Does US AG Holder Believe a Law is Constitutional Because He Wants it to Be?

US AG Eric Holder seems to suggest that because a law does good that we should ignore whether or not it's constitutional and finds it "troubling" that the American people might want to check that it's legal.

Is it possible that the US has an Attorney General who thinks that a law is Constitutional merely because the president wants it to be? Is the country's top law enforcement official saying we should make it up as we go along? It seems so.

Responding to the Virginia court decision that the ObamaCare insurance mandate (the requirement that all US citizens be required to buy health insurance) is illegal, AG Eric Holder suggests that because a law does good that we should ignore whether or not it is constitutional:

Without an individual responsibility provision, controlling costs and ending discrimination against people with preexisting conditions doesn't work. The legal arguments made against the (health care reform law) gloss over this problem...

Striking down the individual responsibility provision means slamming the door on millions of Americans... who've been locked out of our health insurance markets, and shifting more costs onto families who've acted responsibly.

Perhaps so; but the mere fact that a law would do something presumably good, does not make it Constitutional. Remember when Sen. Tom Coburn asked Supreme Court justice nominee Elana Kagan about a law requiring we eat fruit?

Senator Coburn asked Kagan whether it would "violate the commerce clause" if Congress passed a law mandating that "you have to eat three vegetables and three fruits every day."

Certainly, if all Americans ate fruit and veggies every day, we would get healthier and our medical costs would go down. So, why can't the US Congress make such a law? Explains Kagan later in the sessions:

"I think that there are limits on the commerce clause," Kagan said,"primarily about non-economic activity and Congress not being able to regulate non-economic activity."

If that is so -- and it is -- isn't deciding to not buy something by definition "non-economic activity"? Are we going to allow our federal government to measure the potential impact of everything that we don't do?

In another recent ObamaCare lawsuit, Judge Norman Moon decided just that:

...there is a rational basis for Congress to conclude that individuals’ decisions about how and when to pay for health care are activities that in the aggregate substantially affect the interstate health care market.

If we allow this, the government can come up with a "rational basis" to make us do or purchase anything we normally wouldn't; the list of things that we could be forced to "substantially affect the interstate health care market" is endless. But, none of these things would be ethical, moral, or legal. Including being forced to buy health insurance.

So stipulates U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson:

No Supreme Court decision has authorized Congress to “compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market."

Somehow Holder and the Democrats can't understand why unprecendented numbers of the American people are opposed to this provision and find it "troubling" that the American people might want to ensure its legality.

So, should we just take Obama at his word that this thing is totally legal, Mr. Attorney General? Yup:

Rather than fighting to undo the progress we've made... supporters of repeal should work with us to implement this law effectively.

Let the 60% of Americans who want ObamaCare repealed know that their president and his staff want them to drop their silly arguments and just get with the program. I am right and you are wrong. I won and you lost. It's my way or prison time.

White House spokeman Robert Gibbs assures us "the White House was not surprised by the ruling." Mr. Gibbs, anyone who believes in the US Constitution was not surprised.

School Lunch Ladies to Ensure Your Kids' Salad is Legal

FLOTUS Michelle Obama is planning to launch a campaign to put salad bars in schools.

While this might be a worthy goal, and despite the fact that we don't have the money (Whole Foods installed 564 school salad bars with $1.4 million in private donations; you can do the math),the oddest problem that would come from this program is that your salad would have to meet USDA requirements and the "lunch ladies" in school will have to examine your kids lunch to make sure it does.

But schools also are deterred by USDA regulations that require students to pass by a cash register or "point of sale" station after they have been to the salad bar to ensure that they have served themselves the correct portions of fruits and vegetables required under the federal lunch program. ...School menu planners must tell students the minimum amounts they must take from salad bars, cashiers "must be trained to judge accurately the quantities of self-service items," and point-of-sale registers "must be stationed after the salad bar."

How bizarre must that be? Sorry, Timmy; your salad looks lovely, but you need four tomatoes and I only see three. Too much dressing; remove that extra grated cheeses. And you have only 1... 2... 3... 4... 5... five leaves of lettuce. Come on. You got the memo. You need at least eight. I don't care if you don't like romaine! Think of the USDA!

And, I have my doubts that many "elementary school children" would spend much time at the salad bar. Heck, most of them probably can't even see what they are taking.

Concerns have been raised that elementary school children in particular might be prone to spread disease at salad bars because they are too short for the standard "sneeze guard" installed on most salad bars, or because they might use their hands instead of the serving utensils provided.

Ann Cooper (director of nutrition services in Boulder, Colo. schools), who would not comment on the pending White House announcement, has dismissed those concerns, saying, "As far as I’ve found out, there are no documented disease outbreaks from school salad bars. By and large, this is not a high risk area."

OK, then, you allow your kid in line after Ralphie. I'll keep packing my kids' lunches, thank you very much.

Obama Channels Joe Biden with Asian Reporter

Obama gets laughs in South Korea by asking for a Korean translator to interpret a Chinese reporter for him. Much hilarity ensued!

President Obama, at a press conference in South Korea, took the role of human gaffe-machine from Joe Biden, addressing a Chinese reporter as Korean.

In a priceless exchange, Obama specifically requested that a Korean reporter ask a question of him. After an uncomfortably long pause, where no one offered a question, a Chinese reporter raised his hand. Hilarity ensued:

OBAMA: I feel obliged to take maybe one question from the Korean press — since you guys have been such excellent hosts. Anybody? This gentleman right here — he’s got his hand up. He’s the only one who took me up on it. Go ahead. And I’ll probably need a translation, though, if you’re asking the question in Korean. In fact, I definitely will need a translation. (Laughter.)

