thing to enter into the kingdom of heaven. He should sell all his possessions and give them to the poor. (Mark 10:17-22)

When the young man went away sorrowing Jesus did not send Internal Revenue Agents to his home to seize his property and to ensure that a government bureaucracy that consumes 70 cents of every dollar in administrative costs gave his wealth to those less fortunate.

In fact, we never find out the end of the story. I like to think that the young man had a change of heart and did as the Lord bid him.

There is enough, and to spare, in this world. Human nature and greed get in the way. One of the best antidotes for my own greed that I have found is gratitude. The other is giving. When I thankfully give what God has blessed me with to those less fortunate, I find that I am less concerned with accumulating "stuff".

When I pay my taxes, then see the money squandered by a hyper-inefficient government, I am not so edified.

Rather than workers able to enjoy the fruits of their labor, I see men and women working until May of every year just to pay the taxes imposed by an ever-reaching government that has become an entity unto itself.

M: Having work to do is what makes life meaningful for most of us. What if we could
keep 100% of "the fruits of our labor"? Pretty boring and meaningless, I think you will admit. Sharing is fair. We all started out provided for, gradually provided for ourselves, and others, and will in the end be provided for once again. Unless you want to get weird and eliminate the "have-nots" and only allow "haves" I don't get the picture. It is like a puzzle with a lot of missing pieces.

J: Mary, how many times have you told your kids that "life is not fair"? You were telling the truth. There is really no such thing as "fair". There is such a thing as "justice" and there is such a thing as "mercy".

Sharing is right. Sharing is good. Sharing is redeeming. Sharing is godly. Sharing is voluntary. Sharing is a love offering. Sharing is a good-will offering. Sharing is
empathic. Sharing is kind. Sharing is noble. Sharing is ennobling.

Sharing is not fair. Government forcing me to share is not sharing at all. It is taxing. It is taking.

A life of selfish accumulation is meaningless. We all know why miserly Scrooge is miserable, in Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol. Notice that what gives him joy and purpose is not when the tax man comes calling. It is when he comes to the realization that he is not living right and decides to share on his own.

Further, the change is more than behavioral. Scrooge is redeemed. He is a better person than he was before. Without a government program to help him.

Do you really find "meaning" in filing your taxes? Do you really find "meaning"
when you see people receiving government welfare checks and food stamps?

Or do you find meaning when you perform acts of kindness and charity to those around you?

Do you find meaning in sponsoring a child who is starving in the Philippines? Do you find meaning in planting trees with the Sierra Club? Do you find meaning in working at a women's shelter? Do you find meaning in rescuing abused animals? Do you find meaning in volunteering with the local library's literacy program?

Is there a chance left to redeem our nation from its lost and fallen state? I don’t know.

M: "Yes we can". That is the plan.

J: "Yes we can" is the plan???

How about this? Each one of us as Americans needs to examine his or her life. We need to find the undesirable things that we do - the bad things that we do. We need to resolve to root those things out of our lives. We need to ask whatever god we pray to for help in overcoming whatever we believe is evil and in filling our lives with whatever we believe is good.

We need to seek mercy and give mercy. We need to want good and to do good. We need to be forgiven and to forgive. We need to have kind friends and be kind friends. We need to work with honest people and we need to be honest workers. We need to
love our families and to be loved by our families.

We need to aspire to greatness and to believe that we can do it. We need to rely
on ourselves and our families and our friends and our faith.

We need to seek lasting change in our hearts, in our minds, and in our lives.

But I do know that I will not be able to live with myself if I do not try. I want to be able to tell my children and my grandchildren that I did EVERYTHING I could to leave them a better country than I inherited.

M: You say it very well. It is a chorus of "Yes we cans". I love it.

J: Thank you, Mary. You see, deep down we all want what is good and best for ourselves and those who come after us. We have to move past the slogans and the
rhetoric and get to the heart of things. That's where power is.

This Independence Day I will not reach for my rifle. Instead I will join the New Revolution by writing and calling my representatives in government – local, state and federal – on a regular basis to let them know my thoughts and opinions.

M: Free speech, it's a "GOOD THING". One of many, to quote Martha Stewart, one of my folk hero gals.

J: I like MS, too!

I will find the candidates who share my values and will be their constituents’ voice. When I do I WILL NOT think I’m wasting my vote on them.

M: They are all human. Bound to have a flaw or two, don't be surprised.

J: True. But it's not humanness that bothers me; it's inhumanity.

I will no longer be bullied into voting the party line for fear of throwing away my vote. (What happened to my vote for John McCain, anyway? HE threw away the whole ELECTION in 2008!)

M: Actually, Bush did it without John's help. Not many wanted more of the same war, waste, and deception.

J: I think there's a lot of truth in what you say, here, Mary.

I will work for the rest of my life to bring America back to the place it is intended to be – a land of opportunity, strength, optimism, and hope.

USA Supporting Tyranny in Central America

There are a lot of things I could harangue about. My cousin sent me a detailed and passionate message about climate change.

But I want to talk about something else today.

On 28 June 2009 Miguel Zelaya, president of Honduras, was kidnapped by his own military and removed from the country. He was put into exile in Costa Rica.

The Obama Administration and the US State Department have decried this "coup" and are demanding that Mr. Zelaya be restored to power in Honduras.

What is wrong with this picture?

Given that Raul Castro and Hugo Chavez have also called for Zelaya's reinstatement, I'd say, "Everything!"

Mr. Zelaya had ignored the Honduran Constitution and defied the Honduran Supreme Court. You see, Honduras' constitution has strict term limits for the country's president because the people of Honduras do not want to live under a dictatorship.

Mr. Zelaya wanted a referendum to change the constitution. The Supreme Court denied permission for the referendum because, in their view, the move in itself violated the constitution.

Mr. Zelaya then went to Venezuela to have referendum ballots printed and ordered the military in Honduras to guard the ballots pending the election date. The Honduran military administers elections in the country.

When Mr. Zelaya ordered the ballots distributed the commander of the military refused and on 25 Jun 09 Mr. Zelaya led a mob onto the military base to seize and distribute the ballots.

Three days later the president was exiled. Roberto Michelleti was installed as the interim president of the country and he immediately arranged an election date which allowed enough time for candidates to run serious campaigns.

The Supreme Court of Honduras has ruled the actions of the military and Mr. Michelleti legal and constitutional.

Now, the official US position is puzzling.

Why would President Obama seek to avoid comment on the obviously fraudulent elections in Iran and the brazen militarization of North Korea on grounds of "fear of meddling", yet immediately denounce the actions of the Honduran court and military to maintain liberty and to remove a would-be tyrant?

President Obama has made advances and "open-handed" gestures to Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Venezuela, and Russia. He has spent a lot of time with the leaders of these countries. I think that's a good thing, on its face. Diplomacy should always be the first tool we use in relationships.

He also gave the prime minister of Britain 25 classic American movies on DVD. He gave the Queen of England an I-Pod. He has talked to the prime minister of Israel as if he were an incorrigible school boy.

Would President Obama like to see the United States become his own little "banana republic"?

I know my answer, and I'll let you draw your own conclusions from the evidence.

