While the country slept, the White House and the Democratic Congressional leadership brokered backroom deals with the unions. Does this sound like transparency to you? Does Obama seem like he is trying to hide from the people all of his deals and favors to implement what he calls "health care reform"? Is he even aware of the promises he made and the consequences of breaking those promises to the American people? I think not. I fired off two letters this morning - one to Senator Jim Webb and one to Senator Mark Warner, both of Virginia. I am appalled by the lengths to which these Democrats will go to pass reform that over 50% of the country does not want and does not agree with. This is insanity at its most basic form. How can they possibly sleep at night knowing they are ignoring their constituents and circumventing the Constitution they are sworn to uphold? What more will be demanded of them in order to pass this worthless bill? Will they now bow to the wishes of any group that contributes to their re-election coffers?
As the wife of a retired Navy Chief, I am astonished that the Democrats and the President are willing to fore go taxing union workers health care plans, but are more than willing to harm the veterans and families of active duty military by cutting Medicare and Tricare by half a trillion dollars. I never thought, for a second, that this country, which has always placed such a high value on military service would ever decide to give greater benefits to teachers, autoworkers and shipyard employees than they would to the men and women who have fought for and served this country in her time of need. But, this is exactly what they have chosen to do. The deal that the White House made last night with the unions is not only unconstitutional, but it is quite simply, unconscionable and must be defeated NOW! I have a Political Science degree and I know for a fact that it is against the Constitution to single out a population or individual and tax them more heavily than the rest of the citizens; likewise the tax cannot be waived for them either. Have we become a nation ruled by elitists so much so that only those who can afford to contribute to the coffers of the power-brokers have a right to be heard and are afforded special "arrangements"? If this is the case, the next time I am pulled over by a police officer for a traffic violation, I am going to offer him a bribe in the hope that my contribution to his personal "coffers" will deter him from writing me a ticket. If that fails, maybe I can convince the judge to let me pay my fine in 5 years or so, when it is convenient for me. That is exactly what this deal with the unions amounts to (a bribe) and I am ashamed of our President and Congress for agreeing to it. You should be as well. Of course, they will tell you that they will start paying those taxes on their "Cadillac" health plans in 2018, but there are two major flaws with that prediction. The first - 8 more years is plenty of time to negotiate another favorable deal with 4 more elections in the middle, and the second - if this bill passes, private insurers will go bankrupt and we will all be on socialized medicine anyway so no one will be paying extra taxes. We will already be taxed to death.
In my letters this morning, I told Webb and Warner to update their resume's because they were going to need them when they get voted out of office in 2012 and 2014, respectively. We all need to tell our Senators and Congressmen the same thing. Most members of the Congress, even Democratic ones, disagree with parts of or most of this bill. If they are to be true to their conscience, not to mention, their constituents, then we must urge them to vote against the entire bill. Let them know that you are prepared to work against them in the next election campaign and that many will join you. This is really all they care about, in the end anyway. If they truly cared about the people they are meant to serve, they would not even be considering voting for this sham of a reform bill. My hope is that calling into question their loyalties will sway them to the right side of this argument. This is probably false hope, but it's worth a try, right?
It is simply appalling that our nation's leaders are willing to broker a deal that takes revenue from the Federal government in order to maintain a positive relationship with a voting bloc. With the loss of $60+ billion from the un-imposed taxes on the unions, this bill no longer achieves the "budget-neutral" status that Obama has demanded. Hmmm.... will he still demand its passage in spite of this, or will he find another sub-population to tax to make up for the lost revenue? Time will tell, but my money's on him passing it anyway.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Monday, January 11, 2010
Friday, December 18, 2009
Merry Christmas America?
While watching the news this morning it occurred to me how often the health care debate was talked about. In fact, every 10 minutes or so something was said about the so-called health care "reform" bill making its way through the Senate right now. One issue that has really been in the news lately is the artificial deadline that Harry Reid (D- Nevada) has imposed upon his colleagues of passing the bill before Christmas. I find that to be very interesting since Christmas is supposed to be about giving gifts to others, not taking from them. This bill does nothing but take much needed health care from millions of people through rationing and Medicare cuts and, the devastating blow - from our pockets as taxpayers when we so desperately need tax relief. This bill is a travesty on our American system of legislation. In poll after poll, the health care bill ranks far below the economy and creation of jobs, yet our elected officials seems hellbent on passing health care reform that doesn't go into effect for four more years, rather than focusing on the immediate needs of the people - the shrinking economy. This baffles me, because I thought that the reason that we elect leaders is so they can express the will of the masses and are beholden to the constituency that elects them. This is obviously NOT the case in Washington today. The Senators on the left side of the aisle cannot seem to agree on this bill as a group, not to mention that the entire right side of the aisle and Joe Lieberman (D - Connecticut) have nothing but absolute distaste for it. Of course, they do not have a majority so their opinions and votes do not matter at all. The Democratic party leadership is determined to pass it in spite of the 40 Republican Senators disagreement, which represent half of the country's opinions as well.
