Politically Drunk On Power!

Despite Senate health care bill, the public option is coming

noreply@blogger.com (Jbrown) — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:04:00 +0000

Despite mainstream media reports and a weekend statement by the White House that they are no longer pushing for a public option, the option is alive, well, and may become a swift reality. Moreover, if the current course of events is not altered, Republicans may have no legislative ability to prevent the public option from becoming a reality.

Senate leadership and the Obama administration are currently working out details on how to combine competing versions of health care reform this week. A primary point of contention is the creation of a public option versus non-profit cooperatives. After Obama administration comments this weekend, it has become clear that the final Senate bill will most likely not contain the so-called "public option" in order to garner the 60 votes needed to overcome an impending Republican filibuster. Once the bill has overcome a filibuster, it will allow a small number of Senate Democrats who are facing challenges in the 2010 elections to then vote no on the final bill. However, the public option will not die with the passage of the Senate bill and once the White House has overcome a potential filibuster it will re-open the door to the public option.

The House of Representatives, under Nancy Pelosi, has not abandoned the government option and such a government option will pass the House of Representatives. As a result, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, the White House and a handful of chosen delegates will conference to hammer out the details of final legislation. The problem is that all three of the parties involved in combining House and Senate versions of health care bills support and have lobbied for a government option. As a result, this conference is likely to produce a final bill that not only contains a public option, but is also no longer subject to cloture rules within the Senate. The end result is a final bill that may contain a government option that only needs 50 Senate votes for final passage.

The installation of the government option within a final bill would inevitably cause a massive bloating of costs in order to appease Senate Democrats on the fence. For instance, the current Baucus bill cost estimates are based upon a 25% cut in Medicare reimbursement to providers. Currently, Medicare and Medicaid reimburse health care providers at a rate 17%-19% less than private insurance. Such a cut would mean that reimbursement rates would fall to nearly 40% less than private insurance, thus devastating the medical community and limiting care. In order to garner support for a public option, the conference committee would likely eliminate such language causing costs of the bill to skyrocket. In addition, Senator's such as Kent Conrad (D-ND), who are facing tough reelection bids, have already stated that they would not vote for a public option that was built upon current medicare reimbursement schedules (notice the carefully worded statements of such politicians). As a result, we will likely see a final bill that abandons the medicare payment basis and provide higher reimbursement rates for government run health insurance. Such a move would soften medical community opposition, maintain the support of wavering Senate Democrats, but also cause costs to balloon even further.

If the public would step back and take a second look, they would quickly find that the thrust of the White House has been solely upon passage of a Senate bill. Little attention has been paid to current House legislation and no pressure has been placed upon the House to adopt a bill without the government option. What we are witnessing is the worst of political posturing, publicly admonishing a public option, while privately working out details as to how to pass such an option. The public, for their part, is blind, naively trusting our legislative leaders to do the right thing, abandon government run health care and pass a bill designed to lower medical costs. However, in our blindness, we are overlooking the reality that Washington has no interest in lowering health care costs, if they were then reform would begin at the production level of goods and services rather than the end-user insurance level.

DOL Job Openings Survey: Job openings lowest level yet, stimulus failing

noreply@blogger.com (Jbrown) — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 11:11:00 +0000

Fascinated by the President's receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday, the mainstream media largely ignored a Department of Labor report that highlighted the complete failure of the Obama stimulus package. On Friday, the Job Openings and Labor turnover summary showed that the number of new job openings in August fell not only to its lowest level since the onset of the recession, but its lowest level since the 1970's.

The Department of labor reported that the number of new job openings in August fell to 2,387,000 positions, a decrease of decrease of 21,000 from the month of July. The 2.387 million new job openings reached a level exactly 50% lower than the recent high of 4.8 new jobs in June of 2007. The number of new job openings has consistently dropped since September of 2008 and has reached a level nearly 600,000 jobs lower than February, 2009 when the Economic Recovery Act was passed.

The report showed that the number of job openings and hire rates dropped amid every sector of the economy including the construction, manufacturing and transportation sectors supposedly targeted by the stimulus act. According to the Department of Labor, there are now 6 applicants for every new job opening, the highest level in more than 30 years. Moreover, the summary highlights the lowest per-capita level of small business hiring since the government began publishing the report. Prior to this recession, small business accounted for more than 1/3 of all new job hires; today, that number has dropped into the 20th percentile as small business hiring has nearly frozen.

The Job Opening and Labor Turnover Summary highlights the failure of the Economic Recovery Act as the number of job openings and hires has consistently decreased since February. Moreover, the stagnancy in numbers within recent months demonstrates that as federal spending ramps up, job creation is not following. Detractors of the so-called stimulus plan, such as myself, highlighted that the spending bill failed to provide consumer based stimulus and tax incentives to small businesses. Moreover, federal stimulus money severely restricted industries that received such funds, requiring that the money be invested on unneeded capital projects rather than utilized to shore-up deficit budgets, enhance services and rev up supply. The failure of the Obama Stimulus plan may ultimately represent the most wasted spending in government history considering that the recovery act was nearly 5 times larger than any stimulus plan in U.S. history.

The bottom line is that you can not have long term economic growth without job creation. It is now evident that our nation is headed into an economic abyss similar to that of the 1970's.

Nobel Peace Prize will handicap US diplomatic efforts

noreply@blogger.com (Jbrown) — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 11:24:00 +0000

The blogosphere and pundits will be in full force today discussing the accomplishments or lack thereof of President Obama. The left will spin the announcement of the Nobel Peace Prize award as a reflection of the United States new found adoration brought on by President Obama. Meanwhile, his detractors will inevitably refer to lack of international diplomatic success of the administration, the increased belligerence of nations such as Iran, North Korea and Venezuela, the strained US-Israeli relationship, the Chicago Olympics debacle and criticism by the French president.

Inevitably, the historical significance of the prize will be discussed. There will be references to the award being the first time a sitting US president has received the prize. Likewise, the references to past award winner such as Arafat, Vietnamese diplomat Lo Duc and Gorbachev will be invoked. You will hear the discussion about past nominees such as Neville Chamberlain, Hitler, Stalin and others. In the end we will be barraged with discussions centering upon the past, with little discussion as to the unintended effect of receiving the award.

The world is ruled by largely egotistical, alpha males who do not react well to criticism and react even more negatively to arrogance or condescension by other leaders. No example typifies this better than how global leadership reacted to President Wilson in 1919. The President arrived in Europe, touring the continent to be greeted by record-breaking crowds of adoring fans. Publicly, European leaders positioned themselves to the side of Wilson, bowing before his public greatness and showering him with praise. However, privately they despised the arrogance of the President and despised the popularity of Wilson even more. At Versailles, they utilized his naivety and arrogance against him, shredding the Presidents peace plan until all that remained was the creation of the League of Nations and the most lopsided and damaging peace treaty in history. President Wilson never recovered from the humiliation of Versailles.

As we pointed out throughout the campaign and as recently as last month, President Obama is the first President in the past century to display a level of hubris, condescension and idealism that rivals that of President Wilson. On the world stage, belligerent countries have consistently challenged the resolve of the US over the past 9 months only to be met with a tepid response by Washington. Following the G20 summit, European leaders expressed private discontent and offered criticism of the naivete of President Obama's world views and the President's condemnation of another secret Iranian nuclear facility was offset by the disclosure that the President learned of the facility prior to his inauguration.

The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize will inevitably handicap U.S. diplomatic efforts as the self-serving egotism of other global leaders causes them to pursue policies aimed at embarrassing the President and enforcing their sense of power. Compounding U.S. diplomatic challenges is the reality that President Obama has displayed typical Beta-male behavior in dealing with foreign leaders as The American Thinker pointed out. The end result will be that even the leaders or closest allies will inadvertently work to improve their own sense of self-worth and superiority when dealing with an administration whose own arrogance will only grow as world peace is added to a list of accomplishments that have yet to occur.

Much of the world is demonstrating dismay this morning as they learn that President Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. From the bewilderment of the crowd at the announcement to dropped jaws in Afghanistan and Iraq, the announcement was a shock and a body-shot to the egos of other world leaders. Ultimately, the Noble Peace Prize committee has damaged already strained U.S. diplomatic efforts.

Amnesty, Immigration reform will add billions to the cost of Health Care Reform bills

noreply@blogger.com (Jbrown) — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 11:26:00 +0000

This spring President Obama alluded to his intentions of taking up immigration reform, aka Amnesty, in November or December of this year. Yet, administration officials have not publicly discussed the subject in months and now with votes looming on current health insurance proposals, administration officials are taking steps in preparation of an immigration bill.

The President has made clear that he wants a bill that will not cover illegal aliens, yet, every proposed bill on the table does not require verification of citizenship. In fact, each and every time that House and Senate Republicans have offered amendments that specifically bar illegal immigrants and require verification, they have been rejected. Yet, the legislative language and legal verification will not mean a thing if the Congressional Democrats and the President grant amnesty to the 12-17 million illegals living in the United States.

The administration and Democrat congressional leaders are pushing for passage of Health Care legislation prior to November 15th, which would fit the timeline for the introduction and attempt to ramrod an amnesty bill down Americans' throats during the holiday season when many Americans are focused on other issues. This past week, Kathleen Sebelius slipped up during a press conference and alluded to the administration's plans to push for amnesty. In addition, the Department of Homeland Security ordered Arizona sheriff Arpaio to halt his roundup of illegals and then announced plans to reform detention procedures of illegal immigrants.

This week news flowed out of Chicago that immigration reform activists are pushing for passage of a resolution calling upon Washington to enact immigration reform and grant amnesty. Considering President Obama's allegiance to the Chicago political machine, it is safe to assume that he will be supportive of their efforts.

The movement of the administration towards granting amnesty to illegal aliens is directly tied to the health care reform debate. Current CBO estimates of each plan are based upon the exclusion of illegal aliens. If the administration were successful in pushing their amnesty agenda it would add tens of billions, if not hundreds of billions of dollars to the cost of the programs. The lack of transparency and disclosure by the administration in regards to this agenda is a travesty and represents the worst of our political system. The administration understands that if the American people were to recognize the correlation between health care and immigration reform plans, they uprising would be severe. Then again, how are the American masses able to recognize such a correlation when the media has become the lapdog of the President.

The writing is on the wall and the move towards amnesty is inevitable. Higher taxes, higher premiums, cuts to Medicare and the inclusion of illegal aliens are not the change that Americans voted for....or at least what those blinded by celebrity thought they were voting for.