Priceless!

Even the Anointed One is human!

I'm still chuckling about this classic photo.

A Link To Some Old, But Relevant Global Warming Information

In geologic time, this information is "hot off the presses". In man time Senator James Inhoffe assembled this information in 2006.

That was BEFORE 2007 proved to be the coldest year in a LONG time and before 2009 had the coldest June in history.

Follow the link and take the time to read and consider the information.

http://epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers/6345050%20Hot%20&%20Cold%20Media.pdf

Some Philosophical Thoughts Inspired by Senate Bill 909

Isn't it interesting how by very small and seemingly innocuous steps the Progressives in government work to restrict freedoms?

I'm not for hating gays.

I'm also not for shifting responsibility for others' actions to a third party. Blaming a preacher because one of his congregation commits a crime is not right.

Of course, a preacher - a true Christian - will not speak in terms that are deceptive, hateful or disrespectful. He will be sure to clothe himself with the love of Christ and to speak in the name of Christ. When he does that he will be gentle, respectful, loving and clear. Jesus and our Heavenly Father hate sin. They cannot tolerate it and it has no place in their presence. That is why God sent his Son, Jesus, to cleanse the world from sin if we will only accept him and follow him, as he invited his disciples of old.

Jesus loves the sinner. In fact he talked many times about searching out the lost sheep of his fold. I think of the woman taken in adultery. His injunction was merciful and firm. He told her that he did not condemn her. I imagine that his tone was one of pure love and desire for her soul. Then he told her to go and sin no more. With that same gentle love he clearly taught her what he expected of her. Sinners are welcome in Jesus' heart. He will clean them and present them to his Father pure and ready to live with them forever.

That is the miracle of the grace of Jesus and the justice and mercy of God.
When preachers use a tone other than one I imagine the Savior would use, I feel in my heart that they are not speaking God's word even if they are reading Scripture. And they will have to answer to a power even more formidable than the Obama Administration for taking God's name in vain.

A Conversation With My Cousin

My cousin, Mark, had some interesting remarks about my Independence Day post. Here are some of them, and my responses.

M: As a people and a country we are mega consumers, we import considerably more than we export which empowers the other countries we are competing with. As a business plan it can only lead us into financial ruin.

One of the few things our country does export is large quantities of military weapons. Thousands of us are employed by companies connected to weapons. This only adds to the world’s negative outlook on our government and us as people and fuels anti-American sentiment.

J: Consumerism is a cancer in this country. We depend so heavily on cheap imported goods that we are virtual slaves to our suppliers. Sometimes those suppliers are not our friends. I agree that it's a recipe for financial ruin.

M: Unfortunately we who may disagree with our government can't gather up friends and family with similar views and move to some other continent and start over as our founding fathers did. The world today is a much smaller place where we will continue to rub elbows with friends and enemies, plain and simple, we just have to get along or we will continue to perpetuate hate and instability in our country and the entire world, thus insuring our children and grand children a miserable life.

J: In spite of all that, we do have to get along, as you say. We have to follow the "Golden Rule" and treat other individuals as we would be treated. Our country should treat other countries as we'd like to be treated, too. If we want to be dealt with in a respectful way, we need to be respectful.

M: I'm not clear on these things in your letter. Is paying off our national debt the “oppression” you mention?

J: The huge debt we're passing on to our kids and grandkids is part of the oppression that I'm talking about. Oppression can come in the form of an iron fist, as in the Soviet Union. It can also come in the form of a smothering parent, as in a government that is so interested in our doing what is right that it leaves no room for growth in its citizens.

M: Is what you call “political science fiction” the global warming that you think our children won’t need to worry about?

J: As far as global climate change goes, despite what some politicians say, the debate is not over. There is a large body of evidence that suggests climate change is a normal part of the earth's cycle, like breathing. The idea that man is contributing significantly - or even at all - is one that can trace its roots back to British scientists. In the 1980s British coal miners went on strike, threatening to cripple the UK's energy industry and putting its national security at risk. Margaret Thatcher worked hard to find a scientist whose research suggested that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was key to trapping the sun's energy and keeping the earth warm. From there he had deduced that an excess of CO2 could cause warming of the earth. Most of his peers dismissed this as a crack-pot theory, but Madame Thatcher used that idea to promote her nation's nuclear (clean) energy program and to reduce the country's exposure in the event of another coal miner's strike.
The hard science shows a definite connection between CO2 levels in the atmosphere and global temperatures. But the CO2 levels are not a leading indicator. They are a lagging indicator. That is to say that warmer temperatures increase the levels of CO2 in the air. Higher levels of CO2 do not precede or cause temperature increases.

Will our descendants have to deal with climate change? Possibly. But it will not have been caused by man. And nothing we can do - including destroying our economy - will stop it. If the earth is "breathing", believe me - it's going to finish its breath. The cycle will run its natural course as it has thousands of times over billions of years in geologic history.
And who says it's bad to grow bananas in Oregon or corn in Northern Siberia?

M: Did you vote against your values in 2008? How were you "bullied"? Did McCain intentionally throw the election?

J: As for my vote in 2008, I suppose I voted for a candidate who was not as close to my values as I'd have liked. The more I think about it, the more I tend to agree with the ideas of libertarianism. That is not to say that I agree with the platform of the Libertarian party. I think that less is more when it comes to government oversight of my life. I think, though, that Libertarians can be almost amoral. And that becomes a huge problem, when you have a government that insists on the rule of law because it is the law, and not because it is the RIGHT thing.

But I'm a fan of smaller, more limited government and a believer that government derives its powers from the consent of the governed. Given that, government can have no power except it be given to it by the people. And the people can give government no power except the power that they rightfully have. If we look at things in that way, we see that if I do not have the right to tell my neighbor that he may not smoke cigarettes in the car with his children there, then neither may the government. If I do not have the right to remove all trans-fats from my neighbor's refrigerator, neither may the government. You see, both of those things are good, I believe. But because of the individual liberties guaranteed us in the Constitution and, as the founders believed, endowed to us by our Creator, my neighbor has the right to make bad choices. If I do not have the right to take my neighbor's money and give it to someone else, then neither does the government.

Now, I'm not an anti-tax person. I'm all for the government providing services to my family and my neighbors, and I'm willing to pay my share of those services. What I object to is the taking of my money and using it in ways that do not benefit my family and my neighbors; or worse, as in the recent bail-outs, forcing it onto failing companies rather than letting them die their well-deserved deaths.

So, was I bullied into voting for John McCain? I heard so many pundits and political thinkers harangue about the dire consequences of electing Barack Obama - and I believe that we WILL see even worse things than we already have - that I got a little scared. Rather than voting for the person who held a values set closest to my own, I voted for the better (barely) of two "electable" candidates.