REPORTER: Unfortunately, I hate to disappoint you, President Obama, I’m actually Chinese. (Laughter.)

This is far more entertaining in audio or video, especially the pregnant pause as Obama waited for a Korean hand to go up, and none did.

Now, not only are people not "interested in more photo-ops," they don't even want to ask this guy any questions. Where's the love, Barry?

Mystery Missle: The Result of a Computer Hack?

Does it strike anyone else as odd, that less than two weeks after a US Air Force base "lost control" of one-ninth of America’s nuclear arsenal, that we have a "mystery missile" launch in California.

This is sure speculation for the fun of speculating, but it struck me as an odd coincidence that was bolstered by the US military's complete lack of explanation.

Military officials are still unclear as to what caused the "mystery missile" contrail spotted off the Southern California coast last night

Military officials have spent all day trying to determine who or what may have been responsible for what seemed like a mysterious missile launch caught on tape.

They want us now to believe it was an airplane; but anyone who has seen airplanes take off has never seen one take off like that. And, the FAA claims there were no airplane flights in the area at the time.

The Federal Aviation Administration said it did not approve any commercial launches around the Los Angeles area on Monday.

Hmm. Now we have mysterious "fireballs" appearing in the skies over the Southeast US and New England in recent days.

Report from North Quincy MA south of Logan airport of a ball of fire with a comet-like trail moving slowly from Southeast to Northwest.

South of Logan Airport? Must have been been just an airplane.

Get your tinfoil hats and climb aboard the black helicopter and let's have some fun with irresponsible rumor-mongering!

Obama's Wrong Yet Again; Not Bringing Home Troops as Promised

When Obama discusses tax increases, cap-and-trade, and immigration "reform," think about how wrong he has been is on major policy proposals.

Remember, less than a year ago, after months of "contemplation," which some called stalling, President Obama assured us that he would withdraw troops from Afghanistan in July 2011?

The troop surge, he said, will "allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011."

“After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home,” he said flatly.

An assertion that he echoed as recently as last May.

Well, not so fast:

The Obama administration has decided to begin publicly walking away from what it once touted as key deadlines in the war in Afghanistan in an effort to de-emphasize President Barack Obama's pledge that he'd begin withdrawing U.S. forces in July 2011, administration and military officials have told McClatchy Newspapers. ...the administration hopes to introduce a timeline that calls for the withdrawal of U.S. and NATO forces from Afghanistan by 2014,

What possibly could have happened in the last few months to make such a significant policy change? It seems they underestimated the gravity of the situtation on the ground.

The shift already has begun privately and came in part because U.S. officials realized that conditions in Afghanistan were unlikely to allow a speedy withdrawal.

"During our assessments, we looked at if we continue to move forward at this pace, how long before we can fully transition to the Afghans? Of course, we are not going to fully transition to the Afghans by July 2011," said one senior administration official. "Right now, we think we can start in 2011 and fully transition sometime in 2014."

That sounds eerily familiar.

Or, maybe there are other, more obvious reasons:

"In some ways, we think right now it is probably giving our enemy sustenance," (retiring General James Conway), the Marine Corps' commandant, said of the July 2011 deadline. "In fact we've intercepted communications that say, 'Hey, you know, we only need to hold out for so long.'"

Who could have seen that coming?

Whatever the reason for the sudden turn, the timetable for Afghanistan is yet another in a growing list of major policy positions that Obama simply screwed up.

• Remember when he told us that the "stimulus" package would keep unemployment below 8%? Missed it by that much.
• Then he promised that the health care "reform" would lower costs and not increase the deficit? Well, not exactly.
• Nor, it seems, will we get to keep our doctor.
  
• And, that Cash for Clunkers rebate was going to stimulate the economy and help the environment. Only if you think spending $3 billion to to reduce gasoline consumption by 0.2% (less than a single day's gasoline use) and "make the nation as a whole $1.4 billion poorer" is a good thing.
• Then the realization that he can't close the Guantanamo Bay prison because there might actually be some bad guys there.
  

Hey, we all make mistakes. I am just asking that you keep in mind Obama's track record of accurate assessment when you hear him glorify cap-and-trade, immigration reform, tax increases not hurting the economy, and so on.

Now aren't you glad you elected someone for president with no experience, based on a bumper sticker slogan?

Obama's $900 Billion "Incalculable Risk" with Your Money

Is Obama making a move that will make our salaries and savings more in line with those in China, Vietnam, Brazil, and Mexico?

On the day after the mid-term elections, the Obama administration is making a move that may well result in widespread inflation. Obama is intentionally devaluing the US dollar making the cash in your pocket, your bank account, your retirement plan, worth less.

(T)he Fed now will print money to buy as much as $900 billion in U.S. government bonds through June—an amount roughly equal to the government's total projected borrowing needs over that period.

In short, the United States is printing money to buy its own debt. When the government prints more money, the cash you have in your pocket, your savings in the bank, and investments in your retirement account are worth less. In effect, you will have less money if this plan works.

(I)t can be seen that by printing money say by twofold this will lead to a doubling of prices.

And doubling the amount of US dollars in circulation is exactly what Obama plans to do. You do the math as to how a doubling of consumer prices will affect you.

Many outside the Fed, and some inside, see the move as a 'Hail Mary' pass by Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke.

Why are they doing this?

(T)he Fed said it was acting to "promote a stronger pace of economic recovery" and to ensure that inflation, now running at around a 1% annual rate, moves toward the Fed's informal objective of 2%.