Obama's political posturing highlighted by Afghanistan indecision

noreply@blogger.com (Jbrown) — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 15:41:00 +0000

President Obama has painted himself into the proverbial corner in regards to our mission in Afghanistan. On the campaign trail he consistently criticized the Bush administration, accusing them of diverting needed resources from Afghanistan and failing to wage a war of victory within the nation. However, as many of us warned then candidate Obama's rhetoric was based upon a need to demonstrate foreign policy strength rather than sound military strategy. President Obama promised the American people that he would lead us to victory over the Taliban and Al-Quaeda, but months of diverting attention from Afghanistan have culminated in the demonstration that President Obama only strategy for Afghanistan is to choose the path that will provide the least political damage.

Upon taking office, President Obama's lack of resolve in regard to Afghanistan was quickly demonstrated when he first referenced the "War on Terror" as an oversees contingency plan. However, the upsurge in violence and deaths of NATO soldiers prove that Afghanistan is indeed all out warfare.

The President's first and foremost obligation is to protect US citizens and fully support our armed forces. As a wartime President he has a further obligation to enact policies designed to achieve operational objectives and achieve victory in a manner that supports rather than strains our armed forces. The uptick in Afghanistan violence is not a recent event, but rather a pattern that has developed over the past two years as insurgents have fled the battle in Iraq to fight on more friendly soil. In large part, the success of the Iraqi surge in establishing security in that nation has directly attributed to the increased insurgency in Afghanistan. Yet, it has taken President Obama eight months to address the war in Afghanistan.

Supporters of the President will point to his increase in troop levels when he took office. However, that increase has not taken full effect and represented a fraction of the troop levels requested by our commanders in the field. The President was fulfilling a campaign promise, rather than instituting sound military strategy. Although the President took limited action following his inauguration, Afghanistan has since been largely ignored. Indeed, it was only after a leaked request for additional troops that the President was forced to address the War in Afghanistan.

What action has the President taken?

None. The first reports of troop level requests occurred more than 3 weeks ago and the Presidents response has been one of indecision. The President promised on the campaign trail that he had the "plan" for success in Afghanistan; however, it is safe to say that the White House response demonstrates that the President had no plan for victory, nor any consideration of developing a plan. The President has had eight months to develop his Afghanistan strategy and has waited until forced by the media to make a decision.

In the past week, the President has waffled on any decision with regard to troop levels and forward-looking strategy. He is now placed himself in a environment of choosing between the plans of our experienced commanders or those of lifetime politicians and bureaucrats. Such indecision is reminiscent of troop and supply requests that were unmet by President Johnson during the onset and early years of the Vietnam War. Just as President Johnson did, it now appears that President Obama's lack of experience and resolve will culminate in a decision in a "half-way" plan designed to portray a centrist position. Such a politically weighted decision would demonstrate a complete and total failure of leadership as Commander in Chief.

The mere reality that the President would adopt a strategy based upon political impact demonstrates the degradation of presidential leadership that has occurred since the fall of the Soviet Union. The American Electorate once chose statesman, individuals of integrity and character who demonstrated resolve and leadership when faced with crisis. Today it appears that the American electorate has become content with choosing career politicians lacking resolve and discussing the value of consensus building. If such leadership was present in 1930's, we would have been wholly unprepared for the onslaught of WWII and the attempts to direct public opinion into positions supporting our British allies never would have occurred. If such indecisiveness and reliance upon political implications existed in the early 1960's, the United States would still be the target of Cuban-based nuclear missiles today. We elect Presidents to make decisions and fulfill their obligations to this nation, we do not elect them to ignore the problems for months and then stall while they weigh the political implications of those decisions.

The lack of leadership in Washington truly has become a sad state of affairs.

Iran agrees to nuclear inspection, seventh time is a charm?

noreply@blogger.com (Jbrown) — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 11:00:00 +0000

Following diplomatic talks with Iran, the mainstream media was abuzz with the stunning success of the Obama administration. During the short meeting, Iran agreed to allow inspections of another secret nuclear facility publicly disclosed during the G20 summit. But is Iran's agreement to inspections of the nuclear facility a genuine success?

History tells us that the Obama Administrations direct engagement yielded no more results than the failed global approach of the past 7 years. Since proof was first submitted in 2002 or Iran's secret nuclear program, the Iranian government has agreed 7 times to allow the inspections to occur.

In February of 2003, following the discovery of Iran's nuclear facilities, then Iranian President, Mohammad Khatami, publicly disclosed that his nation had indeed built two factories in which nuclear materials were being produced. On February 21st, Iran would agree to allow scheduled nuclear inspections. After inspections begin later that Spring, IAEA Inspectors disclose in August that Iran has developed two types of enriched Uranium not needed for peaceful energy production.

During the Fall of 2003, international pressure would mount on Iran. The Iranian Government would temporarily suspend enrichment at its facilities after the IAEA report and by the end of October, would agree to sign an additional protocol to the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. On December 18, 2003 Iran would sign the NPT protocol and agree disclose all facilities and submit to unannounced IAEA inspections. The signing of the protocol would represent the pinnacle of international attempts to curb Iran's nuclear program. Never again would nuclear talks achieve the short-lived promises agreed to by Iran.

In March of 2004, Iran would abruptly bar UN inspections of nuclear facilities aimed at determining the source of two highly enriched uranium samples and previously discovered equipment used in the weaponization process. An IAEA report and UN resolution would condemn Iran for failing to disclose nuclear operations and facilities in violation of the 3-month old NPT protocol. Following the resolution, Iran would once again agree to allow inspections but would further stall IAEA inspectors until a new timeline was established in April.

By the middle of June 2004, it was apparent that Iran had no intention of abiding by the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, nor the additional protocol signed 6 months earlier. In June, Iran would announce that it would resume Uranium enrichment. A subsequent IAEA report would allude to Iran's failure to abide by the additional protocol and would disclose satellite photos of an additional suspected secret facility. After another round of mounting pressure throughout the fall of 2004, Iran would once again agree to allow inspections and suspend uranium enrichment. On November 14th Iran would suspend enrichment activities and would subsequently (Feb. 27,2005) sign an international accord to purchase nuclear material (not utilized for weaponization) from Russia.

Five months later, Iran would abruptly announce its intentions to resume Uranium enrichment in direct violation of all earlier agreements. On August 3rd, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
would take office and just 2 days later Iran's nuclear facilities were back online. On September 2nd, the IAEA would confirm that nuclear operations had resumed. A draft report condemns the actions of Iran, but without Chinese or Russian support the nation avoids action by the United Nations Security Council.

Between September 2005 and January 2006, Iran would continue to prepare for full-scale uranium enrichment. On January 10th, 2006 Iran would remove the IAEA seals from enrichment equipment at one facility sparking international calls to bring the nation in front of the security council. Security Council members would agree, but postpone a meeting until March. Following failed last minute negotiations, on March 29, 2006, the security council give Iran 30 days to suspend enrichment. On April 29th, Iran would once again agree to allow inspections of nuclear facilities in an attempt to avoid sanctions while still enriching uranium. The United Nations backs down and Iran continues enrichment activities and allows limited inspections to self-chosen sites. The remainder of 2006 would be marred by blocked IAEA attempts to inspect nuclear facilities and continued international threats of sanctions.

In May of 2007, the IAEA would announce Iran had progressed to a point in which they would have enough material to produce a nuclear bomb in 3 to 8 years. The assessment, in addition to various IAEA reports, would force the Security Council to once again debate international sanctions against Iran. The impending referral to the security council and planned vote for sanctions, would lead to an offer by Iran to allow inspections of a heavy water facility previously blocked to IAEA inspectors. Once again, the Security Council caved, delaying sanctions until November.

By November 2007, no progress had been made in regards to full disclosure, full inspections or a halt to enrichment activities. The security council, facing opposition by Russia and China, would delay UN imposed sanctions as member-nations attempted to reach an agreement with Iran. As a result in January 2008, Iran would agree to "clarify" all questions that the IAEA had in regards to their nuclear program within 30 days. After 3 months, the IAEA would conclude that Iran had failed to fully disclose its nuclear activities and was "not cooperative".

Since May of 2008, little has changed in regards to international dealings with Iran. That is until last week when the mainstream media hyped the Obama administration success in getting Iran to agree to inspections. However, what the press failed to mention is the stark reality that President Obama could only achieve the same level of diplomatic success that the international community had achieved each and every year since 2003. Every year since the admission of their nuclear program Iran has agreed to allow inspections and continue talks, only to obstruct such inspections and return to its hardline stance. The press would lead you to believe that this was a great step forward towards peace, yet the results of the meeting follow the exact process of "promise and stall" that the Iranians have been engaged in for years.

The press has created a perception that the Bush policies of deferring talks to the EU were an utter failure. Yet, history does not lie and prior to the election of Ahmadinejad the U.S. and its allies were twice able to temporarily stop the production of enriched uranium. Although Iran's total shut-down only lasted months in each case, when combined the more than 1 year of shut-down may have bought just enough time to allow President Obama to hold more fruitless talks.

President Theodore Roosevelt developed the United States' first comprehensive foreign policy and was popularly coined for the phrase, "Speak softly and carry a big stick". Those very words could easily have been attributed to the later President Roosevelt, President Kennedy or President Reagan. Yet, President Obama's approach has become the equivalent of speak loudly and carry a Hello Kitty purse. The President abstained for the entirety of his Presidency from releasing photos of yet another Iranian nuclear site; opting instead to wait for an economic summit of the G20 to release the information. The president has failed to counter Iranian rhetoric, nor challenge the nation at any point during his presidency; including the utter failure to mention the belligerent nation in either his UN General Assembly speech, nor his initial security council meeting. Furthermore, the President has failed, unlike European leaders, to mention the reality that Iran has violated the NPT, the additional protocol of 2003, or 2004 & 2005 international agreements. While the President has been apologizing for the past actions of the US, he has utterly failed to demonstrate international leadership.

Iran has no intention of dismantling its nuclear ambitions, let alone allowing full and transparent inspections of their five nuclear sites (disclosed so far). The actions of this administration and the international community resemble those of the 1930's whereas the League of Nations laid the foundation of their own failure. Just as in the 1930's this administration's first act in dealing with a belligerent state was to allow Iran to dictate the terms from which they would manipulate international law to further their illegal nuclear program.