I think McCain did throw the election in 2008. He refused to expose any bad or questionable aspects of his opponent. On the one hand, I admire a campaign that refuses to engage in the politics of personal destruction. But he also failed to enlighten the country on why he would have been a GOOD president. And there were some very relevant things about Barack Obama that he would not allow his campaign or his surrogates to discuss. As far as Sarah Palin goes, whatever you think of her, she was immensely popular with his conservative base. For a week or two she gave his campaign a tremendous boost. Then she disappeared. When we did see her she was with John McCain and played the role of quasi-worshipful running mate. Her independent "attitude" was gone. Then the campaign let her go on with Katie Couric for that disastrous interview. They should have known how the questions would be set and how the tape editing would go. I'll bet that was difficult for even the most ardent Obama supporter to watch her be drawn and quartered on national television.

He was either a terrible strategist and a dismal tactician, or he threw the election.

Hate-Crime Legislation Unneccessary and Unwelcome

I read the text of Senate Bill 909.

Some of my friends and family have expressed concern that it may impinge on the speech of religious leaders who express views against homosexuality. I disagree with that assessment, but I am not a lawyer.

It specifically EXCLUDES free religious speech from prosecution, but does include conspiracy and planning to commit a hate-crime.

I am opposed to hate crime legislation in general. I believe that an assault is an assault, a rape is a rape, and a murder is a murder, without respect to the victim’s origin, beliefs or behaviors.

If our existing laws were enforced we would have no need for additional definitions and divisions. If our existing laws are not being enforced, then we need to change the judges, the prosecutors, and maybe even the police departments. This can, for the most part, be done on a local level.

When we see that our county attorney is not vigorously prosecuting certain cases, we can oppose them in the next election, or if the case is serious enough we can request an investigation of the matter.

Police departments are especially subject to change due to popular opinion. If we see that police officers are behaving with bias we need to let the mayor and the city council know. All of their activities are a matter of public record. We are free to review them.

Judges may be impeached or lose re-election if they are known to behave with bias.

On that basis, and under the premise that we have enough laws on the subject already, and on the general principle that the Federal Government has no business “helping” my local government do its “job”, I encourage you to call your US Senators and ask them to vote “no” on Senate Bill 909.

Look At The Faces.... Very Interesting

Here we see the contemptuous air of the President as he receives one of his mainstream media lap dogs (photo top). It's interesting to contrast that with his familiar attitude as he is welcomed by the Russian president. Note the mixed look of contempt, disgust, and amusement on Medvedev's face.

I'm not sure I can identify why the two images in contrast make me uncomfortable. On the one hand, it appears that Brian Williams is defferentially acknowledging his obeisance to the Higher Mind. On the other hand, a very dangerous man - and one who very likely is our mortal enemy - appears dismissive of the "Leader of The Free World".

The look on Medvedev's face is the same one that Jeff Brown used to get right before he punched some unsuspecting kid in the gut on the playground at Oakley Middle School.

That's spooky.

Independence Day

It’s July 4th today.

On 2 July I did something I’ve never done before. And something I hope I never have to do again. I laid off one of my guys because of budget cuts at work. In total, I’ve reduced my staff by 7 people this year and the economy appears to be the driver.

I’ve been working to avoid this reduction for the past 6 months, but it was inevitable.

It seems that every time our government announces a “fix” to a “problem” the economic condition of the country drops.

There is a reason the free markets of capitalism work best when they are free, and it is a tribute to the robust nature of free markets that they continue to work as well as they do under as much regulation and handicapping as governments place on them.

And then we have the House of Representatives passing the Climate Change Act.

When the only indicators in favor of a major global climate shift are based on political science fiction and Americans pass laws to regulate the emissions of a LAGGING indicator and place the biggest handicap in human history on their own means of production, I know we’ve passed the Age of Reason and entered the Age of Insensibility.

I have to pause to reflect on what our founding fathers had in mind when they began this adventure called the United States of America.

They were living under a tyrannical government that was geographically distant and essentially out of touch. In a pinch for cash to fund its perpetual wars in Europe and around the globe, the government increased taxes. In fact, it targeted articles of subversion such as paper, ink, and printing supplies. In its quest for revenue the government ignored petition on petition from its North American colonists for relief and consideration. The representatives the colonies had in Parliament were either ineffective or ignored. Many proved to be complicit in the oppression of the colonies they pretended to represent.

The founders envisioned a country free of that oppression. Free of the fear that came with being a British subject. They saw a country where citizens would be free to pursue their dreams. To believe according to their conscience. To work hard and earn the rewards of their labor. Citizens would be free to fail as well as to succeed. To speak their minds as well as express their ignorance.

I look today and see only a shadow of that dream in the direction our country has been going for decades.

Rather than statesmen and representatives of the people, I see career politicians who are interested first in their own well-being and who are beholden to political parties and special interests.

Rather than laws that ensure all an equal opportunity, I see laws that seek to guarantee equal results for all – regardless of their input.

Rather than citizens who have a stake in the future of the country, I see dependents with their hands out willing to take from the “haves” in order to make their life easier.

Rather than workers able to enjoy the fruits of their labor, I see men and women working until May of every year just to pay the taxes imposed by an ever-reaching government that has become an entity unto itself.

Is there a chance left to redeem our nation from its lost and fallen state? I don’t know.

But I do know that I will not be able to live with myself if I do not try. I want to be able to tell my children and my grandchildren that I did EVERYTHING I could to leave them a better country than I inherited.

This Independence Day I will not reach for my rifle. Instead I will join the New Revolution by writing and calling my representatives in government – local, state and federal – on a regular basis to let them know my thoughts and opinions.

I will find the candidates who share my values and will be their constituents’ voice. When I do I WILL NOT think I’m wasting my vote on them.

I will no longer be bullied into voting the party line for fear of throwing away my vote. (What happened to my vote for John McCain, anyway? HE threw away the whole ELECTION in 2008!)

I will work for the rest of my life to bring America back to the place it is intended to be – a land of opportunity, strength, optimism, and hope.

Join us.

Obama Health Czar Tied to Corrupt and Illegal Practices

Here's another example of President Obama's judgment. Or lack thereof.

I found this article on MSNBC today. Unfortunately, the popular press is reporting the issue 4 months after the information was relevant.

Nancy-Ann DeParle has been serving as Health Czar since March and is earning $158,000 per year. She has links to and has earned millions of dollars from companies that were being investigated by the US Government during her tenure with them.

When will this stop?

Obama health czar directed firms in trouble:
DeParle made millions from companies under federal investigation
By Fred Schulte
Investigative Reporting Workshop, American University
updated 6:18 a.m. MT, Thurs., July 2, 2009
Nancy-Ann DeParle, President Barack Obama’s health policy czar, served as a director of corporations that faced scores of federal investigations, whistleblower lawsuits and other regulatory actions, according to government records reviewed by the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University.

Several of the companies were investigated for alleged kickbacks or engaging in other illegal billing schemes, while others were accused of serious violations of federal quality standards, including one company that failed to warn patients of deadly problems with an implanted heart defibrillator. Several of the cases ended with substantial fines paid to the federal government, even though the companies admitted no wrongdoing.

Since leaving her government job running Medicare for the Clinton administration, DeParle built a lucrative private-sector career. Records show she earned more than $6.6 million since early 2001, according to a tally by the Investigative Reporting Workshop.