If the plan works, it may act to reduce unemployment by "(driving) down interest rates and (encouraging) more borrowing and growth, an effect exemplified by the Phillips Curve.

However, if it doesn't work, or doesn't work well enough, we will go through a period of inflation. When that happens, the dollar becomes worth less.

The dollar is in danger of losing 20 percent of its value over the next few years if the Federal Reserve continues unconventional monetary easing, Bill Gross, the manager of the world's largest mutual fund, said on Monday.

Which means, if you have a dollar in your pocket, it will actually be worth only 80 cents. Prices rise across the board, but your salary and savings do not necessarily follow.

In economics, inflation is a rise in the general level of prices of goods and services in an economy over a period of time. When the general price level rises, each unit of currency buys fewer goods and services; consequently, inflation is also an erosion in the purchasing power of money – a loss of real value.

As inflation increases, everything will cost more. Think about this when you go to the super market -- the prices of everything in your cart will cost you more, maybe much more, in the very near future. And it is being done intentionally.

Its been said of practically every major Obama policy, we have no idea if it will work, or how well.

Many outside the Fed, and some inside, see the move as a 'Hail Mary' pass by Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke.

And all football fans know how poorly the Hail Mary pass succeeds.

“It’s a desperate act,” says Jeremy Grantham, co-founder of the investment firm GMO. Grantham says it’s a clear message from the Fed to the rest of the world: “The U.S. doesn’t care if the dollar weakens.”

If it does work, we may go into a period of intentionally depressed salaries.

"To the extent that Chinese labor, Vietnamese labor, Brazilian labor, Mexican labor, wherever it is coming from that labor is outcompeting us and holding down our economy," Gross said. "One of the ways to get even, so to speak, or to get the balance, is to debase your currency faster than anybody else can."

Is Obama making a move that will make our labor costs more competitive with China, Vietnam, Brazil, and Mexico. Just what I want, to get paid in line with Mexican workers, don't you?

According to New Hampshire congressman Judd Gregg, one-time Secretary of Commerce appointee under Obama, talked of one consequence of continuing the Bush/Obama fiscal insanity:

"This nation is on a course where if we don’t do something about it, get federal situation, the fiscal policy [under control], we’re Greece. We’re a banana republic," said Gregg.

Now, I am no economics major, so I don't know exactly what this all means; but, it doesn't take a master chef to know that the meal in front of you doesn't smell right.

Besides, if this maneuver by Obama were such a good thing, then why did the administration wait until after the elections to announce the plan?

Massive Gov't Spending Does Not Help the Economy -- Part 1,000,006

As if history were not enough to understand that massive spending by government does not help pull its country out of recession, we have some actual reporting that proves the point (odd that we didn't hear this story from January trumpeted by Katie Couric or MSNBC.

According to the Associated Press:

Ten months into President Barack Obama’s first economic stimulus plan, a surge in spending on roads and bridges has had no effect on local unemployment and only barely helped the beleaguered construction industry, an Associated Press analysis has found.

Spend a lot or spend nothing at all, it didn’t matter, the AP analysis showed: Local unemployment rates rose and fell regardless of how much stimulus money Washington poured out

Yet, despite the failure of the first spending burst to do anything for the economy, Obama now tells us that we need more infrastructure spending. Massive federal spending didn't work then; it hasn't worked ever; it won't work now.

Think of it this way. Assume there are 150 million people and couples who pay income tax. What is the best way to allow the people's money to kick start the economy:

• Obama's Way: You can -- as Obama and the Liberals did -- take money from each of these people (we'll disregard the fact that Obama borrowed the money for the "stimulus" from places like China) and distribute that money to a relatively small number of people who are doing things that you approve of.
• The other way: On the other hand, you give real tax rate cuts that would allow all of those 150-200 million people keep more of their own money (yes, the "rich," too) allowing all of them to spend their money in every city and town in all 50 states on every sector of the economy. The extra cash in their pockets will increase their consumer confidence to spend even more instead of hording cash into a rainy day fund, as many Americans are doing. The sudden increase in economic activity will increase force business to meet the surprise demand, requiring more jobs. In turn, people with those new jobs will join into the economic explosion.

Oh sure, you Liberals argue, Obama's chosen few will spend the money on other economic sectors, who in turn will spend that money in yet other sectors, and eventually -- maybe -- all sectors will be touched. Eventually.

Of course it helps if the tax cuts are substantial enough that people should realize they actually got one.

Officials estimated (Obama's tax credits) would mean about $13 a week more in people's paychecks this year when withholding tables are adjusted in late spring. Next year, the measure could yield workers about $8 a week. Critics say that's unlikely to do much to boost consumption.

Liberals may cite The New Deal, President Roosevelt's massive spending and public works campaign after the Great Depression. Surely, that pulled the country out of its doldrums, right? Well, not exactly. While FDRs management of things in the 1930s help chop away at the 25% unemployment in 1933, the massive spending binge still left us with an staggering unemployment rate of 14% in 1940. The New Deal was little more than a band-aid that stopped the bleeding but did nothing to salve the wound.

For those of you who favor the Obama spend-and-tax-your-way-to-health method, consider this interesting graph from the Heritage Foundation that shows the greater effect of the Reagan tax cuts over the Obama "stimulus." Under Obama, we have seen unemployment increase since the declared end of the recession; under Reagan, unemployment dropped three percentage points in the same span.

At this stage of the Reagan recovery from the last deep recession in the early 1980s, the economy had created almost 4 million jobs, or 6 million jobs when adjusting for the size of the labor force. In contrast, under Obama the economy has lost nearly a half million jobs since the recovery began...