The Bush Administration spent years developing clandestine and public efforts to promote the idea of a popular uprising to remove the fundamentalist regime in Iran. Yet, when the Iranian people took to the streets this past spring, President Obama passed on a golden opportunity to demonstrate international leadership and apply powerful pressures to the Iranian government. The President was the last leader of the free world to speak up in support of the people of Iran and did so with a whisper. Furthermore, the uprising in Iran presented the ideal time to release satellite imagery of a fifth nuclear installation and apply never-before seen pressure upon a belligerent state dealing with internal unrest. The President passed on this opportunity, the uprising was crushed and years of effort to promote an internal overthrow of the regime were discarded. As a result, Iran's leadership has recognized the utter weakness of US leadership built upon likability and has every intention of utilizing that weakness to further stall enforcement of international law. The meeting with Iran in past weeks was the farthest thing from unprecedented success that much of media has made it out to be. Nothing more was achieved in that meeting than has been achieved in the past seven years. Ultimately, Iran will break their limited pledge and continue the same process of utilizing international weakness to further their belligerency.

Liberal media obsession over Sarah Palin's book Going Rogue backfires

noreply@blogger.com (Jbrown) — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 03:38:00 +0000

From the fringe left Daily Kos to mainstream media outlets such as CNN and MSNBC learned a tough lesson on Thursday as they awoke to find Sarah Palin's Autobiography
Going Rogue: An American Life atop the pre-order best sellers lists and daily sales boards for Amazon, Barnes and Noble and nearly every other book retailer websites. The announcement of Palin's release date on Wednesday caused an outbreak of attacks on the former Vice Presidential candidate that would lead you to believe that she had announced a Presidential campaign rather than a book release.

Thousands of Internet and print articles attacking Palin flew into circulation while unrepentant liberal networks such as MSNBC filled every available minute of airtime with their obsession over the Palin. The magnitude of the attacks was ridiculously overwhelming, especially in light of the nations current economic and national security woes. Adding to the ridiculous nature of these attacks were the reality that the book will not even be released until mid-November.

So the question comes to rest, Why? Is a hatred of the values and political beliefs of Palin or a deeper rooted fear that a silent majority of the nation shares those same conservative values? Most likely, its a combination of both. Any reasonable person would have to respect Palin after the political smack-down she has experienced in the past year. After a year of constant personal attacks directed at at herself and her family with no correlation to her political positions, she still refuses to leave the national political scene.

Unlike her political opponents, Palin has not resorted to the blame game or launched retaliatory attacks upon her protractors. As a result, the utter hypocrisy of liberal establishment has been exposed. If Republicans or conservatives were to ever launch personal attacks upon a female Democrat, the cries of misogyny would echo throughout every media outlet. Groups such as NOW would launch an all out assault upon the individual in an effort to discredit them. The hypocrisy in regards to Palin isn't much different than the hypocrisy displayed between Joe Wilson calling the President a liar and Alan Grayson telling Americans that Republicans wanted them to die and were engaged in an American Holocaust.

The liberal derangement directed at Palin is aimed at discrediting her to a point that she may no longer pose a threat in 2012. Although this obsessive derangement may ultimately derail Palin's chances it may also lead to the emergence of a more threatening candidate, a relatively soft-spoken, well-spoken, intelligent and increasing statesmen-like former Speaker of the House.

Regardless, Wednesday provided a solid victory for Palin as the deranged attacks upon her backfired and she accomplished the feat of unseating the Internet sales ranking of two newly released best-sellers. The increasing silence of the liberal media on Thursday was a direct result of the phenomenal sales that their attacks led too. But rest assured, when mid-November arrives the lessons learned this week by the liberal community will be forgotten as they once again fall victim to Palin Derangement Syndrome.

Obama's September Book Release written to target 2nd & 3rd graders

noreply@blogger.com (Jbrown) — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 10:00:00 +0000

Rack it up too poor timing, but yesterday we brought the unfortunate news of the September release President Obama's newest endeavour ,Our Enduring Spirit: President Barack Obama's First Words to America. Although it was difficult finding information on the book that was not directly released by the publisher, the length and illustrative contributions by a comic book artist raised a suspicion that this book was intended to influence a less-than-mature audience. Unfortunately, what we discovered yesterday confirms those suspicions.

In a publishers weekly article printed on January 2nd announcing the book. Bowen Press, a HarperCollins publisher announced:

The book will consist of the President’s speech (adapted for young
readers—the entire speech will also be included, in the back matter),
biographical notes about Obama, as well as an overview of his first 100 days in
office.

The article went on to cite the publisher Brenda Bowen:

“It’s not about Tuesday the 20th of January, 2009. It is a visual parsing
of the President’s speech for children in the second and third
grade.” She adds that the book could show soldiers and
battlefields to accompany the speech’s references to Concord and Gettysburg, or
images of Americans at work, paired with the lines, “Starting today, we must
pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking
America. For everywhere we look, there is work to be done.”

“anything of import or moment that happens between now and the time we print the book...We wanted to take the time to make it a lasting book for kids. I want them to take away the broad sweep of history and literary and even musical allusions that Obama worked into his speech. I want them to understand the richness of it. Having a visual will really bring home the images for young children.”

Take away the broad sweep of history?

Somehow, I highly doubt that this book will mention that in 8 months, President Obama has created a national deficit 3 times larger than that of any previous deficit. Nor will there be any mention intentions to nearly double the national debt within the next ten years.

Does the book include the rising global calls for the removal of the dollar as the global currency and the Presidents complacency on this issue which will irreparably damage the US economy?

Does the book mention that North Korea, Iran and Venezuela have ratcheted up there belligerence to never before seen levels?

Will the book mention the reality that after 8 months in office an indecisive President has decided that he needs one more week to consider the advice of his military commanders as Afghanistan falls apart?

Perhaps the book can relay the President's quest to save people such as his Illinois constituent who died after his health insurance company cancelled his coverage (which was reinstated 3 weeks later, with no delay in treatment, and he lived another 4 years).

Somehow, I have a feeling that we are about to encounter a children's version of 50 Ways You Can Help Obama Change America that will inevitably find its way onto the desks of some unfortunate children with over-zealous teachers.

According to a January posing on the illustrator, Greg Ruth's website:

"The idea is to adapt the speech so that we can get second and third graders to better make sense about what the speech promised, and what it all means- we'll include a full transcript of the speech in the rear of the book along with a listing of moments in the first 100 days as well. The idea is to create something that looks beyond celebrating his biography and makes a lasting document of this remarkable time."

and naturally, when Mr. Ruth ran across yesterday's article he had this to say...

"Well the first review just came in from a conservative website on our wee children's book. Did the blogger like it? Not one teeny bit. It's fun- read away!

The title of King of the Boards for an entire month goes to whomever can discern the fatal flaw in this logic behind this article... aside from the fact that's it's a review of a book he hasn't yet seen."

Well...Mr. Ruth, it wasn't a review and I can certainly guarantee that my two elementary aged children will not be reading it. This book has gone from a status of pure political propaganda to the depths of literary prose aimed to distort history that has not yet been written and overlooks the massive failures of a presidency that has proven an exercise in generational theft.

The good news however, is that the sales level of this book preying upon the most impressionable of our society is likely to achieve the same dismal level of success as the highly tauted 50 Ways You Can Help Obama Change America. As for President Obama and Mr. Ruth, the good news is that the 83 members of his forum, including the 17 that have actually posted will drive up those numbers. As for my 14,000 email subscribers, I'm pretty sure they won't be encouraging anybody to purchase a book that politically targets children.

View updates of conservative blogs and publications at Conservative Feeds

President Obama's second job, planning September book release

noreply@blogger.com (Jbrown) — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 09:26:00 +0000

President Obama is about to set a new standard for the modern presidency. In September, he will become the first modern president to release a book while still residing in White House. On September 29th,Our Enduring Spirit: President Barack Obama's First Words to America, will be released in hardcover by HarperCollins. The hardcover book will essentially provide an illustrated through his inaugural address and vision for the country. According to the editor:

These are the words that make up Our Enduring Spirit: President Barack Obama's First Words to America. Inspirational and honest, mindful of the past while looking ahead to the future, President Obama's address conveyed a singular vision for a country united. Brought to life in stunning paintings by acclaimed artist Greg Ruth, Our Enduring Spirit is a record of this vision and a tribute to a people with the promise, the determination, and the hope to make it so. All grades

No modern President has released a book while still in office, after all imagine the outrage that would have occurred if a past President, such as President Bush, were to have released a book during his presidency. Yet, despite the economic and national security challenges this nation faces, our President has taken the bold step of directly profiting from his influence and power. Perhaps the President's pursuit of a second career is an indicator of just how bad the economy is? After all, $400,000 a year just doesn't go as far as it used to.

The American people elect and entrust the President to manage and maintain this nation. They are well-paid, incur no expenses and in modern times profit highly when they leave office. Yet, while they remain in office, every American should have the expectation that the President commit 110% of his time to fulfilling his constitutional duties, not engaging in book deals or seeking new opportunities to establish a legacy.

President Obama has made a career of attacking the most successful of our nation, directly challenging CEO pay and speaking freely of our moral obligations and duties to "spread the wealth". Yet, this rhetoric apparently does not apply his own family as the profits from this book will be deposited in the Obama family bank account. So at a time in which the President is committed our nation to a doubling of our national debt and the largest expansion of government in history, he is also seeking to supplement his $400,000 per year income through pursing authorial greatness. At a time when so many Americans are suffering, perhaps the President should practice what he preaches and donate the profits to charity.

As disturbing as a President who abrogates his constitutional duties to pen a novel, may be the content and aimed audience of the book. The book is not a collection of photos, but is heavily illustrated by Greg Ruth. Mr. Ruth, ironically, is best known for his graphic illustrations of the Conan (the Barbarian) series. As a result, you can imagine the type of self-idolizing imagery that will adorn the pages. Moreover, with a 9-12 grade reading level and editorial summary that highlights the book is for "all grades", raises the question of whether the President is seeking to profit through indoctrination? Is this book intended to become required reading within the classroom or that simply a beneficial bi-product of the President's experiment in self-capitalism.

Oh yes, I said capitalism, because there is no other word to describe an individual who seeks to profit from their power and influence. Much like his ideological colleagues who push a socialized agenda and allegedly seek 'fairness' for the down-trodden, President Obama's own financial pursuits more closely reflect those of an unrepentant capitalist. After all, if his objectives were non-monetary, then he would donate the proceeds.

The demands of the Presidency are great and no other President in modern history has sought to publish a book while in office. They have had neither the time, nor the arrogance, to put their personal finances and pursuit of greatness above that of the nation. The idea that this President, who has acted more like a candidate than a leader, is engaging in a second-career while sitting in the oval office is outright repulsive. As a nation, we deserve better.