Much of that corporate career was built at companies that have frequently had to defend themselves against federal investigations. After leaving government, DeParle accepted director positions at half a dozen companies suspected of violating the very laws and regulations she had enforced for Medicare. Those companies got into further trouble on her watch as a director.

Now she’s back in government as a leading voice in deciding the shape of health care reform. Named by Obama in March as director of the White House Office of Health Reform, making $158,000 a year, DeParle is the point person in pushing for the administration's plans for changing health care and the ways Americans pay for it — changes in which her former companies have a great deal at stake.

Critics see DeParle’s re-emergence as a classic case of Washington “revolving door” syndrome, despite Obama’s suggestions that he would shut that door.

The administration faces a “balancing act,” said Steve Ellis of the nonpartisan Taxpayers for Common Sense. Obama must find leaders with the proper expertise, but who are “not so conflicted that they cannot engage in all facets of the debate.”

Advocates of a “single-payer” coverage plan say that DeParle may be indebted to the companies she served, and more broadly to the health care industry.

“This woman owes her fortune to the corporations that she is making decisions about,” said Dr. David Himmelstein, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard University and a co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program.

“She cashed in really big on her previous role in government and made millions and millions of dollars. Then she divests and all of a sudden she’s Snow White. It’s ridiculous.”

Among DeParle’s corporate connections:
• DaVita Inc., which owns and operates kidney dialysis centers, has been the subject of several government probes into its billing and drug-prescribing practices, most recently in December by Justice Department investigators in Georgia. DeParle joined the DaVita board in May 2001 and resigned in July 2008 “to devote more time to her other business activities,” according to the company. She earned more than $2 million in compensation and stock sales, according to records at the Securities and Exchange Commission.
• Boston Scientific Corp. reported to the SEC that it received five state or federal subpoenas during 2008, including ones from the Justice Department and Health and Human Services, which oversees the Medicare agency. In addition, Defense Department criminal investigators are looking into the company’s “marketing interactions” with doctors at a U.S. Army hospital in Tacoma, Wash. DeParle joined the Boston Scientific board in April 2006 and resigned on March 4 of this year, two days after she was appointed to the White House post. She earned more than $1.4 million in compensation and stock sales from her years at Boston Scientific and a company it bought, the Guidant Corp.
• Guidant, which already was in legal trouble for failing to disclose 12 patient deaths when DeParle joined the board in 2001, has since then faced new problems. After a college student died in 2005 when his implanted defibrillator failed on a biking trip, his doctor told Congress that Guidant officials had known of similar problems for three years, but failed to tell the public.
•
Five of the corporations whose boards DeParle served on have paid a total of $566 million since 2003 to settle fraud or product liability cases, often involving tax dollars paid by Medicare.


Four signed “corporate integrity agreements” in which they promised to tighten oversight of their billing practices in exchange for the government agreeing not to take legal action to kick them out of the Medicare program.

“These raise eyebrows,” said Ellis, of Taxpayers for Common Sense. “These are things that have to be considered and evaluated.”

The White House did not make DeParle available for an interview about her corporate ties. Her spokeswoman, Linda Douglass, said the White House would not have time to answer questions about DeParle’s actions as a director. DeParle also declined interview requests from msnbc.com, which is co-publishing this article with the Investigative Reporting Workshop.

A director's responsibility
There is no reason to think that DeParle was directly involved in any of the actions that led to the investigations and sanctions. DeParle was a member of the board of directors of these companies, not the chief executive officer managing day-to-day operations. It is rare for directors to be held legally accountable for illegal dealings by management.

However, the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley law, passed by Congress after the scandals at Enron and other companies, requires directors to be more aware of what is happening inside companies. Federal guidelines tell directors they should exercise even more oversight in health care firms.

Michael W. Peregrine, a corporate compliance lawyer in Chicago, said that while board members aren’t obligated to “ferret out wrongdoing,” they need to question management once they learn of regulatory problems and to “make sure something is being done about it. The board has to ask, ‘What the hell’s going on here?’”

At three companies — Guidant, DaVita and Specialty Laboratories — DeParle was not only a director but also served on board committees responsible for monitoring the companies' compliance with laws and regulations.


Publicly traded companies must disclose to shareholders the existence of investigations, enforcement actions or lawsuits that could affect their earnings. These filings, made with the Securities and Exchange Commission, often are short on specifics, including when the conduct that’s under investigation allegedly occurred. These investigations typically drag on for years.

It's therefore difficult to say in some cases whether DeParle's board service coincided with the company's suspicious conduct, or whether some of the conduct preceded her service but only came to light during her service.

In a few additional cases, DeParle joined companies that had already gotten into trouble.

For example, DeParle agreed to join the board of Guidant just days after it acknowledged it had covered up the deaths of 12 patients and more than 2,000 injuries caused by a faulty surgical device. She was on the board when the company pleaded guilty to 10 felony charges in the case, and paid $92 million in fines. The apparent cover-up in the separate case involving the implanted defibrillator came to light when DeParle had been on the board for two years.

And she joined the board of Boston Scientific about a year after it had paid $74 million to settle a federal criminal investigation into the company's delay in recalling a faulty heart device. No charges were brought, and the company no longer sells the product, called a stent. It also denied wrongdoing as part of the settlement with prosecutors.

Peregrine, the regulatory compliance lawyer, said potential directors should be “cautious” about joining the boards of companies with a history of clashing with regulators. Board members need to satisfy themselves that the organization has developed “a culture of compliance” with laws, he said.

‘A dedicated public servant’
DeParle resigned her corporate board positions upon taking the White House position, according to a financial disclosure form dated May 13 but only released by the White House on June 12. A handwritten note on the first page says that, as of June 4, “all conflicting assets have been divested.”

Her spokeswoman said DeParle has recused herself from any matters that might affect these companies, and has sold her stock in them at a “fairly substantial financial loss to herself and her family.” DeParle has “come into government with the understanding it would require a financial sacrifice. She is in complete compliance with all ethical requirements of the administration," Douglass said.

“She gave it all up to come and work in a tiny cramped office on one of the most important issues the country is dealing with,” Douglass said. “She’s working seven days a week, not seeing her children and working incredibly long hours. She’s doing this because she is a dedicated public servant.”

The public may never get a full accounting of her actions on corporate boards. Although DeParle is the point person on Obama's effort to overhaul health care for all Americans, she didn’t have to face questions at a Senate confirmation hearing, because she's a White House staffer, not a Cabinet official.

DeParle, 52, was the first woman to be president of the student body at the University of Tennessee, a Rhodes Scholar, and graduated from Harvard Law School. She ran the Medicaid program in Tennessee before going to Washington. Since leaving the Clinton administration, in addition to serving on corporate boards she was a managing director of a private equity firm that invested in health care companies, a trustee of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and held fellowships at two universities.

'Makes you more valuable'
Growing concern over fraud in the health care industry has led federal officials in recent years to warn directors that they must make “good faith” inquiries into business practices, particularly when there’s reason to suspect wrongdoing. Federal officials are requiring more rigorous oversight by board members of the effectiveness of a company’s formal plan for complying with federal laws and regulations.

“Having government experience is a plus. It is one of the things that make you more valuable,” said Lynn Shapiro Snyder, a Washington lawyer and corporate defense counsel.

