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.