But, you say, didn't Reagan's tax cuts massively increase the deficit? While it is certainly true that Reagan's tax and ramped-up military spending, combined with the Democrat legislature's increased social spending increased the national debt, Obama's stimulus spent nearly 50% the debt that Reagan and Congress accrued in eight years ($800 billion vs 1.5 trillion). However, Reagan's plan actually worked.

You are the president, you make the call Which do you think will get things moving more quickly? The tax-cut method which has worked in the US in the 1920s, 1940s, 1960s, 1980s, 1990s, and the 2000s; or the "stimulus" method that has never worked in any country at any time.

Democrats to Add Amnesty Measure to Defense Bill

It is despicable that the Liberals in this government think so little of the military that they would attach such controversial measures to a bill that supports our soldiers in a time of war.

This is an absolute disgrace, and shows again the depths that the Democrat party will sink to pass their radical agenda:

Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) Tuesday plans to move ahead with a vote to attach a bill to grant US residency to young immigrants who complete college or join the military to the fiscal 2011 defense authorization bill Tuesday.

Merits of the measure aside, to attach a bill that gives total amnesty to certain illegal aliens to a defense spending bill is outrageous. This would allow supporters to completely avoid discussing the bill, and would allow their votes to stay off the record almost entirely.

The "Dream" Act (the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act S. 729) would grant citizenship to illegals who were brought to the US as children and have a high school diploma (or GED) or have enrolled in the military.

The only reason the Liberals would consider such a move it that they know that the Dream Act will never pass on its own, and they know it:

"I know we can't do comprehensive immigration reform," Reid said at a news conference (last week).

The Dems have also attached a Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal onto the same defense spending bill. While DADT is certainly tangential to defense spending, it represents a major policy shift that should be openly debated. Right or wrong, DADT is the policy of the military and any changes must be argued in an open forum, not slipped in through the side door when no one is looking.

It is despicable that the Liberals in this government think so little of the military that they would attach such controversial measures to a bill that supports our military at a time of war. Is it that they don't want their names attached to these measures or they don't want to argue their merits on their own?

More likely both.

They can tell supporters that they voted for amnesty and the DADT repeal; and tell others that they supported the military budget.

More gutless cowardice disguising itself as leadership from the Democrats.

Yet Another Terror Attack Under Obama's Watch

According to the Associated Press a man arrested for allegedly placing a backpack he thought contained an explosive near the Chicago's Wrigley Field. (And I say "according to" because I haven't heard this story anywhere, have you?)

A man arrested for allegedly placing a backpack he thought contained an explosive near the Chicago's Wrigley Field also talked about poisoning Lake Michigan, bombing a landmark skyscraper and assassinating Mayor Richard Daley, according to a federal complaint filed Monday.

The man is Sami Samir Hassoun, a Lebanese citizen living in Chicago. A Lebanese man named Hassoun. I wonder what religion he could be? Hmmmm.

He wanted to, so says the FBI, transform the city of Chicago. Transform? Who else said something like that? Sorry; just having fun.

More seriously, this is, what, the 5th, 6th, 7th attack on the US under Obama's watch? But, have no fear, Hassoun worked alone. So did, we were assured, the Fort Hood shooter, the Christmas day bomber, the Times Square bomber, etc.

No wonder that no one is talking about the guy who went on a shooting spree at Fort Bliss. I could be completely off base (and hope I am), but I find it odd that the shooter's identity has not been released. Hey, for all we know, the Bliss shooter could be, as NYC Mayor Bloomberg described the Times Square bomber, somebody with a political agenda who doesn't like the health care bill or something.

Feel safer yet?

Ding Dong! The Recession's Dead

The National Bureau of Economic Research (Who?) tells us today that not only is the recession over, it has been over for more than a year.

How did I miss that?

Six weeks before an election, and we are told that the recession is over. Coincidence? Must be.

There is no way that this blue-ribbon panel, populated principally by academics and other "researchers," could have ulterior political motives, right?

The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee is seven gurus neither elected by the public nor appointed by anyone who was. It uses no set method to come up with answers. The result is that the timing of recessions is inconsistent between their beginnings and ends, inconsistent among different US recessions, and inconsistent with recessions in other countries. The NBER's "method" is not transparent and lends itself to accusations of political bias.

Not to mention that Obama's former director of Council of Economic Advisors (and former NEBR member) Christina Romer is married to current NEBR member David Romer.

Don't let the staggering unemployment rate fool you; don't let the abysmal consumer confidence numbers fool you. Nor the dropping personal income or GDP. The recession is over.

Obama was hot on the campaign trail again, touting his "accomplishments" as president, and assuring us -- yet again -- that Hope will conquer all.

Hope will beat fear every day...

No, Barack; "hope" will not conquer fear; good planning and solid results will conquer fear. Two things that you cannot put on your resume. Ever.

Hope is what you turn to when you have nothing else left.

No wonder, Mr. President, even your most ardent supporters are jumping ship:

"I'm one of your middle class Americans. And quite frankly I'm exhausted. I'm exhausted of defending you, defending your administration, defending the mantle of change I voted for, and deeply disappointed with where we are right now," she said.

Thank you, ma'am. I couldn't agree more.

City to Ban Sales of Sugary Beverages -- World is Saved!

In a bold and daring move, the leaders in the City of Boston are risking all to solve one of the most vexing problems facing the city -- and all of America!

A panel of leading experts in health, education, and housing will combine their brain power to put a stop to a problem devastating the city. Bill Walczak, head of a "community health center," could barely contain his passion and rage at this crisis!

“Somebody has to take a stand, and if it isn’t the government and health care institutions leading the way to a healthier lifestyle, who’s going to do it?’’