In DeParle’s case, four corporations paid her a total of $533,189 last year for serving as a director, according to SEC filings. The year before, she made $549,322 from three board positions. Of the $6.6 million she made from 2001 to 2009, about $2.2 million came from directors’ fees, and $4.4 million from stock options and trades. Her DaVita shares made her at least $1.8 million, and she made $1 million when Triad Hospitals Inc., a Texas company, was sold in 2007.

DeParle’s White House financial disclosure form shows that in 2008 she received $1 million in salary and bonus from CCMP Capital Advisors, LLC, a private equity firm she joined in August 2006 as a managing director helping oversee health care investments. Those interests included a Medicare managed care plan and a start-up hospital chain. She resigned from the firm in March.


Her White House biography mentions that she had served on corporate boards, but doesn’t name any of them. Though it dwells on her government career, it states that she “also brings a unique industry perspective from her work in the private sector.”

The investigations and lawsuits are at odds with DeParle’s reputation in Washington as a progressive, highly respected health policy analyst. During the late 1990s, when she ran Medicare, she pushed hard to raise medical quality standards and to clamp down on fraud and waste in the massive federal health plan for the elderly.

“In my experience, she’s the one administrator who really was tuned into the fraud issue,” said William J. Mahon, a former director of the National Health Care Anti-Fraud Association. “She distinguished herself in putting fraud on the agenda.”

Other companies with much to gain
Whether DeParle’s time in the private sector will influence the shape of health care reform remains to be seen. But there’s no doubt that the decisions will have significant impact on the corporations she formerly served. The Obama administration’s decision to spend billions of dollars promoting the use of electronic medical records offers an example.



In an April 15 media briefing in Washington, DeParle mentioned electronic medical records twice, first saying that an electronic system will help prevent medical errors and ensure that patients get “the right treatments.”

In response to a question, she added: “We want to incentivize physicians to use electronic medical records in a meaningful way for better treatment, better care, more convenience, better administration in their offices.”

Nobody mentioned her lengthy relationship with the Cerner Corporation, a major manufacturer of electronic medical records software based in Kansas City. From May 2001 until the day after her White House appointment, DeParle served on the board at Cerner, which has not reported any investigations into its finances or business dealings in recent years.

DeParle earned at least $680,000 from director’s compensation and stock options while she was on the Cerner board.

Why Did We See Tea Parties in April?

So many people in society and in the media - even rightwing pundits - missed the point of the April 15th Tea Parties that happened virtually spontaneously across the country this year.

The issue was not high taxes.

The issue was a government that is running out of control. It was spending more than taxpayers can possibly pay. It was elected officials who are completely disconnected from reality.

There is no real representation in Congress. Surely we elect these people, but they are as self-interested as the next person. When they have the chance, they use their power and their station to benefit themselves and their families.

This article from today's Wall Street Journal illustrates part of the madness that is running our government.

Congress's Travel Tab Swells
Spending on Taxpayer-Funded Trips Rises
Tenfold; From Italy to the Galápagos
By BRODY
MULLINS and T.W.
FARNAM
WASHINGTON -- Spending by lawmakers on taxpayer-financed trips abroad has risen sharply in recent years, a Wall Street Journal analysis of travel records shows, involving everything from war-zone visits to trips to exotic spots such as the Galápagos Islands.

The spending on overseas travel is up almost tenfold since 1995, and has nearly tripled since 2001, according to the Journal analysis of 60,000 travel records. Hundreds of lawmakers traveled overseas in 2008 at a cost of about $13 million. That's a 50% jump since Democrats took control of Congress two years ago.

The cost of so-called congressional delegations, known among lawmakers as "codels," has risen nearly 70% since 2005, when an influence-peddling scandal led to a ban on travel funded by lobbyists, according to the data.

Lawmakers say that the trips are a good use of government funds because they allow members of Congress and their staff members to learn more about the world, inspect U.S. assets abroad and forge better working relationships with each other. The travel, for example,includes official visits to American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Journal analysis, based on information published in the Congressional Record,
also shows that taxpayer-funded travel is a big and growing perk for lawmakers and their families. Some members of Congress have complained in recent months about chief executives of bailed-out banks, insurance companies and car makers who sponsored corporate trips to resorts or used corporate jets for their own travel.

Although complete travel records aren't yet available for 2009, it appears that such costs continue to rise. The Journal analysis shows that the government has picked up the tab for travel to destinations such as Jamaica, the Virgin Islands and Australia's Great Barrier Reef.

Lawmakers frequently bring along spouses on congressional trips. If they take commercial flights, they have to buy tickets for spouses. If they fly on government planes -- as they usually do -- their spouses can fly free.

Paris Air Show
In mid-June, Sen. Daniel Inouye (D., Hawaii) led a group of a half-dozen senators and their spouses on a four-day trip to France for the biennial Paris Air Show. An itinerary for the event shows that lawmakers flew on the Air Force's version of the Boeing 737, which costs $5,700 an hour to operate. They stayed at the Intercontinental Paris Le Grand Hotel, which advertises rooms from $460 a night.
The lawmakers were invited to a dinner party at the U.S. Embassy and had cocktails at a private party at the Eiffel Tower. Mr. Inouye attended a dinner sponsored by the
Aerospace Industries Association, a U.S. trade group. Another senator on the trip, Alabama Republican Sen. Richard Shelby, took a cruise on the River Seine with defense-industry executives and elected officials from Alabama, Mississippi and Florida.

Mr. Inouye and Mr. Shelby declined to comment.

Often,lawmakers combine trips to war zones with visits to more tranquil spots. In
February, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a delegation of Democratic lawmakers to
visit U.S. troops in Afghanistan for a day. Before landing in Kabul, the eight
lawmakers and their entourage of spouses and aides spent eight days in Italy,
spending $57,697 on hotels and meals.

A spokesman for Ms. Pelosi says that she was working in Italy, meeting with U.S. troops at Aviano Air Base, laying a wreath at the Florence American Cemetery, giving a speech to Italian lawmakers and visiting the Pope, among other things.

Homeland Security
Rep. Bennie Thompson (D., Miss.), the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, led a group to Brazil, Argentina, Peru and Panama. "This trip further solidified the message that homeland security does not begin or end at our borders," says Mr. Thompson's spokeswoman.

Many congressional trips have been to Iraq or Afghanistan. In 2008, lawmakers and aides took 113 trips to Iraq, according to the Journal analysis, down slightly from the prior year. Not much money is spent in the war zones. Lawmakers are not allowed to stay overnight in Iraq and receive only minimal spending allowances for their one-day visits.

In mid-February, for example, six House lawmakers traveled to Kuwait, Iraq, Bahrain
and Afghanistan. Each lawmaker reported spending $1,500 on hotels and meals in Kuwait, $400 in Bahrain, and $25 in Afghanistan. They reported no expenses in Iraq.

Scores of lawmakers are spending this week abroad on taxpayer-funded trips.

Congressional offices say they won't release details of the trips for security reasons. Disclosure rules require lawmakers to print some information about their taxpayer-funded travel in the Congressional Record within 30 days of returning home.