View updates of conservative blogs and publications at Conservative Feeds

2nd Printing of Glenn Beck's Arguing with Idiots ordered, book to debut #1 on best seller lists

noreply@blogger.com (Jbrown) — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 01:44:00 +0000

There is no denying the numbers and the volume of sales surrounding Glenn Beck's newest release, Arguing with Idiots: How to Stop Small Minds and Big Government has produced results beyond expectations. After the stunning success of Beck's Common Sense and increased television and radio ratings, publishers had high expectations for his newest endeavour. Three weeks before its release, pre-orders were already outpacing nearly every other political book, including the unexpected flop, 50 Ways You Can Help Obama Change America. Beck's newest book has proven to not only to exceed expectations, but is sure to enrage his detractors.

Just 3 days after the official release of Arguing with Idiots: How to Stop Small Minds and Big Government, the publisher ordered a 2nd printing of the book. The announcement is a powerful indicator of the volume of sales as the initial print run produced more than 2 million hardcover copies. As a result, it is safe to assume that when the book becomes eligible, it will debut atop the New York Times best seller list and likely remain atop the list for weeks to come.

In fact, according to Barnes & Noble and Amazon.com the nations two largest book retailers, only The Lost Symbol. has produced a higher volume of sales since its release. Just a few short years ago publishers had essentially written off political books citing low consumer demand and outrageous advances requested by popular political figures. However, since the election of 2008 political book sales have made a resurgence driven in large part by conservative figureheads. The sales of Arguing with Idiots: How to Stop Small Minds and Big Government and Common Sense are a prime example of this resurgence as sales are matching or exceeding the sales of the books fictional counterparts, a feat that few political books have ever achieved.

View updates of conservative blogs and publications at Conservative Feeds

Senate Health Care Reform: Purchase insurance or go to jail

noreply@blogger.com (Jbrown) — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 12:49:00 +0000

The deeper the public and lawmakers delve into the Senate version of health care reform, the more ridiculous the bill becomes. From increased taxes to mandated penalties imposed against those who fail to obtain timely coverage, the Senate bill is a will provides a opening for the government to exercise greater control over the American public and further erode the individual freedoms of Americans. From the ludicrous concept that imposing steep taxes upon on insurance policies would somehow increase competition to the mandate that Americans who fail to obtain coverage would be forced to pay a penalty or face up to one year in jail.

During the Senate markup process, Senator John Ensign (R-Nev.) questioned the concept of penalties imposed against those who failed to obtain coverage and the potential consequences. Upon receiving a hand-written note from the Join Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold, Ensign released the memo.

The memo read:

"Dear Senator Ensign,

Sec. 7203 of the code provides that if there is a willful failure to
file, pay, maintain appropriate records and the like, that the taxpayer may be
charged with a misdemeanor with a penalty of up to $25,000 and not more than one
year in jail."

Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold"

The concept of penalizing taxpayers who do not maintain "adequate" coverage or threatening criminal punishment is utterly ridiculous. Proponents of such measures will liken the legislative language to that of State Laws requiring the purchase of Auto Insurance. However, the purchase of Auto Insurance only applies to those who actually choose to drive and moreover such laws were adopted to protect against damage to other drivers and damage to property. If we applied the same concept proposed by the Senate to auto insurance, then every individual, including those who choose not to drive, would be required to purchase full-coverage.

Moreover, Nancy Pelosi and house leadership have made clear that they intend on passing HR3200 without any substantial changes. As a result, if this Senate bill passes, the two bills will be combined by Pelosi and Reed and the American public will be left with the worst of both worlds.

Pittsburgh protests provide clear definition of an "angry mob"

noreply@blogger.com (Jbrown) — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:31:00 +0000

More than 1,000 police officers were hired from precincts throughout the U.S. and sworn in prior to this weeks G-20 summit held in Pittsburgh. As expected, the presence of such a large contingency of officers was needed as an estimated 2,000 left-wing radicals descended on the city in protest of capitalism. Protesters clad in masks and in some cases armed erupted into violence breaking windows in restaurants, a bank and a local BMW dealership. Police were forced to respond to the violence by using tear-gas, firing bean bags and setting off high frequency sounds systems designed to disperse the mob and re-establish control of the city.

The anti-capitalist protests have marred G8 and G20 summits for years, each time erupting in violence and costing the hosting city millions of dollars in security pay and clean up costs. The actions taken by protesters in Pittsburgh are a stark contrast to the 9/12 protest in Washington in which tens of thousands of pro-capitalist supporters descended upon the city. Yet, on Thursday there was two things missing following the eruption of violence in Pittsburgh: sufficient media coverage and condemnation by congressional Democrats.

The lack of media coverage was in part due to United Nations speeches and the unfolding of multiple terror plots uncovered in recent days. However, the mainstream media, failed in their overall obligation to report the breakout of violence in Pittsburgh, especially in light of the largely slighted coverage of health care and tea-party protests throughout the nation.

Moreover, the larger question is where was the condemnation by political leadership such as President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid or a slew of other left-wing political leaders who were openly vocal in their criticism of those opposed to their agenda. The very leadership which referred to vocal opposition of their Health Care Reform package as "unamerican" and opponents as "angry mobs", appear unwilling to condemn the violent actions of left wing groups engaged in protests at the G20 summit. Are we to believe that violent protests in which participants are dressed as if attending a Hamas parade are uniquely American; and that such protesters do not constitute an "angry mob". Where is the political outrage? Where is condemnation? And where is the admission by the media that the protests against current Health Care Reform proposals and the systematic private sector takeover by our government represented the best of American principles as average Americans upheld their right to peaceful protest.

No event could provide a better contrast between the intent and civility of these two groups and it is unfortunate that only a few will ever point it out.

President Obama's return to failed Wilsonian foreign policy

noreply@blogger.com (Jbrown) — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:51:00 +0000

Although much of the US continues to focus solely upon the health care debate, stories surfacing in recent weeks elude to a shift in US foreign policy that the world has not experienced since 1919. Throughout the 2008 election we warned that then candidate Obama's foreign policy objectives and rhetoric mirrored the idealistic and failed foreign policy objectives sought by President Woodrow Wilson. Candidate Obama's objectives were built upon an idealistic goal of global governance in which the US would abrogate its obligation to protect US interests and surrender global leadership to other nations.

Upon taking office, we warned of an impending "Return to Versailles":

Following the end of World War I, President Wilson was considered to be most revered leader in the world, the savior of Europe and 'the man with the plan' to usher in a new era of peace and global cooperation. Prior to the treaty negotiations to take place in Versailles, Wilson swept through Europe as a hero to public. He was met with the largest crowds to ever meet a foreign head of state, and in many cases crowds which were larger than those of a nation's own leaders. Wilson carried with him his 14 points for peace, his ambitious and largely idealistic plan for a post-WWI world. Wilson's plan was ambitious to say the least and with public approval on his side, and no attempt at congressional approval, Wilson headed to Europe.

European leaders publicly, especially those of Britain, France and Italy could not praise Wilson enough and in public appeared as second-class citizens in his shadow. However, in private, the European leaders viewed Wilson as arrogant, naive and weak-minded. At the treaty negotiations in Versailles these European leaders trampled Wilson's 14 points and undermined every attempt to implement what they viewed as an unrealistic and overly-idealistic peace plan. Ultimately, Wilson would leave Versailles having implemented only one of his fourteen points, the establishment of the League of Nations. These final treaty negotiations at Versailles would result in the most punishing, one-sided and damaging peace treaty in history. The Treaty of Versailles would set the stage for the rise of fascism in Italy and the rise of Nazi-Socialism throughout central Europe.

Ultimately, Wilson who greeted amid never-before-seen accolade would limp back to the U.S. having failed to usher in a new era of peace and having learned that popularity does not equal leadership.

President Obama's speech before the United Nation's General Assembly yesterday could have been prepared by Wilson himself. The speech was a mixture of US apology and an outline of a new global governance that adopts unenforceable objectives while ignoring genuine global crisis. In recent weeks President Obama has turned his back on long-standing allies such as Israel, Poland and the Czech Republic while granting unreciprocated concessions aimed at improving relationships with Iran, North Korea, Russia and China. The President's only demand placed upon the world is the adoption of disarmament agreements that, like those pushed for President Wilson, will be wholly unenforceable and will only be carried out by peace-loving countries such as the U.S. As in the case of President Wilson, foreign leaders have sunk into the shadows of Obama's presence, whereas they grant public accolades while privately moving against US interests. China and Russia are leading a charge against US currency and while the Obama Administration is calling for new and repetitive nuclear proliferation, Iran & North Korea are forging ahead with weapons programs.

Wilson's failed foreign policy objectives, which undermined US global leadership, led to a 12 year period of protectionist-based isolationism within US foreign policy. When an openly internationalist Franklin Roosevelt took office in 1932, he would spend 8 years seeking to re-establish US global leadership. Although Roosevelt achieved some progress, opposition within both political parties handcuffed the President's aspirations until the onset of WWII.

President Obama's adoption of the 90 year old foreign policy objectives of President Wilson, not only mark a wholesale shift from Bush administration policies, but a wholesale shift from the policies of every sitting President since 1932. President Obama suffers under the misconception that global governance will end the aspirations of the tyrants and create a society of economic and military equality among the nations of the world. However, President Obama has overlooked the realities of humanity and apparently has no regard for a world history that has proven the failures of such naive idealism. The greatest advances in global leadership occurred during periods of strengthened and unapologetic US foreign policy. At a time when the world needs the foreign policy leadership of a President Reagan or President Kennedy, we have elected a the failed policies of President Wilson.

Flashback: Obama needs troop deployment lessons - July 23rd, 2008

noreply@blogger.com (Jbrown) — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:35:00 +0000

News leaked out late yesterday afternoon that President Obama was now considering a plan put forth by Vice President Biden that would dramatically scale-back Afghanistan operations and re-define our objectives of the conflict. This news comes just two days after our the nation's top military leadership on the ground in Afghanistan informed the President that we needed more troops or risked losing the war.

We have travelled down this road before. When General Westmoreland requested increased troop levels at the onset of the Vietnam conflict, his requests were largely ignored by politicians who failed to value the our military leaderships expertise and experience. Time and time again during the Vietnam conflict, Washington overrode and failed to meet military personnel and equipment requests at the peril of our servicemen. Once again we now have leadership in Washington who speak of winning wars but lack the resolve to wage a war. If President Obama redefines our objectives and scales-back operations in Afghanistan, then we may as well pull out every troop. Fewer soldiers will only embolden the Taliban and Al-Quaeda fighters leading to more attacks upon NATO forces and cause a subsequent defensive shift within those forces. I wrote the following a year ago July and it still holds true today...