They cured AIDS?
The can stop cancer in its tracks?
They can prevent Autism?

No! Bigger than that, even!

Concerned about the girth of employees and visitors to government agencies, Boston officials are weighing — gingerly — whether to restrict or even prohibit the sale of calorie-laden refreshments on city-owned property.

That's right kids; no more sody-pop at city hall.

Huh?

While obesity is certainly a health issue, these geniuses want us to believe that banning soda from the vending machines, coffee shops and -- yes -- at the deli will do a damn thing to reverse the curse of obesity. So, the next time some solon orders a jumbo roast beef with cheese and extra mayo City Hall Deli, he won't be able to drink an unhealthy can of ginger ale.

And, get this, our firefighters -- heroes who risk their lives every time they leave the station to come to our aid -- wouldn't have been able to have a Pepsi when they returned from battling "one of the biggest fires in recent Boston history," were this policy in place in August. At least now, they would be safe from one of the biggest hazard of a jake's life: Mountain Dew.

“We see this as the beginning of the food revolution,’’ Walczak said.

Yeah, city hall is exactly whom I turn to when I want to start a revolution.

To quote the ever-glib Mayor of Boston, we need to "tinue to make a procedure difference in people's lives."

Why do we trust these people to do anything?

Health Insurance Rates to Increase Due to ObamaCare

Spending more more than $1 trillion dollars on "reform" will not reduce your costs, will not cut the deficit, will result in rationing, may result in losing your current plan and doctor, and will not cover all Americans.

Health insurance rates to increase due to ObamaCare, reports the Wall Street Journal, Rate Increases Are Blamed on Health-Care Overhaul.

Thanks Barack! You and your Liberal cronies forced through your health insurance "reforms" (despite massive public disapproval) promising lower insurance rates and federal deficit reduction.

Well, only a few months into the plan, and it turns out that you were wrong and we were right.

Health insurers say they plan to raise premiums for some Americans as a direct result of the health overhaul in coming weeks, complicating Democrats' efforts to trumpet their signature achievement before the midterm elections...

Shockingly, with added requirements including letting children stay on their parents' insurance policies until age 26, eliminating co-payments for preventive care and barring insurers from denying policies to children with pre-existing conditions, plus the elimination of the coverage caps, insurance companies are facing higher costs and passing those costs to the consumers.

...carriers have asked for premium increases of between 1% and 9% to pay for extra benefits required under the law, according to filings with state regulators....some consumers could face total premium increases of more than 20%."

"Anytime you add a benefit, there are increased costs," said Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry's lobbying group.

Who could have predicted that? Well, pretty much everyone who was being honest during the health care "reform" debates.

As for that claim that adding 30 million people to the Medicare roles will actually reduce costs and not expand them? Sorry again, but no.

The CBO had originally estimated that the health care reform bill would result in a net reduction in federal deficits of $143 billion from 2010-2019; this revised number would eliminate most of that savings.

So, dropping more more than $1 trillion dollars to "reform" health care will not reduce your costs, will not cut the deficit, will result in rationing, may result in losing your current plan and doctor, and will not cover all Americans.

What exactly are we getting for OUR money?

Why Rembering 9/11 is More than Recalling the Event

On past 9/11 anniversaries, I have been chided, particularly by my Liberal friends, for my affection towards Darryl Worley's September 11 tribute, Have You Forgotten.

No one, they chuckle, has forgotten 9/11.

Recalling the event itself is not enough. We need to remember and embrace the emotional toll that the attacks had on us as individuals and as a nation. We need to remember, as Mr. Worley sings, how it felt that day.

We must never forget the range of emotions that welled in so many of us that morning: the confusion, the horror, the sorrow, the fear, the anger that flowed through us all as we watched the events on TV or in person, or later in a recording.

We need to remember the sense of purpose that drew us all together as a nation. Just a few months after one of the most contentious elections in the nations' history, we were able to put our political divisions aside as President Bush stood atop the rubble, bullhorn in hand, in a calling-to-arms that this nation has not heard for generations.

We need to remember who did this to us and why. In this politically correct world of walking on the safest, thinnest rhetorical line as possible, in an era when our leaders routinely change the terminology of the day, not in an attempt to change history, rather to divert blame and tamper our anger, we cannot forget that this attack, and too many others, were done in a perverted interpretation of Islam. It is they, not the faith itself, who has declared us the enemy.

And we need to remember that this enemy of ours will never stop; they measure victory in years, decades, perhaps centuries. As long as we remain vigilant, their attacks will be small and their victories few.

But, most of all, we must remember the thousands of innocent people who lost their lives that day. The people in the planes, the people in the towers. People no different than you and I, who were going about their day as any other. Going to work, going on vacation. Innocence lost to evil. In all those offices, there must have been someone in his last days at work before retirement; there must have been people there for their first week of work; there may have been delivery people who were there only out of fate; there may have been people there to interview for a job, who had never set foot in one of those buildings before. On those planes, there were people who traveled for work, people going on vacation, perhaps the first in years. Individuals, families. The flight crews who came to work that day as any other, perhaps with plans for later in the day when their flight inevitably touched down.

We must always honor those who gave their lives in a vain attempt to save others. The first responders: the police, fire fighters, people on the street who sacrificed to give aid, those who "went down like heros in that Pennsylvania field" to stop another target from being hit.
We must remember those who sat at home, talking to a loved one on the phone just before dying, the people who watched loved ones trapped in a collapsing tower, those who never heard from their loved ones again. Those who lost a husband, a wife, a mother, a father, a sister, a brother, a child (young or old), a friend.