Congressional Fleet
The congressional trips are possible thanks in part to an unlimited fund created by a three-decade old law. Nearly two dozen government officials work full-time organizing the trips. Much of the costs are not made public, including the cost of flying on government jets. The Air Force maintains a fleet of 16 passenger planes for use by lawmakers.

Documents obtained by the Journal show that the cost of flying a small group of lawmakers to the Middle East is about $150,000. Larger trips on the Air Force's version of the Boeing 757 cost about $12,000 an hour. Two federal agencies pay for most of the travel -- the Defense Department and the State Department.

Exotic Locales
In October, Rep. Bud Cramer (R.,Ala.) spent two weeks in Europe on government business. Reports show that Mr.Cramer spent $5,700 on hotels, meals and incidentals. Mr. Cramer wasn't running for re-election and left office just two months later.
"Knowing that I was leaving with my 18 years of seniority, I wanted to conclude some issues that I was working on," Mr. Cramer said.

He now works for a lobbying firm in Washington.

Some of the most expensive travel is to exotic locales. Last summer, Rep. Brian Baird (D., Wash.) took a four-day trip to the Galápagos Islands with his wife, four other lawmakers and their family members. The lawmakers spent $22,000 on meals and hotels, records show. Mr. Baird, a member of the House Science Committee, said the trip was to learn about global warming.

On the first day, lawmakers toured a breeding center for giant tortoise and land iguanas before dining with scientists, according to an itinerary for the trip. The next morning, lawmakers headed to the Galápagos National Park while their family members had the option of hiking, swimming or shopping. That afternoon, the group boarded a boat to visit a sea-lion colony and search for white-tip sharks.

Mr. Baird didn't respond to a request for comment.
Write to Brody Mullins at brody.mullins@wsj.com and T.W. Farnam at timothy.farnam@wsj.com

Carol Browner on Cap and Trade

In this 5 minute clip we hear Carol Browner, President Obama's "Energy Czar", discuss the Climate Change legislation.

It's interesting that she says the bill is "all about creating jobs" and not saving the environment. She also dismisses Green Peace's opposition to the bill by implying that they are a bunch of kooks.

Thank you, Ann Kirkpatrick

I have to recognize Ann Kirkpatrick, my representative to the US Congress.

She's a Democrat, and a liberal one, at that. But on Friday she made a courageous stand against her party and heard the voice of the people she represents when she voted "NO" on HR 2454, the Climate Change Legislation.

Well done, Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you.

Gun Control Success Story - ChicagoLand...

Chicago has, for decades now, had among the strictest gun control laws in the country. It is illegal for a private citizen to posess a handgun in the city. Carrying any type of gun on one's person is a virtual legal impossibility.

Knowing this, how is it possible that 6 men in Chicago were shot and killed using handguns this weekend? A 9-year old boy was wounded by a handgun shot. Another man was shot by police.

You see, what criminals know is that, if you don't see a cop around, there is virtually no chance of your intended victim being able to fight back.

This is just human nature. Think about how fast you drive when you have a radar detector onboard. Now consider your speed as you approach a construction site with a highway patrol car's lights flashing on the shoulder.

Here's the article from CBS news in Chicago. Note the horrendous injuries described by non-gun violence at the end of the article.

Six Men Shot Dead In 24 Hours In Chicago
Several Others Shot Or Stabbed
And Wounded
CHICAGO (CBS) ―
Shootings claimed the lives of six men in the city in a bloody and violent 24 hours over the weekend.

The first shooting happened around 8:20 p.m. Friday, when Tijuan Edwards, 18, was talking to a 25-year-old man in the street at 1916 S. Trumbull Ave. when multiple gunmen approached on foot and shot both men. Edwards was dead on the scene, and the 25-year-old was taken to Mount Sinai Hospital with gunshot wounds to the left arm, chin and thigh, police said.

About 11:20 p.m. Friday, Jovon Lee, 24, was fatally shot at 5928 S. Maplewood Ave., and was dead on the scene, the Cook County Medical Examiner's office said. Police found Lee shot in the neck.

About 2 a.m. Saturday, a man was fatally shot across the street from his Northwest
Side home.

Melvin Vallejo, 29, of 6100 W. Diversey Ave., was shot at 6105 W. Diversey Ave. and was dead on the scene, the medical examiner's office said. Police said Vallejo was involved in an argument that became violent and he was shot in the head.

About 2:20 a.m. Saturday, a man was fatally shot on the South Side. Rodrick Scott, 21, of an unidentified home address, was pronounced dead about an hour later at 3:34 a.m. at Advocate Christ Medical Center in Oak Lawn, after he was found shot on the 1000 block of West 60th Street.

Streets were quiet until Saturday night, when Ricardo Valdez, 20, was shot at 5924 S. Whipple St. and later pronounced dead. Police responded to the shooting at 8:18 p.m., according to police, who said the man was confronted on the street by six
Hispanic men who fled south from Whipple Street after firing shots.

Also Saturday evening, Willie Short, 38, was shot and killed as he drove and
ultimately crashed into a fence Saturday night at 4103 W. Madison St. in the
West Garfield Park neighborhood, authorities said.

Others were wounded in shootings over the weekend, including a 9-year-old boy who was walking home with his family when was wounded during a Friday night shooting at 6758 N. Ashland Ave. in the Rogers Park neighborhood, police said. Nobody else was wounded.

The boy was taken in good condition to Children's Memorial Hospital with a gunshot
wound to the thigh, police said.

A 19-year-old man was also shot and wounded by police when he allegedly
pointed a gun at them at 6400 S. Wood St. in the Englewood neighborhood.
Tactical officers were working nearby when they attempted to approach the man,
who first fled, then pointed a gun at an officer, prompting him to shoot, police
said.

Violence with other weapons also sent a few people to the hospital over the weekend.

A woman was stabbed with a branch cutter early Saturday, allegedly by her boyfriend Albert Parker, 40, of 7024 S. Clyde Ave., according to a police report. Parker was arrested by police at 4:55 a.m. Saturday, while the woman was
taken to Northwestern Memorial Hospital in serious condition, police said.

In another incident, police say a man stabbed his girlfriend several times with a
screwdriver and set a fire in his South Side apartment during a domestic argument. The incident happened around 9:20 p.m. Saturday at 7930 S. Evans Ave.,
police said. The man and woman were taken to area hospitals in serious
condition. Both suffered smoke inhalation injuries and the woman also suffered
stab injuries, police said.

Employee Free Choice Act - Unconstitutional!

Okay, let me tell you a story.

When Tina and I were first married she was walking in the mall. As she passed a kiosk selling Bible video tapes (this was in the olden days before DVD) she was accosted by the sales person who made her believe that she would be a bad mom if her kids did not grow up learning values from these video tapes. As you certainly know, the pressure from these sales people can be immense, and telling them “no” can be nearly impossible.

The short story is that, when Tina left the mall that afternoon we were on the hook to receive nearly 100 video tapes over the next 5 years at a cost of more than $1700! This is not what Tina wanted, but again, the pressure was fantastic.