Roosevelt's beliefs also differ from Obama on another front. Roosevelt never believed that it was his job to micro-manage the war. He was heavily involved and always made the final decision, but they were decisions that almost always followed the recommendations, advice and expertise provided by field commanders and experienced war planning staff. Following the outbreak of WWII, Roosevelt crossed party lines, subjecting himself to criticism from Democrat partisans, by appointing Republicans Frank Knox as the Secretary of Navy and Henry Stimson as the Secretary of War. Roosevelt also extended much of his delegated authority to Eisenhower, Nimitz, MacArthur and others. Roosevelt valued and depended heavily upon the operational advice and expertise of these leaders.

Obama, on the other hand, with no military experience has made it clear that he is unwilling to rely upon the delegated authority of our commanders in the field. This week, within just hours of his first-ever visit to Afghanistan and first visit in 2.5 years to Iraq, Obama announced that his position on Iraqi troop levels would not change, although he noted General Petraeus' opposition to his plans. Obama made clear in his Iraq speech that he considered "tactical desicions" to be of little importance. This is not the behavior of a leader who respects and relies upon the experience, judgement, and expertise of field commanders.

The greatest danger to our troops fighting overseas is a Commander-In-Chief who believes that he is better equipped to run our military than those who have a committed a lifetime to protecting our nation. President Bush's biggest mistake was his failure to recognize the concerns of and rely upon the planning expertise of our field commanders, prior to and immediately following the invasion of Iraq. President Johnson led our military into an unbearable and lengthy war, when he overrode General Westmoreland's military strategy for Vietnam and failed to fully deploy troop levels that Westmoreland and other field commanders were requesting early in the war. Obama has already established that he is doomed to repeat these mistakes and that his judgement, not the judgement of the commanders in the field, is right.

History has taught our nation an infinite number of valuable lessons. The question remains as to whether we will learn from these mistakes and successes. Obama's plan for Iraq is not built upon sound military strategy; it is built upon political expediency and a resolve to quench his thirst for power...

Today, I leave you with one quote:

"To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required..."
John F. Kennedy - Inaugural Address 1961

Examiner: The Consummate Campaigner and President's Media Jesters

noreply@blogger.com (Jbrown) — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 16:00:00 +0000

Every elected official following a successful campaign must make the transition from the rhetoric and activities of a candidate to the assumption of leadership within their elected office. Following one the most successful and energizing campaigns in history, many pundits expressed concern over how quickly candidate Obama would make the transformation into President Obama. Eight months after assuming the Presidency it is clear that President Obama has failed to make the adjustment as he continues to...read more

Glenn Beck's "Arguing with Idiot's" expected to skyrocket, unseat Kennedy's memoirs

noreply@blogger.com (Jbrown) — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:43:00 +0000

Expectations among book retailers are high as Glenn Beck's newest book,
Arguing with Idiots: How to Stop Small Minds and Big Government is expected to hit book shelves on Tuesday. The pre-release sales of Beck's newest endevour has remained within the top 50 best sellers on amazon.com for the past three weeks and just prior to release is the 3rd ranked book on Amazon and is currently ranked #7 in company sales by Barnes & Noble. Beck's
Arguing with Idiots: How to Stop Small Minds and Big Government is released on the heels of his previous best-seller Common Sense which debuted atop the New York Times best seller list when released. In addition, a massive increase in audience, propelling Beck's show to the the top of Cable News Network ratings is expected to further enhance sales.

The release of Beck's newest book is proving to be a point of frustration to liberal organizations and authors who are consistently frustrated by an inability to generate public interest among book sales, television ratings or radio talk-show ratings. The release of 50 Ways You Can Help Obama Change America failed to generate public interest as sales floundered. True Compass: A Memoir of Edward Kennedy
provided hope to the liberal community as the book has broken into a marketplace that been dominated by the popularity of conservative titles. However, True Compass: A Memoir of Edward Kennedy
is not expected nor likely to remain atop the best sellers list with the release ofArguing with Idiots: How to Stop Small Minds and Big Government. At this point it appears that the only book that will maintain higher sales than Glenn Beck's Arguing with Idiots: How to Stop Small Minds and Big Government will be the bestselling fiction novel, Dan Brown's The Lost Symbol.

Examiner: Illinois release of 1,000 prisoners will save State $1 million, further strain parole agencies

noreply@blogger.com (Jbrown) — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:37:00 +0000

On Friday the Department of Corrections and Governor Quinn released the framework of an early release program the Governor claims is necessary due to the State's budgetary crisis. According to the Department of Corrections, the State will release approximately 1,000 "low level, non-violent" prisoners over the course of the next several months...Read more

Israel, Poland, Czech Republic...Obama administration leaving allies high & dry

noreply@blogger.com (Jbrown) — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:59:00 +0000

While the American public has turned their attention inward towards economic challenges and health care debates, the Obama administration has engaged in a re-writing of US foreign policy based upon Wilsonian idealism that is resulting in concessional disarmament and an abandoning of long-standing commitments to US allies. Throughout the 2008 election, I repeatedly warned that the direction of President Obama's foreign policy would lead us down a path in which our nation would repeat the idealistic foreign policy failures of the Wilson administration that led to the Treaty of Versailles, abandoned support of our allies and led us into a 15 year period of unilateral disarmament. Just eight months into his presidency, President Obama has accomplished just that.

In the past eight months, the United States has all but abandoned its unwavering support of the sovereignty of the Israeli State. The Obama Administration has pushed the Israelis to stop the expansion of settlements and to make further land concessions to the Palestinians, despite the failure of such policies in generating sustainable regional peace in the past. On the campaign trail, then-Senator Obama spoke of his commitment to Israel. Yet eight months after taking office, his administration has abandoned support of Israel's sovereign rights and just 4% of Israelis believe that the Obama Administration is pro-Israeli. In just eight months, the United States has bowed to the demands of the Palestinians and middle-east regimes without any assurance for peace or demand of concessions. As a result, we are no closer to regional stability than we have been since 1988 and the strength of relationship with Israel is strained at best.

This morning, the Czech Prime Minister informed news outlets that President Obama has informed him that the United States is abrogating previous agreements and abandoning missile defense systems that we intended on providing to Poland and the Czech Republic. Both eastern block nations have been staunch allies of the US since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the abrogation of agreements for missile defense weaken their ability to defend their nation's and weakens the possible defense of Europe if Iran obtains nuclear weapons. Intelligence officials have long feared that such a move by the Obama Administration would occur weakening our relationship with Eastern European allies while bowing to the long-standing demands of Moscow.

The move in Eastern Europe would be acceptable, if the United States were receiving concessions in return. For instance, if Russia were to immediately change its supportive position of Iran and further cancel an agreement to sell Iran anti-aircraft missile systems, then the move would be understandable. Yet, European diplomats and the Bush administration attempted such trade-offs in past years without receiving a commitment on the part of the Russia. In recent weeks, Russia has failed to provide any indication that it planned to halt weapons sales to Iran or offer new opposition to Iran's development of nuclear technologies. As a result, what I fear we are seeing from the Obama administration is unilateral disarmament in the HOPE that Russia will do the same. This disarmament, of defensive weapons that posed no threat to Russia, is reminiscent of the series of disarmament treaties that the US signed throughout the 1920's and early 1930's which resulted in a weakening of US and Allied military forces and foreign policy influence.

The past month has been a disaster for US foreign policy and represented the single largest shift in US foreign policy history. Within the past month, the Obama administration has agreed to Iranian preconditions for diplomatic talks which will not include discussion of their nuclear program, we have undermined six-party negotiations with North Korea at a time in which they are progressing toward a goal of long-range missile technology designed to reach US shores, we have severely damaged our relationship and influence in regards to Israel and now abrogated missile defense agreements that weaken the defense of our Eastern European allies. For all of this, what has the Obama administration received in return? Nothing!

Russia has not abandoned its support of Iran or plans to continue weapons sales to the nation. Russia & Venezuela have announced an agreement for further weapons sales and cooperation in the development of a Venezuelan nuclear program. Iran has signed gasoline purchase agreements designed to minimize the impact of potential "gas" sanctions being pursued by our European allies. North Korea has continued its development of long-range missile technologies while announcing the development of uranium-based nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, our administration is seeking further cuts in a national defense budget that is already at the lowest per-capita level in US history.

Ninety years ago, the United States abandoned the opportunity to demonstrate foreign policy leadership in lieu of an idealistic foreign policy that proved an utter failure. US interests were tromped upon and a foreign policy built upon popularity versus the pursuit of the free peoples of the world resulted in global tragedy. President Obama's foreign policy decisions echo those of the failed experiments of Presidents' Carter, Wilson and the European appeasement community of the 1930's. Long gone are the policies of Presidents such as Reagan and Kennedy that challenged the forces of oppression and we can only hope that such leadership emerges before belligerent nations opposed to liberty and freedom obtain the ability to inflict widespread conflict. At a time in which we need a Churchill we are once again left with Chamberlain.

Senate Health Care Reform Bill meaningless, does not eliminate public option

noreply@blogger.com (Jbrown) — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:32:00 +0000

Senator Baucus introduced the Senate version of Health Care Reform this morning, claiming that the so called "compromise" bill eliminates the public option and provides a platform for bipartisan support. Despite the language or provisions contained in the bill, the fact remains that the Senate version is meaningless and should not be considered for passage until the House of Representatives changes HR3200 and presents a bill that does not contain a public option or similar programming. The passage of a Senate bill while leaving the House bill unchanged will result in the re-introduction of the public option in a final bill that is no longer subject to a filibuster.

When legislation containing materially different provisions passes both houses of congress, that legislation must be combined into a final bill. The current Democratic leadership, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, along with a selected team will meet with White House officials in a closed-door conference where they will combine the bills and produce final legislation. That final legislation must be approved by the Senate, but because debate has ended the Cloture rules no longer apply and the final bill only needs 51 votes. As a result, if a House bill containing a public option were to enter conference with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and White House officials at the helm, it is likely that final legislation would contain the House approved government option. Democratic leadership would then only need 50 votes (even with a full Senate, the VP would provide the tie-breaker) for the passage of a bill containing a government option.