They, too, are victims. People also like us who kissed their loved one goodbye with a promise to see him or her later in the day. The dinner plans that never came to be; the first date that never happened; the theater tickets never used; the lives that will never be the same.

These were people just like us, who did nothing wrong, but paid the ultimate price to those who did, for no other reason than hatred and true evil.

That is what we must never forget; I for one, never will.

Obama's "Race to the Top" is a Race Towards Losing Control of Education

As politicians and news organizations celebrate new federal education grants delivered by President Obama's "Race to the Top" program, it is easy to overlook what these grants really mean.

By joining the Race to the Top program, the states are ceding their ability to establish the standards, curriculum, and evaluation methods used for its students to a nameless, faceless collection of "teachers, school administrators, and experts" polled by an anonymous organization called Common Core State Standards Initiative."

According to the Common Core website, the organization will "provide a consistent, clear understanding of what students are expected to learn, so teachers and parents know what they need to do to help them."

Which means, the states are giving away the ability to continue to establish the high standards required of students, and the teachers and parents in Swampscott will lose the ability to set the curriculum and evaluation methods to meet that criteria.

This program ensures that states and communities cede their ability to establish the type of education they feel is appropriate for their students. Instead, local educators will be required to adhere to a "common understanding of what students are expected to learn... regardless of where they live." Note that many of these standards have yet to be established.

Instead of working to improve education, any state that signs onto Race to the Top has abdicated its responsibility towards its students and parents by preventing us from engaging in how the students are educated. As parents, we will no longer be able to control our children's education, instead leaving the job to a mysterious group of "national organizations representing, but not limited to, teachers, post-secondary educators (including community colleges), civil rights groups, English language learners, and students with disabilities."

Perhaps students could benefit from a set of "effective models from states across the country and countries around the world," by joining Race to the Top, our educators will not be allowed to determine which models are best for our children, forcing our kids to follow models created by people whose credentials -- and identity -- we do not know.

Robert Holland, a senior fellow for education policy with the "conservative think-tank" Heartland Institute, suggests:

the “readiness standards for English largely are a set of 'content-free generic skills.' The standards favor the reading of workplace manuals much more than classic works of literature. The math content may be 'even worse.'

The CCSSI standards, he challenges, 'require only a smattering of math beyond Algebra I. Students in schools adhering to these standards could find themselves ineligible for admission to any half-decent college or university.'

In the end, ask yourself this: If common, national standards would be so beneficial to students across the US, why have more than half of the states refused to sign up for the program? And why has Obama required states to join the compact in order to receive Title I funding?

In an editorial in the Washington Post, Daniel Willingham, a professor at the University of Virginia, described the problem behind the Race to the Top initiative:

The likely failure of the 'Race to the Top' initiative doesn’t depend on whether or not these ideas are any good. Here’s the problem. States are not really committed to the reforms the administration envisions. If they were, they would have implemented them, or at least they would have been making a game attempt to do so.

In other words, if the ideals behind Race to the Top are so sound, states would not need to be extorted to embrace them.

Even the left-leaning Atlantic Monthly sees the extortive nature of this program:

(D)angling money in front of fund-starved school districts is a great way to make them enact changes the federal government would like to see...

The Obama administration is working hard to centralize as many aspects of American life in the federal government. The education of our children should not be one of those things. The states, communities, and parents need to be in charge of what our children learn and how they learn it. Not some anonymous think tank.

Obama: Open-Ended War Serves No One (except maybe our enemies!)

Loved this line from Obama's speech last night on "ending" the war in Iraq:

"...open-ended war serves neither our interests nor the Afghan people's."

Mr. President, Commander-in-Chief, I have news for you: All wars are open-ended! No one starts or responds to war with a time-table. "Hey, Adolph, we'll defend ourselves, all right; but we really need to wrap this up by October."

When one side announces when they will stop fighting by a certain date, the other side can just sit back and wait.

I wish I were as smart as President Obama.

Cash For Clunkers: A Perfect Symbol of the Obama Presidency

The Boston Globe's token conservative, Jeff Jacoby delivers a lovely indictment of Obama's "Cash for Clunkers" debacle in a column today.

Congress and the Obama administration trumpeted Cash for Clunkers as a triumph -- the president pronounced it "successful beyond anybody's imagination." Which it was, if you define success as getting people to take "free" money to make a purchase most of them are going to make anyway, while simultaneously wiping out productive assets that could provide value to many other consumers for years to come. By any rational standard, however, this program was sheer folly.

Jacoby points out the obvious flaw in the program, predicted by so many outside of the administration, that removing thousands of perfectly good cars from the road would only serve to increase the price of used cars:

the supply of used cars is far lower than it would be if your Uncle Sam hadn't decided last year to destroy hundreds of thousands of perfectly good automobiles as part of its hare-brained Car Allowance Rebate System -- or, as most of us called it, Cash for Clunkers.

Oh, but it helped the environment, right, to get all these so-called clunkers off the road? Well, not so much:

Using Department of Transportation figures, meanwhile, the Associated Press calculated that replacing low-mpg "clunkers" with new cars getting higher mileage would reduce CO₂ emissions by around 700,000 tons a year -- less than Americans emit in a single hour. Likewise, the projected reduction in gasoline use amounted to about as much as Americans go through in 4½ hours.

Researchers at the University of California-Davis calculated that the reduction of carbon dioxide attributable to the program (under best-case assumptions) cost at least $237 per ton. That is more than 10 times the going rate on the international market, where carbon emissions credits currently cost about $20 per ton.

So, the program did nothing to help the environment; is now hurting the poor and middle class who buy used cars; did not cause a marked increase in car sales; yet cost you, the tax payer, some $3 Billion.