Incidentally, we noticed an increase in the level of violence in our home as our boys learned about stoning the prophets and fighting with swords. I’m still waiting to see evidence of the values that were taught.

Now, on to “card-check” legislation, or the Employee Free Choice Act.

Who’s not for “free choice”? Opposing this would seem to be un-American, right?

Wrong.

All employees in America have the right to organize and to form or join labor unions and collective bargaining units. This right is already vigorously protected by the Constitution and by the Department of Labor.

The current process allows for employees to express interest in organizing via the card check. This begins a period of education, discussion, and debate among the employees and gives them time to consider the benefits that a particular union would bring to their work lives.

Then there is a secret vote. This is important. Union organizers are often very enthusiastic. In fact, sometimes they are perceived as aggressive. This can be even more intimidating than the video tape sales person my wife ran into!

Bullying and violence are tools long used by union organizers. There are many well-documented cases of union organizers making harassing phone calls to undecided workers’ homes or making late evening visits to the homes of outspoken opponents to organizing to discuss the bad things that could happen to the worker or his family if the union fails.

There is tremendous pressure to decide one way or the other. There is fear of retaliation from management if you are known to be in favor of organizing. There is fear of reprisal by co-workers if you are known not to support the movement.

Imagine now, that there is no secrecy when a worker expresses his opinion. He’s caught in a “catch-22”. If he does not sign the card his peers know he is a management lap dog. If he does sign the card his boss knows he’s for the union. In either case the worker is exposed to the risk of retaliation.

The secret vote mitigates those fears and allows the worker to exercise his full rights under the First Amendment. The worker is the only one who knows how he exercised his conscience.
The Employee Free Choice Act is the boldest move by Big Labor to limit Free Speech that I have seen in my lifetime.

Imagine a psychopath who puts a knife to your throat and says, “I like to kill people whose favorite color is blue. What’s your favorite color?” Will you say that it’s blue? Not on your life!

Now consider the worker who hears his peers talking angrily about how badly management treats them and mocking those who stay under the “Man’s” thumb. How likely is he to speak out in favor of management or against the organizing movement?

The Employee Free Choice Act will open the door for bullying and will cause people to fear expressing their own opinions. It will stifle debate. It will ultimately benefit only the union bosses and will be a detriment to the worker, the work place, the company, and the economy.

This harks back to Benjamin Franklin’s observation that those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither. In this case, deserve it or not, workers will lose both the liberty to speak their minds and the security of anonymously voting their conscience.

Cap and Trade Disaster

The photo links to a Wall Street Journal article detailing the "Cap and Trade" legislation pending in the House of Representatives.

While the authors touch the subject obliquely, they do not outline or address the effect this will have on things we buy.

How much will a jar of peanut butter or a head of lettuce cost? Will the cost of carbon be laid only on American farmers and producers? That would have the effect of making imported food (and other items) even more attractive to consumers. That would result in fewer American jobs and greater dependence on foreign trade for life-sustaining items.

The optimistic estimate of Representative Markey of "only" $178 per year per household is sure not to have considered this.

Let's face it, carbon emissions are a part of virtually EVERY thing we use.

I live in a rural town with no railroad service. Every item I can purchase or every item we manufacture and sell is transported via truck (that burns carbon-based fuel) to and from our town. The nearest metropolitan area to us is 2 hours away. What will the burden of the carbon tax be on our cost of goods relative to our urban "neighbors"?

This has the potential to devastate the rural economy of America. Once that economy has been destroyed, we will see interstate trade impacted, and ultimately there will be an effect on the urban economies.

But, boy! will we have blue skies and clear water! We'll stop global warming and everyone will enjoy the same climate that currently is only available in Santa Barbara, CA! Never mind that I'll need to work for a week to purchase a loaf of bread - IF my employer hasn't been driven out of business by the rising cost of carbon credits.

Stop the madness!

President Obama Starts Schooling

This article is from the Wall Street Journal.

By FOUAD
AJAMI
President Barack Obama did not "lose" Iran. This is not a Jimmy Carter moment. But the foreign-policy education of America's 44th president has just begun. Hitherto, he had been cavalier about other lands, he had trusted in his own biography as a bridge to distant peoples, he had believed he could talk rogues and ideologues out of deeply held beliefs. His predecessor had drawn lines in the sand. He would look past them.

Thus a man who had been uneasy with his middle name (Hussein) during the presidential campaign would descend on Ankara and Cairo, inserting himself in a raging civil war over Islam itself. An Iranian theocratic regime had launched a bid for dominion in its region; Mr. Obama offered it an olive branch and waited for it to "unclench" its fist.

It was an odd, deeply conflicted message from Mr. Obama. He was at once a herald of change yet a practitioner of realpolitik. He would entice the crowds, yet assure the
autocrats that the "diplomacy of freedom" that unsettled them during the presidency of George W. Bush is dead and buried. Grant the rulers in Tehran and Damascus their due: They were quick to take the measure of the new steward of American power. He had come to "engage" them. Gone was the hope of transforming these regimes or making them pay for their transgressions. The theocracy was said to be waiting on an American opening, and this new president would put an end to three decades of estrangement between the United States and Iran.

But in truth Iran had never wanted an opening to the U.S. For the length of three
decades, the custodians of the theocracy have had precisely the level of enmity
toward the U.S. they have wanted -- just enough to be an ideological glue for
the regime but not enough to be a threat to their power. Iran's rulers have made
their way in the world with relative ease. No White Army gathered to restore the
dominion of the Pahlavis. The Cold War and oil bailed them out. So did the false
hope that the revolution would mellow and make its peace with the world.

Mr. Obama may believe that his offer to Iran is a break with a hard-line American
policy. But nothing could be further from the truth. In 1989, in his inaugural,
George H.W. Bush extended an offer to Iran: "Good will begets good will," he
said. A decade later, in a typically Clintonian spirit of penance and contrition, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright came forth with a full apology for America's role in the 1953 coup that ousted nationalist Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh.

Iran's rulers scoffed. They had inherited a world, and they were in no need of opening it to outsiders. They were able to fly under the radar. Selective, targeted deeds of terror, and oil income, enabled them to hold their regime intact. There is a Persian pride and a Persian solitude, and the impact of three decades of zeal and indoctrination. The drama of Barack Obama's election was not an affair of Iran. They had an election of their own to stage.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- a son of the Ayatollah Khomeini's revolutionary order, a
man from the brigades of the regime, austere and indifferent to outsiders, an
Iranian Everyman with badly fitting clothes and white socks -- was up for re-election.

The upper orders of his country loathed him and bristled under the system of controls that the mullahs and the military and the revolutionary brigades had put in place, but he had the power and the money and the organs of the state arrayed on his side. There was a discernible fault line in Iran. There were Iranians yearning for liberty, but we should not underestimate the power and the determination of those moved by the yearning for piety. Ahmadinejad's message of populism at home and defiance abroad, his assertion that the country's nuclear quest is a "closed file," settled and beyond discussion, have a resonance on Iranian soil.

His challenger, Mir Hossein Mousavi, a generation older, could not compete with him on that terrain.