Current Democratic leadership and the White House understand this and are counting on the passage of a Senate bill without having to alter the House version, that is why there has been no movement on re-drafting HR3200. At the end of the day, those opposed to a government option must continue to urge their congressional members to oppose all legislation until a compromise bill can be developed and the same bill passed in both chambers of congress. As a result, what provisions are included or not included in the Senate bill, including a public option and the verification of citizenship, do not matter as long as the House version remains unchanged.

President Obama's unfortunate lie about Illinois man with cancelled coverage

noreply@blogger.com (Jbrown) — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 11:49:00 +0000

Last week during an address to the nation, President Obama went on the attack against the nation's health insurance companies, using the example of Otto Raddatz, an Oakbrook, Illinois man whose insurance coverage was cancelled while fighting cancer. During the speech the President told the nation, "One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about. They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it." But, the President conveniently failed to disclose a few key facts of the story including how the Mr. Raddatz's coverage was reinstated within 21 days, he received his treatment and lived another 4 years.

As pointed out on Sunday by Lynn Sweet with the Chicago Sun Times, the President referenced Otto Raddatz who was diagnosed with Stage IV, Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma in September of 2004. The following January, Raddatz was scheduled to receive a stem cell transplant, but in April, Fortis learned that the Illinois man had failed to disclose a 2000 CT scan that revealed gall stones and an aneurysm. The conditions, if disclosed, would have prevented the company from issuing individual coverage. As a result, the company cancelled Mr. Raddatz's coverage on April 15th. The family filed a complaint with the Attorney Generals office on April 25th three weeks before Mr. Raddatz's scheduled Stem Cell Transplant. After 2 appeals by the Attorney Generals office, Fortis reinstated coverage at the beginning of May and the AG closed the case on May 6th, 2 weeks prior to the Stem cell transplant. As a result, Mr. Raddatz received a stem cell transplant, without delay and covered by his insurance company. He lived another 3.5 years until passing away in January of 2009.

Unfortunately, President Obama failed to disclose that treatment was not delayed, that the company reinstated coverage despite its legal authority to cancel coverage and that the treatment referenced by the President was received and extended the Mr. Raddatz's life by nearly 4 years.

Although this story is appears inconsequential to the ongoing health care debate, it does represent one more example in an ongoing series of misleading statements perpetrated by the President. In a speech in Minnesota on Saturday, the President so poorly misrepresented a Department of Health study that even the New York Times admonished his statements. Furthermore, following the controversy stirred up by Representative Wilson, on Friday afternoon the White House for the first time stated their support for provisions requiring verification of citizenship with regard to Health Care Reform. Such provisions were previously proposed by Republicans only to be rejected by the House and Senate committees. In addition, the CRS had also found that at the time of the President's speech there was no enforcement mechanism preventing undocumented workers from obtaining coverage under the plan.

The misrepresentation of Mr. Raddatz's experience is indicative of a President that is appearing more like a candidate and less as a responsible leader who is open and honest with the American public. If President Obama fails to provide full disclosure on inconsequential events such as Mr. Raddatz's experiences then how can anyone accept the President's rhetoric on specific Health Care Reform provisions.

The President has been quick to accuse opponents of creating fear and producing myths, yet it appears that the President is engaged in the very tactics that he accuses Republicans of engaging in. At this point, the public should not only be wary, but should be outraged that lawmakers continue to push for health care legislation that is so complex, they need lawyers to interpret it themselves. There is no reason why current legislation cannot be broken down into a series of smaller, more targeted and easy to understand acts. Such a breakdown of legislation would provide the public with a level of disclosure and the opportunity to protect the American people.

Examiner: The Difference between President Obama's health insurance exchange and a marketplace

noreply@blogger.com (Jbrown) — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 13:08:00 +0000

From the Examiner:

The Difference between President Obama's health insurance exchange and a marketplace

President Obama and congressional Democrats this week, following focus group testing, altered their rhetoric by beginning to refer to their proposed health insurance exchange as a the creation of a health insurance marketplace. The change in rhetoric is simple enough to understand, as the term marketplace is more soothing to a general public that has grown accustomed to more than 200 years of a capitalist based economy. But, the question remains as to whether the term marketplace is an accurate depiction of the proposed Health Insurance Exchange or rather just creative marketing designed to create a false perception.

A marketplace, by 200 years of evolving definition, is a forum that promotes...

read the rest of the story...

After-Hours Policy: President Obama gives in to Iran & North Korea demands!

noreply@blogger.com (Jbrown) — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 10:03:00 +0000

In a move late Friday, the White House announced two key decisions that have a broad impact and represent a weakening shift within US foreign policy. In consecutive announcements the White House agreed to meet North Korean demands that the US diplomats negotiate with North Korea on a nation-to-nation basis without the presence of the other members of the six-party talks. In addition the State Department also accepted Iranian demands that the United States and a contingency of 5 European nations hold diplomatic negotiations upon a wide range of topics that will not include the dismantling of Iran's nuclear program. In return for accepting both North Korean and Iranian demands the United States required no good faith gesture on the part of either country.

In North Korea, the one-on-one talks will represent the first time the US has directly and extensively negotiated with Pyongyang on a one-on-one basis since the Clinton Administration concluded talks in which North Korea in which the country agreed to abandon their nuclear program. As a result, North Korea received billions in aid and abrogated the agreement by further developing their nuclear program. In recent months, North Korea has tested the Obama administration with multiple tests of a rapidly evolving long range missile program and in recent weeks announced their progress towards using enriched uranium as a 2nd method for producing nuclear weapons. North Korea's nuclear armament is currently plutonium based. The news of the White Houses acceptance of North Korean demands also follows reports that have surfaced out of the UAE that a North Korean ship hauling weapons was seized in route to Iran. The seizure of the NK vessel represents a violation of international laws imposed by the UN upon both nations. Unfortunately, the United Nation's, including the current US administration have failed to demand enforcement of such laws. North Korea has tested the administrations resolve and will continue to do so as long as the administration fails to place any demands upon the nation.

Half a world away, the Iranian president this week sent a package to 6 nations, including the US, that responded to demands that Iran return to the negotiating table over the fate of its nuclear program. The Iranian response was that they offered to meet with the United States and 5 European nations, but their nuclear program would not be the subject of those talks and they would not negotiate. The Iranian president, just hours after signing a gasoline purchase agreement with Hugo Chavez, echoed these remarks, stating that Iran's nuclear program was non-negotiable and "off the table". Iran, like North Korea, has used the bureaucratic and pacifistic nature of the UN to delay disclosure, inspection and the dismantling of the nuclear program for seven years. The nuclear program which in violation of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty of which Iran signed, has continued to progress towards the weaponizations process. In recent months, Iran has cracked down on it's own citizens and grown increasingly belligerent towards the US. The administration is hopeful that they will be able to bring up Iran's nuclear program within the 6 party talks which are all but useless without negotiations over the dismantling of Iran's nuclear program.

The shift in US foreign policy represents a return to level of arrogance and idealism that has not been displayed since the end of World War I. The administration is operating under a premise that Iranian and North Korean leaders seek peace with the Western world when privately they are forming an alliance of nations opposed to US and western European influence. The moves by the administration do not further the cause of world peace but rather provide an opportunity for belligerent nations to further violate international law and threaten global peace without so much as a condemnation of their actions.

Words of Wisdom: Ronald Reagan speaks about the kind of "trust me" government of President Obama

noreply@blogger.com (Jbrown) — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 17:46:00 +0000

July 17th, 1980

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice President to be, this convention, my fellow citizens of this great nation:

With a deep awareness of the responsibility conferred by your trust, I accept your nomination for the presidency of the United States. I do so with deep gratitude, and I think also I might interject on behalf of all of us, our thanks to Detroit and the people of Michigan and to this city for the warm hospitality they have shown. And I thank you for your wholehearted response to my recommendation in regard to George Bush as a candidate for vice president.

I am very proud of our party tonight. This convention has shown to all America a party united, with positive programs for solving the nation's problems; a party ready to build a new consensus with all those across the land who share a community of values embodied in these words: family, work, neighborhood, peace and freedom.

I know we have had a quarrel or two, but only as to the method of attaining a goal. There was no argument about the goal. As president, I will establish a liaison with the 50 governors to encourage them to eliminate, where it exists, discrimination against women. I will monitor federal laws to insure their implementation and to add statutes if they are needed.

More than anything else, I want my candidacy to unify our country; to renew the American spirit and sense of purpose. I want to carry our message to every American, regardless of party affiliation, who is a member of this community of shared values.

Never before in our history have Americans been called upon to face three grave threats to our very existence, any one of which could destroy us. We face a disintegrating economy, a weakened defense and an energy policy based on the sharing of scarcity.

The major issue of this campaign is the direct political, personal and moral responsibility of Democratic Party leadership --i n the White House and in Congress -- for this unprecedented calamity which has befallen us. They tell us they have done the most that humanly could be done. They say that the United States has had its day in the sun; that our nation has passed its zenith. They expect you to tell your children that the American people no longer have the will to cope with their problems; that the future will be one of sacrifice and few opportunities.

My fellow citizens, I utterly reject that view. The American people, the most generous on earth, who created the highest standard of living, are not going to accept the notion that we can only make a better world for others by moving backwards ourselves. Those who believe we can have no business leading the nation.

I will not stand by and watch this great country destroy itself under mediocre leadership that drifts from one crisis to the next, eroding our national will and purpose. We have come together here because the American people deserve better from those to whom they entrust our nation's highest offices, and we stand united in our resolve to do something about it.

We need rebirth of the American tradition of leadership at every level of government and in private life as well. The United States of America is unique in world history because it has a genius for leaders -- many leaders -- on many levels. But, back in 1976, Mr. Carter said, "Trust me." And a lot of people did. Now, many of those people are out of work. Many have seen their savings eaten away by inflation. Many others on fixed incomes, especially the elderly, have watched helplessly as the cruel tax of inflation wasted away their purchasing power. And, today, a great many who trusted Mr. Carter wonder if we can survive the Carter policies of national defense.

"Trust me" government asks that we concentrate our hopes and dreams on one man; that we trust him to do what's best for us. My view of government places trust not in one person or one party, but in those values that transcend persons and parties. The trust is where it belongs--in the people. The responsibility to live up to that trust is where it belongs, in their elected leaders. That kind of relationship, between the people and their elected leaders, is a special kind of compact.

Three hundred and sixty years ago, in 1620, a group of families dared to cross a mighty ocean to build a future for themselves in a new world. When they arrived at Plymouth, Massachusetts, they formed what they called a "compact"; an agreement among themselves to build a community and abide by its laws.

The single act--the voluntary binding together of free people to live under the law--set the pattern for what was to come.