In the end, Jacoby says it best:

When all is said and done, Cash for Clunkers was a deplorable exercise in budgetary wastefulness, asset destruction, environmental irrelevance, and economic idiocy. Other than that, it was a screaming success.

A perfect symbol of the Obama presidency.

Obama: Will He Say We "Won" the Iraq War or "I" Ended It?

When President Obama addresses the nation from the Oval Office tonight, he will be declaring a "formal" end to a war he stridently opposed and called a "foreign policy disaster" as a Senator and presidential candidate.

Driving home his point, the president said, "The bottom line is this: The war is ending. Like any sovereign, independent nation, Iraq is free to chart its own course. And by the end of next year, all of our troops will be home."

Interesting words from someone who vehemently opposed the troop surge that apparently has allowed Iraq to become a "sovereign, independent nation." Vice President Biden also opposed the surge and introduced a non-binding resolution opposing the surge.

Not to belabor this point; but, as a wordsmith, I am curious to see how he addresses the Iraq war and his role in the war. It seems, as he has in the past, he will take credit for all the good:

"As a candidate for this office, I pledged I would end this war. As president, that is what I am doing," Obama said.

And he will take credit for what President Bush negotiated:

"In the months ahead, our troops will continue to support and train Iraqi forces, partner with Iraqis in counterterrorism missions and protect our civilian and military efforts," Obama said, a day before ending his 10-day Martha's Vineyard vacation...

And he will certainly not remind us that he introduced legislation to bring the troops home from Iraq in March 2008. (Even before he became president, he seemed to have a disdain for the US Constitution).

But, will he say that the United States was victorious in Iraq, or just that combat missions are over. Will Obama say we "won" the war; or, simply that it is over?

What about the families of the service men and women who died in Iraq. What does Obama say to them? You lost your loved ones in the war, but their sacrifice helped us end the war sooner? What about the soldiers in Afghanistan; will the Commander-in-Chief settling for "ending" the war be much of an inspiration to them?

For those of us with a love of language, it should be an interesting speech.

Huffington Post: "Don't Tread on Me" is a "Rediculous" Saying

The illustrious liberal blog shows its true colors in calling one of the more enduring symbols of the American Revolution "ridiculous."

In a bizarre photo essay, the Huffingtonians listed the 20 "most ridiculous messages" displayed at the Restoring Honor Rally, organized by -- Egad! -- Glenn Beck.

Among the "ridiculous" messages:

• A quote from George Washington
• A man saluting
• Two men with a flag emblazoned with September 11, 2001
• T-shirt stating "Restoring Honor" (the theme of the event)
• Two people wearing matching flag shirts

And, of course, the ridiculous message, a message carried by some of the first Marines in US history: Don't Tread On Me.

What more do you need to know about the Huffington Post -- and Liberals in general -- than the fact that they consider flags (that) were widely used during the American Revolution "ridiculous."

While I have great respect for people who have strong political beliefs and are proud to stand for those beliefs, doesn't it make you Liberals even the least bit queasy to see the mainstream voice of the Left so terrified of an opposing movement that they will insult the people of a specific movement and blatantly lie about the number of people at a rally?

Liberals, be very, very afraid. I know you already are.

Obama Too Busy "Buying Shrimp" to Answer Iraq War Question

While on his eighth vacation in a scant 20 months, President Obama seems to have channeled Forest Gump in refusing to answer a question from the crowd about the troop withdrawal from Iraq.

(M)embers of the press yelled out several questions for the president, including one about the war in Iraq. The president's response ? "We're buying shrimp, guys," the president said, smiling. "Come on."

While Obama didn't allow his shrimping excursion to interfere with receiving the adulation of the sparse crowd, he couldn't be bothered with a question about American troops in a war zone.

Perhaps if he did respond, the next question may have been about his taking so many vacations and golf outings while our kids are dying in the Middle East.

While no one can fault a president for taking a holiday or two, refusing to even look in the general direction of someone asking about an on-going war shows that maybe Obama is the real shrimp.

But hey, after all the finely prepared lobster he has indulged in, I guess even he needed a "change."

In WTC Mosque, Obama Finds Religion in Local Control

Would it be too much, Mr. President, to (for once) show some respect towards the concerns of the American people?

President Obama, who has shown no limit to his desires to federalize and centralize everything he can -- be it health care, automobile manufacturers, Wall Street salaries, college financing, public school education standards, -- has suddenly Seen the Light in the wisdom of local control.

On the controversial Ground Zero Mosque proposal, Obama throws his weight behind local laws and the US Constitution.

(Religious freedom) includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances," he said. "This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable."

If this is so, why are the "local laws" of Arizona being challenged in court by this Administration? Where did this sudden concern for local control come from? And, why does his concern for local control extend to the local people?

Once again, Obama disregards the reported desires of US citizens as reported in most polls. CNN, for one, reports that 70% of the people they polled stand firmly against the mosque. Obama, NYC Mayor Bloomberg, and most others critical of the opposition to the mosque would have you believe that all these people are anti-Muslim. I find it very hard to believe that "54 percent of Democrats, 82 percent of Republicans, and 70 percent of independents" are prejudiced towards Muslims.

These political leaders are working hard to spin the opposition as people who would deny religious freedom. But, as anyone with a modicum of common sense knows, the concerns have little to do with freedom of religion or the enforcement of local laws and ordinances. The opposition is rooted in propriety.

The Washington Post's Charles Krauthammer summarizes the matter well:

America is a free country where you can build whatever you want -- but not anywhere. That's why we have zoning laws. No liquor store near a school, no strip malls where they offend local sensibilities, and, if your house doesn't meet community architectural codes, you cannot build at all.