On the ruins of the ancien régime, the Iranian revolutionaries, it has to be conceded, have built a formidable state. The men who emerged out of a cruel and bloody struggle over their country's identity and spoils are a tenacious, merciless breed. Their capacity for repression is fearsome. We must rein in the modernist conceit that the bloggers, and the force of Twitter and Facebook, could win in the streets against the squads of the regime. That fight would be an Iranian drama, all outsiders mere spectators.

That ambivalence at the heart of the Obama diplomacy about freedom has not served American policy well in this crisis. We had tried to "cheat" -- an opening to the regime with an obligatory wink to those who took to the streets appalled by their rulers' cynicism and utter disregard for their people's intelligence and common sense -- and we were caught at it. Mr. Obama's statement that "the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as had been advertised" put on cruel display the administration's incoherence.

For once, there was an acknowledgment by this young president of history's burden: "Either way, we were going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically
been hostile to the United States, that has caused some problems in the
neighborhood and is pursuing nuclear weapons."

No Wilsonianism on offer here. Mr. Obama will have to acknowledge the "foreignness" of foreign lands. His breezy self-assurance has been put on notice. The Obama administration believed its own rhetoric that the pro-Western March 14 coalition in Lebanon had ridden Mr. Obama's coattails to an electoral victory. (It had given every indication that it expected similar vindication in Iran.)

But the claim about Lebanon was hollow and reflected little understanding of the forces at play in Lebanon's politics. That contest was settled by Lebanese rules, and by the push and pull of Saudi and Syrian and Iranian interests in Lebanon.

Mr. Obama's June 4 speech in Cairo did not reshape the Islamic landscape. I was in Saudi Arabia when Mr. Obama traveled to Riyadh and Cairo. The earth did not move, life went on as usual. There were countless people puzzled by the presumption of the entire exercise, an outsider walking into sacred matters of their faith. In
Saudi Arabia, and in the Arabic commentaries of other lands, there was unease
that so complicated an ideological and cultural terrain could be approached with
such ease and haste.

Days into his presidency, it should be recalled, Mr. Obama had spoken of his desire to restore to America's relation with the Muslim world the respect and mutual interest that had existed 30 or 20 years earlier.

It so happened that he was speaking, almost to the day, on the 30th anniversary
of the Iranian Revolution -- and that the time span he was referring to, his
golden age, covered the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the American standoff
with Libya, the fall of Beirut to the forces of terror, and the downing of Pan
Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. Liberal opinion would have howled had
this history been offered by George W. Bush, but Barack Obama was granted a
waiver.

Little more than three decades ago, Jimmy Carter, another American
president convinced that what had come before him could be annulled and wished
away, called on the nation to shed its "inordinate fear of communism," and to
put aside its concern with "traditional issues of war and peace" in favor of
"new global issues of justice, equity and human rights." We had betrayed our
principles in the course of the Cold War, he said, "fought fire with fire, never
thinking that fire is quenched with water." The Soviet answer to that brave, new
world was the invasion of Afghanistan in December of 1979.

Mr. Carter would try an atonement in the last year of his presidency. He would pose as a born-again hawk. It was too late in the hour for such redemption. It would take
another standard-bearer, Ronald Reagan, to see that great struggle to victory.

Iran's ordeal and its ways shattered the Carter presidency. President Obama's Persian tutorial has just begun.

Mr. Ajami, a professor at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University and a fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, is the author of "The Foreigner's Gift: The Americans, the Arabs, and the Iraqis in Iraq"

Kudos to Secretary Napolitano and DHS!

I did not anticipate this, but I have to applaud Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security for her initiative described in the following article from Siobahn Gorman at the Wall Street Journal.

As I disagree with the premise of the Patriot Act, I concur with Ms. Napolitano's assessment, here.

In February, 1775, Benjamin Franklin wrote, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Here's what Secretary Napolitano is doing:

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration plans to kill a controversial Bush
administration spy satellite program at the Department of Homeland Security,
according to officials familiar with the decision.

The program came under fire from its inception two years ago. Democratic lawmakers said it would lead to domestic spying.

The program would have provided federal, state and local officials with extensive access to spy-satellite imagery — but no eavesdropping capabilities— to assist with emergency response and other domestic-security needs, such as identifying where ports or border areas are vulnerable to terrorism.

It would have expanded an Interior Department satellite program, which will continue to be used to assist in natural disasters and for other limited security purposes such as photographing sporting events.

The Wall Street Journal first revealed the plans to establish the program, known
as the National Applications Office, in 2007.

"It's being shut down," said a homeland security official.

The Bush administration had taken preliminary steps to launch the office, such as acquiring office space and beginning to hire staff.

The plans to shutter the office signal Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano's decision to refocus the department's intelligence on ensuring that state and local officials get the threat information they need, the official said. She also wants to make the department the central point in the government for receiving and analyzing terrorism tips from around the country, the official added.

Lawmakers alerted Ms. Napolitano of their concerns about the program-that the program would violate the Fourth amendment right to be protected from unreasonable searches-before her confirmation hearing.

Once she assumed her post, Ms. Napolitano ordered a review of the program and
concluded the program wasn't worth pursuing, the homeland official said.

Department spokeswoman Amy Kudwa declined to speak about the results of the
review but said they would be announced shortly.

The lawmakers were most concerned about plans to provide satellite imagery to state and local law enforcement, so department officials asked state and local officials how useful that information would be to them. The answer: not very useful.
"In our view, the NAO is not an issue of urgency," Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton, wrote to Ms. Napolitano on June 21.

Writing on behalf of the Major Cities Chiefs Association, Chief Bratton said that were the program to go forward, the police chiefs would be concerned about privacy protections and whether using military satellites for domestic purposes would violate the Posse Comitatus law, which bars the use of the military for law enforcement in the U.S.

Rep. Jane Harman (D., Calif.), who oversees the House Homeland Security subcommittee on intelligence, said she was alarmed when she recently saw that the Obama administration requested money for the program in a classified 2010 budget
proposal. She introduced two bills that would terminate the program.

"It's a good decision," Ms. Harman said in an interview. "This will remove a distraction and let the intelligence function at [the department] truly serve the community that needs it, which is local law enforcement."

Supporters of the program lamented what they said was the loss of an important new terrorism-fighting tool for natural disasters and terrorist attacks, as well as border
security.

"After numerous congressional briefings on the importance of the NAO and its solid legal footing, politics beat out good government," said Andrew Levy, who was deputy general counsel at the department in the Bush administration.

Huh???

This is a question by a reporter and President Obama's answer.

The first thing that struck me was the President's appeal to "universal values" of "freedom of assembly and speech" as well as the "universal value" of government's tolerant and peaceable response to dissent.

Where is there a list of "Universal Values"?

Another point: The President almost apologizes to the world for speaking out too strongly in favor of the Iranian opposition candidate. He claims that, in Iran, his remarks are being mistranslated and understood to incite rioting!

I've looked all over the Internet and haven't found any other reference to the unfortunate mistranslation and the ensuing blood bath that the President inadvertently instigated.

Is anyone listening? This man is not telling the truth. He has a fundamental misconception of universality and is a serial apologizer.