A century and a half later, the descendants of those people pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to found this nation. Some forfeited their fortunes and their lives; none sacrificed honor.

Four score and seven years later, Abraham Lincoln called upon the people of all America to renew their dedication and their commitment to a government of, for and by the people.

Isn't it once again time to renew our compact of freedom; to pledge to each other all that is best in our lives; all that gives meaning to them--for the sake of this, our beloved and blessed land?

Together, let us make this a new beginning. Let us make a commitment to care for the needy; to teach our children the values and the virtues handed down to us by our families; to have the courage to defend those values and the willingness to sacrifice for them.

Let us pledge to restore, in our time, the American spirit of voluntary service, of cooperation, of private and community initiative; a spirit that flows like a deep and mighty river through the history of our nation.

As your nominee, I pledge to restore to the federal government the capacity to do the people's work without dominating their lives. I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely; its ability to act tempered by prudence and its willingness to do good balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.

The first Republican president once said, "While the people retain their virtue and their vigilance, no administration by any extreme of wickedness or folly can seriously injure the government in the short space of four years."

If Mr. Lincoln could see what's happened in these last three-and-a-half years, he might hedge a little on that statement. But, with the virtues that our legacy as a free people and with the vigilance that sustains liberty, we still have time to use our renewed compact to overcome the injuries that have been done to America these past three-and-a-half years.

First, we must overcome something the present administration has cooked up: a new and altogether indigestible economic stew, one part inflation, one part high unemployment, one part recession, one part runaway taxes, one party deficit spending and seasoned by an energy crisis. It's an economic stew that has turned the national stomach.

Ours are not problems of abstract economic theory. Those are problems of flesh and blood; problems that cause pain and destroy the moral fiber of real people who should not suffer the further indignity of being told by the government that it is all somehow their fault. We do not have inflation because -- as Mr. Carter says -- we have lived too well.

The head of a government which has utterly refused to live within its means and which has, in the last few days, told us that this year's deficit will be $60 billion, dares to point the finger of blame at business and labor, both of which have been engaged in a losing struggle just trying to stay even.

High taxes, we are told, are somehow good for us, as if, when government spends our money it isn't inflationary, but when we spend it, it is.

Those who preside over the worst energy shortage in our history tell us to use less, so that we will run out of oil, gasoline, and natural gas a little more slowly. Conservation is desirable, of course, for we must not waste energy. But conservation is not the sole answer to our energy needs.

America must get to work producing more energy. The Republican program for solving economic problems is based on growth and productivity.

Large amounts of oil and natural gas lay beneath our land and off our shores, untouched because the present administration seems to believe the American people would rather see more regulation, taxes and controls than more energy.

Coal offers great potential. So does nuclear energy produced under rigorous safety standards. It could supply electricity for thousands of industries and millions of jobs and homes. It must not be thwarted by a tiny minority opposed to economic growth which often finds friendly ears in regulatory agencies for its obstructionist campaigns.

Make no mistake. We will not permit the safety of our people or our environment heritage to be jeopardized, but we are going to reaffirm that the economic prosperity of our people is a fundamental part of our environment.

Our problems are both acute and chronic, yet all we hear from those in positions of leadership are the same tired proposals for more government tinkering, more meddling and more control -- all of which led us to this state in the first place.

Can anyone look at the record of this administration and say, "Well done?" Can anyone compare the state of our economy when the Carter Administration took office with where we are today and say, "Keep up the good work?" Can anyone look at our reduced standing in the world today and say, "Let's have four more years of this?"

I believe the American people are going to answer these questions the first week of November and their answer will be, "No--we've had enough." And, then it will be up to us -- beginning next January 20th -- to offer an administration and congressional leadership of competence and more than a little courage.

We must have the clarity of vision to see the difference between what is essential and what is merely desirable, and then the courage to bring our government back under control and make it acceptable to the people.

It is essential that we maintain both the forward momentum of economic growth and the strength of the safety net beneath those in society who need help. We also believe it is essential that the integrity of all aspects of Social Security are preserved.

Beyond these essentials, I believe it is clear our federal government is overgrown and overweight. Indeed, it is time for our government to go on a diet. Therefore, my first act as chief executive will be to impose an immediate and thorough freeze on federal hiring. Then, we are going to enlist the very best minds from business, labor and whatever quarter to conduct a detailed review of every department, bureau and agency that lives by federal appropriations. We are also going to enlist the help and ideas of many dedicated and hard working government employees at all levels who want a more efficient government as much as the rest of us do. I know that many are demoralized by the confusion and waste they confront in their work as a result of failed and failing policies.

Our instructions to the groups we enlist will be simple and direct. We will remind them that government programs exist at the sufferance of the American taxpayer and are paid for with money earned by working men and women. Any program that represents a waste of their money -- a theft from their pocketbooks--must have that waste eliminated or the program must go -- by executive order where possible; by congressional action where necessary. Everything that can be run more effectively by state and local government we shall turn over to state and local government, along with the funding sources to pay for it. We are going to put an end to the money merry-go-round where our money becomes Washington's money, to be spent by the states and cities exactly the way the federal bureaucrats tell them to.

I will not accept the excuse that the federal government has grown so big and powerful that it is beyond the control of any president, any administration or Congress. We are going to put an end to the notion that the American taxpayer exists to fund the federal government. The federal government exists to serve the American people. On January 20th, we are going to re-establish that truth.

Also on that date we are going to initiate action to get substantial relief for our taxpaying citizens and action to put people back to work. None of this will be based on any new form of monetary tinkering or fiscal sleight-of-hand. We will simply apply to government the common sense we all use in our daily lives.

Work and family are at the center of our lives; the foundation of our dignity as a free people. When we deprive people of what they have earned, or take away their jobs, we destroy their dignity and undermine their families. We cannot support our families unless there are jobs; and we cannot have jobs unless people have both money to invest and the faith to invest it.

There are concepts that stem from an economic system that for more than 200 years has helped us master a continent, create a previously undreamed of prosperity for our people and has fed millions of others around the globe. That system will continue to serve us in the future if our government will stop ignoring the basic values on which it was built and stop betraying the trust and good will of the American workers who keep it going.

The American people are carrying the heaviest peacetime tax burden in our nation's history -- and it will grow even heavier, under present law, next January. We are taxing ourselves into economic exhaustion and stagnation, crushing our ability and incentive to save, invest and produce.

This must stop. We must halt this fiscal self-destruction and restore sanity to our economic system.

I have long advocated a 30 percent reduction in income tax rates over a period of three years. This phased tax reduction would begin with a 10 percent "down payment" tax cut in 1981, which the Republicans and Congress and I have already proposed.

A phased reduction of tax rates would go a long way toward easing the heavy burden on the American people. But, we should not stop here.

Within the context of economic conditions and appropriate budget priorities during each fiscal year of my presidency, I would strive to go further. This would include improvement in business depreciation taxes so we can stimulate investment in order to get plants and equipment replaced, put more Americans back to work and put our nation back on the road to being competitive in world commerce. We will also work to reduce the cost of government as a percentage of our gross national product.

The first task of national leadership is to set honest and realistic priorities in our policies and our budget and I pledge that my administration will do that.

When I talk of tax cuts, I am reminded that every major tax cut in this century has strengthened the economy, generated renewed productivity and ended up yielding new revenues for the government by creating new investment, new jobs and more commerce among our people.

The present administration has been forced by us Republicans to play follow-the-leader with regard to a tax cut. But, in this election year we must take with the proverbial "grain of salt" any tax cut proposed by those who have given us the greatest tax increase in our history. When those in leadership give us tax increases and tell us we must also do with less, have they thought about those who have always had less -- especially the minorities? This is like telling them that just as they step on the first rung of the ladder of opportunity, the ladder is being pulled out from under them. That may be the Democratic leadership's message to the minorities, but it won't be ours. Our message will be: we have to move ahead, but we're not going to leave anyone behind. Thanks to the economic policies of the Democratic Party, millions of Americans find themselves out of work. Millions more have never even had a fair chance to learn new skills, hold a decent job, or secure for themselves and their families a share in the prosperity of this nation.

It is time to put America back to work; to make our cities and towns resound with the confident voices of men and women of all races, nationalities and faiths bringing home to their families a decent paycheck they can cash for honest money.

For those without skills, we'll find a way to help them get skills.

For those without job opportunities, we'll stimulate new opportunities, particularly in the inner cities where they live.

For those who have abandoned hope, we'll restore hope and we'll welcome them into a great national crusade to make America great again!

When we move from domestic affairs and cast our eyes abroad, we see an equally sorry chapter on the record of the present administration.

- As Soviet combat brigade trains in Cuba, just 90 miles from our shores.

- A Soviet army of invasion occupies Afghanistan, further threatening our vital interests in the Middle East.

- America's defense strength is at its lowest ebb in a generation, while the Soviet Union is vastly outspending us in both strategic and conventional arms.

- Our European allies, looking nervously at the growing menace from the East, turn to us for leadership and fail to find it.

- And, incredibly more than 50 of our fellow Americans have been held captive for over eight months by a dictatorial foreign power that holds us up to ridicule before the world.

Adversaries large and small test our will and seek to confound our resolve, but we are given weakness when we need strength; vacillation when the times demand firmness.

The Carter Administration lives in the world of make-believe. Every day, drawing up a response to that day's problems, troubles, regardless of what happened yesterday and what will happen tomorrow.

The rest of us, however, live in the real world. It is here that disasters are overtaking our nation without any real response from Washington.

This is make-believe, self-deceit and -- above all -- transparent hypocrisy.

For example, Mr. Carter says he supports the volunteer army, but he lets military pay and benefits slip so low that many of our enlisted personnel are actually eligible for food stamps. Re-enlistment rates drop and, just recently, after he fought all week against a proposal to increase the pay of our men and women in uniform, he helicoptered to our carrier, the U.S.S. Nimitz, which was returning from long months of duty. He told the crew that he advocated better pay for them and their comrades! Where does he really stand, now that he's back on shore?

I'll tell you where I stand. I do not favor a peacetime draft or registration, but I do favor pay and benefit levels that will attract and keep highly motivated men and women in our volunteer forces and an active reserve trained and ready for an instant call in case of an emergency.

There may be a sailor at the helm of the ship of state, but the ship has no rudder. Critical decisions are made at times almost in comic fashion, but who can laugh? Who was not embarrassed when the administration handed a major propaganda victory in the United Nations to the enemies of Israel, our staunch Middle East ally for three decades, and them claim that the American vote was a "mistake," the result of a "failure of communication" between the president, his secretary of state, and his U.N. ambassador?