These restrictions are for reasons of aesthetics. Others are for more profound reasons of common decency and respect for the sacred. No commercial tower over Gettysburg, no convent at Auschwitz -- and no mosque at Ground Zero.

Where was Obama's concern for freedom of religion when he demeaned Americans as people who cling...to their religion? Would he dare criticize those who want to build this mosque as clinging to their religion?

In a blatantly pandering speech on Friday night, celebrating the start of Ramadan, Obama continued to obfuscate and confuse the issue before his Muslim audience, where -- yet again! -- he pointed out the country's past foibles:

This is not unique to our time. Past eras have seen controversies about the construction of synagogues or Catholic churches.

These words eerily echo the bizarre words of Mayor Bloomberg, who tried to compare the concerns over the mosque with religious intolerance in the 1600's and 1700's, well before the US was established.

Spin all you want. This issue is not about religious intolerance, disdain for Muslims, or anything other than propriety and the feelings of those most affected by 9/11.

Where is the tolerance for the families of those killed on 9/11? While Obama manages to mention these folks, he seems to have little interest in their concerns and opinions. Their thoughts on the controversy should carry as much -- if not more -- weight than those who want to build the mosque.

C. Lee Hanson, 77, whose son Peter was killed in the attacks, said he opposed the center not because he was intolerant, but because he believed that building a tribute to Islam so close to the World Trade Center would be insensitive.

“The pain never goes away,” Mr. Hanson said. “When I look over there and I see a mosque, it’s going to hurt. Build it someplace else.”

Do these sound like the words of discrimination?

Would it be too much, Mr. President, to (for once) show some respect towards the concerns of the American people? Concerns that may be well placed. Even if their fears are completely unfounded, shouldn't the President of the United States show some regard for those American citizens making their opinions known?

As the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol points out:

But Obama (like Bloomberg) doesn't feel he even has to engage the arguments against the mosque--because he regards his fellow citizens as emotionally traumatized victims, not citizens who might have a reasonable point of view.

Debra Burlingame, Co-founder of 9/11 Families for a Safe & Strong America, also said it well:

No one who has lived this history and felt the sting of our country’s loss that day can truly believe that putting our families through more wrenching heartache can be an act of peace.

It is time to introduce some common sense to this debate and stop the name-calling and spin. This is about the loss of loved ones, the loss of innocence for an entire country, and the appreciation of the concerns of the living victims. It is not about the Muslim religion. It is about doing what is right for the people of this country, and not pandering to a special interest with the goal of making us look better to the rest of the world.

As Obama himself said, Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground. Ground Zero is hallowed; and it should be treated that way. Mr Obama, you need to start paying more attention to the words and worries of the local people and less worry about the local laws and ordinances.

I mean, why start the concern over local control now?

John Kerry's Problem with Taxes Shows the Problem with Taxes

It's a simple matter of What Did He Own and When Did He Own It?

The Boston Herald's gossip columnists, the "Inside Track Gals," are said to have broken the story of the summer in exposing Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) tax evasion or tax avoidance after purchasing a yacht:

The Track broke the story of the summer last week when we reported that the former White House wannabe had purchased a spankin’-new 76-foot luxury yacht in New Zealand and registered it in Rhode Island, thus dodging Massachusetts’ 6.25 percent sales tax and depriving the senator’s summer home, Nantucket, of some $70,000 a year in excise taxes.

Local talk radio has been abuzz with glee -- while local boatwrights fumed -- over the story and over the senator's refusal to answer questions about the matter.

Sen. John Kerry, hounded by questions over whether he is dodging state and local taxes on his ultra-luxe $7 million sailing yacht, yesterday slammed his car door on a pack of reporters demanding to know if he would pony up to the cash-strapped commonwealth.

While I have never been a fan of John Kerry's politics, and don't like when politicians duck questioners, I see this situation as more about the state of our tax codes than which state's tax codes.

The Ocean State repealed its Boat Sales and Use Tax back in 1993, making the tiny state a haven... for tax-skirting luxury yacht owners.

However, according to state law, if Kerry brings the boat into Massachusetts waters in the first six months of owning it, there is a “presumption of use” and he would have to pony up some $437,500 to the state.

When asked yesterday whether he had brought the Isabel into Massachusetts, Kerry replied, “It depends on who owns it.”

Clear as the Gulf of Mexico, right? It gets better:

Maritime law expert Brian Flanagan, who teaches admiralty law at Suffolk University Law School, said it is possible Kerry may have taken possession of the custom-built craft more than six months ago, even though he registered it with the Coast Guard on March 12. Another source suggested that Kerry has not yet paid in full for his new high-seas plaything.

But even if they didn’t beat the six-month deadline, John...also could challenge the state’s “presumption of use” and present evidence that he did not purchase the vessel for use in the commonwealth, Flanagan said.

State Treasurer Tim Cahill, a former Democrat running for governor as an independent, was quick to chastise his "former" party-mate in a desperate attempt to flee the Democrat party:

It looks to me like he’s avoided taxes by registering in Rhode Island. So if someone’s not paying their taxes that should be paying them, then the DOR should go after them..."

I don't begrudge Sen. Kerry his big fancy yacht. After all, he earned his money the old fashioned way, he married into it (twice!). But, don't you think the tax structure in this country is completely out of control when you can be charged sales tax in Massachusetts on a boat you bought in New Zealand and want store in a Rhode Island based on a "presumption of use" if you dare sail into Massachusetts waters within the first six months?

As Republican candidate for MA governor says: Had Enough?