Who does not feel a growing sense of unease as our allies, facing repeated instances of an amateurish and confused administration, reluctantly conclude that America is unwilling or unable to fulfill its obligations as the leader of the free world?

Who does not feel rising alarm when the question in any discussion of foreign policy is no longer, "Should we do something?", but "Do we have the capacity to do anything?"

The administration which has brought us to this state is seeking your endorsement for four more years of weakness, indecision, mediocrity and incompetence. No American should vote until he or she has asked, is the United States stronger and more respected now than it was three-and-a-half years ago? Is the world today a safer place in which to live?

It is the responsibility of the president of the United States, in working for peace, to insure that the safety of our people cannot successfully be threatened by a hostile foreign power. As president, fulfilling that responsibility will be my number one priority.

We are not a warlike people. Quite the opposite. We always seek to live in peace. We resort to force infrequently and with great reluctance--and only after we have determined that it is absolutely necessary. We are awed--and rightly so--by the forces of destruction at loose in the world in this nuclear era. But neither can we be naive or foolish. Four times in my lifetime America has gone to war, bleeding the lives of its young men into the sands of beachheads, the fields of Europe and the jungles and rice paddies of Asia. We know only too well that war comes not when the forces of freedom are strong, but when they are weak. It is then that tyrants are tempted.

We simply cannot learn these lessons the hard way again without risking our destruction.

Of all the objectives we seek, first and foremost is the establishment of lasting world peace. We must always stand ready to negotiate in good faith, ready to pursue any reasonable avenue that holds forth the promise of lessening tensions and furthering the prospects of peace. But let our friends and those who may wish us ill take note: the United States has an obligation to its citizens and to the people of the world never to let those who would destroy freedom dictate the future course of human life on this planet. I would regard my election as proof that we have renewed our resolve to preserve world peace and freedom. This nation will once again be strong enough to do that.

This evening marks the last step--save one--of a campaign that has taken Nancy and me from one end of this great land to the other, over many months and thousands of miles. There are those who question the way we choose a president; who say that our process imposes difficult and exhausting burdens on those who seek the office. I have not found it so.

It is impossible to capture in words the splendor of this vast continent which God has granted as our portion of this creation. There are no words to express the extraordinary strength and character of this breed of people we call Americans.

Everywhere we have met thousands of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans from all economic conditions and walks of life bound together in that community of shared values of family, work, neighborhood, peace and freedom. They are concerned, yes, but they are not frightened. They are disturbed, but not dismayed. They are the kind of men and women Tom Paine had in mind when he wrote--during the darkest days of the American Revolution--"We have it in our power to begin the world over again."

Nearly 150 years after Tom Paine wrote those words, an American president told the generation of the Great Depression that it had a "rendezvous with destiny." I believe that this generation of Americans today has a rendezvous with destiny.

Tonight, let us dedicate ourselves to renewing the American compact. I ask you not simply to "Trust me," but to trust your values--our values--and to hold me responsible for living up to them. I ask you to trust that American spirit which knows no ethnic, religious, social, political, regional, or economic boundaries; the spirit that burned with zeal in the hearts of millions of immigrants from every corner of the Earth who came here in search of freedom.

Some say that spirit no longer exists. But I have seen it -- I have felt it -- all across the land; in the big cities, the small towns and in rural America. The American spirit is still there, ready to blaze into life if you and I are willing to do what has to be done; the practical, down-to-earth things that will stimulate our economy, increase productivity and put America back to work. The time is now to resolve that the basis of a firm and principled foreign policy is one that takes the world as it is and seeks to change it by leadership and example; not by harangue, harassment or wishful thinking.

The time is now to say that while we shall seek new friendships and expand and improve others, we shall not do so by breaking our word or casting aside old friends and allies.

And, the time is now to redeem promises once made to the American people by another candidate, in another time and another place. He said, "For three long years I have been going up and down this country preaching that government--federal, state, and local--costs too much. I shall not stop that preaching. As an immediate program of action, we must abolish useless offices. We must eliminate unnecessary functions of government...we must consolidate subdivisions of government and, like the private citizen, give up luxuries which we can no longer afford."

"I propose to you, my friends, and through you that government of all kinds, big and little be made solvent and that the example be set by the president of the United State and his Cabinet."

So said Franklin Delano Roosevelt in his acceptance speech to the Democratic National Convention in July 1932.

The time is now, my fellow Americans, to recapture our destiny, to take it into our own hands. But, to do this will take many of us, working together. I ask you tonight to volunteer your help in this cause so we can carry our message throughout the land.

Yes, isn't now the time that we, the people, carried out these unkempt promises? Let us pledge to each other and to all America on this July day 48 years later, we intend to do just that.

I have thought of something that is not part of my speech and I'm worried over whether I should do it.

Can we doubt that only a Divine Providence placed this land, this island of freedom, here as a refuge for all those people in the world who yearn to breathe freely: Jews and Christians enduring persecution behind the Iron Curtain, the boat people of Southeast Asia, of Cuba and Haiti, the victims of drought and famine in Africa, the freedom fighters of Afghanistan and our own countrymen held in savage captivity.

I'll confess that I've been a little afraid to suggest what I'm going to suggest -- I'm more afraid not to -- that we begin our crusade joined together in a moment of silent prayer. God bless America

Ronald Reagan - July 17th, 1980

The President's manipulation of pre-existing conditions

noreply@blogger.com (Jbrown) — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 11:14:00 +0000

It is difficult to create credibility within a speech when you begin that speech by manipulating the facts surrounding a health insurance companies right to cancel coverage and the application of Pre-existing conditions. Last night, President Obama did both and within two minutes of the start of his speech he set the stage of a statistically inaccurate and misleading presentation of the facts surrounding health care.

The President and congressional leaders have continued to create the perception that evil health insurance companies will cancel your coverage if you have sizable claims or are suffering from ongoing health problems. Yet, the Health Insurance companies have no such right as there are federal and state laws that protect against such actions. The president last nigh used the case of an individual diagnosed with cancer who subsequently had his coverage canceled because he had previously had gall stones that he wasn't aware of. The president unfortunately manipulated the facts surrounding the situation and failed to mention key elements of the case.

It is illegal in all 50 states for any Health Insurance company to either single out an individual for a premium increase or to cancel coverage based upon claims. That is an indisputable fact. There are only two times in which a health insurance company has the right to cancel coverage: If an insured fails to pay premiums or if the insured committed fraud by failing to disclose health conditions on an application which would have otherwise led to company not issuing the policy.

Health insurance companies follow stringent underwriting standards and federal and state law allows them to access an individuals medical records to protect the company against insurance fraud. If an insurance company discovers a pre-existing condition, which would have resulted in them not originally issuing coverage, then they can cancel an individuals coverage so long as they can prove one fact. The insurance company must have evidence that the insured was aware of the health condition and knowingly failed to disclose that information. In addition, this law only applies to individual coverage, not group policies.

In President Obama's example, the insurance company learned that the insured had gall stones at the time of the application and failed to disclose the condition. The President claimed that the man did not aware of the condition, but that claim doesn't add up. The only way the health insurance company would know that the pre-existing condition existed was if it were disclosed as a diagnosis in his medical records. In addition, the only way that the condition could have been confirmed was if the insured had advanced imaging tests such as a CT scan or ultrasound to diagnose the problem. As such, the end result is that the insured either knowingly lied when he applied for health insurance or his Doctor failed to disclose the condition to him (of course I find it hard to believe a doctor would fail to disclose a condition that would require treatment and possibly surgery). In either case, the health insurance company followed the direction of existing laws when they canceled coverage, as they would have never issued a policy when a condition requiring surgery has not been addressed.

This situation is unfortunate and sad, but we do pass laws based upon compassion and sympathy, but rather upon sound judgement and an understanding of the impact of the legislation. This is not the first time that the President has manipulated such facts in pushing for HIS health care reform package, but when you begin a speech by immediately misleading the public and manipulating the facts then no credibility should be given to the rest of the speech.

Health Insurance companies have agreed to accept legislation that would outlaw pre-existing conditions and offer guaranteed insurability with all policies. Both Democrat and Republican plans that have been proposed offer such a change to legislation. As a result, there is only one thing to consider. The only reason that politicians would demand health care reform be passed as a single, 1,000 page bill is because hidden in the depths of that bill is legislation that the American people would never accept if proposed separately. There is no reason that Democrat leadership and the President can pass health care reform based upon a series of separate, easily understandable bills, which can be openly debated upon the merits of each. There is no reason why we must pass a massive bill of which most congressional members have not read and do so based upon an artificial timeline.

Reference: 3 Simple Rules To Obama's Quality of Care

25 Essential Conservative Facebook Groups & Pages

noreply@blogger.com (Jbrown) — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 17:00:00 +0000

As a large portion of our readers are conservative or at a minimum fiscally conservative we have provided a links to 25 essential sources of information for those of you with Facebook accounts. The links below are not based upon personal preferences and are not all groups designed for conservatives but rather are based upon pages and groups of significant size and who provide ongoing updates to news and political analysis often lacking from the mainstream media. In an effort to help you reduce your searching for such content we are providing the links below.

If you are aware of other pages or groups with a presence on Facebook please feel free to leave them in the comments for other readers. Just a warning, I have comment moderation enabled at this time due to a temporary spam commenting attack, I will turn it off the moderation for a short period of time, but will most likely re-enable it until the spam commenting subsides. The below are in no particular order, besides the first one.

#1) PDOP on Facebook - my newly created Facebook Fan Page so please fan it as I have plans to add content in the near future unavailable on this site.

#2) Heritage Foundation

#3) Freedom Works

#4) Tea Party Patriots Official Facebook Page

#5) Tax Day Tea Party Group (52,000 members and growing)

#6) Obamunism.us

#7) 9/12 Project Group

#8) Free Republic Group

#9) Drudge Report

#10) The Fox Nation

#11) Pajamas Media

#12) Newsbusters

#13) Reagan Conservatives

#14) Huck's Army

#15) Sarah Palin

#16 ) Glenn Beck

#17) Newt Gingrich

#18) Michelle Malkin

#19) Mike Huckabee

#20) GOP Tech Roots

#21) The Conservative Nation

#22) RedState

#23) Military News Network

#24) Patriot Post

#25) Networked Blogs - An application that allows you to show your friends what websites you follow and enables blog or site owners to incorporate their feed into their profile.

Hopefully this helps to ease your searching for groups but please remember to fan my page.