Looking at the different issues with this bill, one that comes to the forefront for me is the inclusion of federally funded abortions. Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska) is opposing his party because of this section of the bill. He is a Pro-Life Democrat from a conservative state and he does not believe that the Federal government should be paying for abortions, like many in America also believe. I am one of those unashamed, pro-lifers and I am in total agreement. It is NOT the choice of the politicians to take my tax dollars and pay for someone else to commit murder! I would not personally pay for an abortion, therefore my taxes should not do so either. I will not accept that blood on my hands. This is a sticking point for Nelson and well, it should be. Even Pelosi allowed the Stupak Amendment to pass in the House. And all this time I thought Reid was the more mentally balanced of the two. This provision should not be allowed in this bill and it is abhorrent that our elected officials are fighting to keep it there. For this reason alone, they should lose their seat in the Senate during the next election.
Another ridiculous section of this bill deals with the over $500 billion in cuts to Medicare. Will someone please explain to me how you can drastically cut Medicare and add millions more people to the plan and not have to ration care? Currently, physicians receive the lowest reimbursement rate for Medicare patients than they do from any private insurance company. A physician cannot build a practice on Medicare and expect to make ends meet. If Medicare is cut more, the reimbursement rate will plummet and physicians will be forced to deny Medicare patients access to their practice. This will, in turn, force Medicare patients to choose from fewer physicians which will amount to rationing of care. The math simply does not add up - more patients + fewer physicians = limited access (rationing). But, once again Congress is determined to pass these cuts even though this scenario is inevitable. This is how they intend to fund the reform bill, on the backs of our senior citizens. These cuts also apply to Tricare, which is the insurance provided to retired military and their families. In actuality, this bill will be paid for with the blood, sweat and tears of those who have served this Nation. What a wonderful Christmas present to give!?
The debate in the Senate has gotten ugly too. Reid is threatening to take away Lieberman's committee chairmanship if he does not vote for this bill and the Republicans are not even being allowed to speak their mind on the Senate floor. Just yesterday, John McCain (R-Arizona) scolded the newest member of the Senate, Al Franken (D - Minnesota) for refusing to allow his colleague Joe Lieberman an extra one to two minutes to complete his statement. This is dirty politics, plain and simple. I guarantee if that had been Mary Landrieu (D- Louisiana)asking for a few more minutes, he would not have been opposed. I realize that the Democrats control Congress with a majority, but there are many states and millions of people that elected the Republicans as their representation and those voices should be heard equally. To ignore them is to ignore millions of Americans and that is simply unacceptable.
I hope that this bill fails miserably in the Senate and that the American people receive a Christmas present they deserve - a legislature that LISTENS to their concerns and follows the wishes of the people. That would be a present worthy of the sacrifices made by so many to keep this nation free and maintain it as the Democratic Republic that our Founders gave us. This "health care reform" bill is the first step towards socialism and that step cannot and should not be taken. We are the last great bastion of capitalism and our system must be preserved. Perhaps, they should consider the words of a great statesman and President. Their duty is simple: to "preserve for our children, this, the last, best hope of man on earth".
Looking at the different issues with this bill, one that comes to the forefront for me is the inclusion of federally funded abortions. Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska) is opposing his party because of this section of the bill. He is a Pro-Life Democrat from a conservative state and he does not believe that the Federal government should be paying for abortions, like many in America also believe. I am one of those unashamed, pro-lifers and I am in total agreement. It is NOT the choice of the politicians to take my tax dollars and pay for someone else to commit murder! I would not personally pay for an abortion, therefore my taxes should not do so either. I will not accept that blood on my hands. This is a sticking point for Nelson and well, it should be. Even Pelosi allowed the Stupak Amendment to pass in the House. And all this time I thought Reid was the more mentally balanced of the two. This provision should not be allowed in this bill and it is abhorrent that our elected officials are fighting to keep it there. For this reason alone, they should lose their seat in the Senate during the next election.
Another ridiculous section of this bill deals with the over $500 billion in cuts to Medicare. Will someone please explain to me how you can drastically cut Medicare and add millions more people to the plan and not have to ration care? Currently, physicians receive the lowest reimbursement rate for Medicare patients than they do from any private insurance company. A physician cannot build a practice on Medicare and expect to make ends meet. If Medicare is cut more, the reimbursement rate will plummet and physicians will be forced to deny Medicare patients access to their practice. This will, in turn, force Medicare patients to choose from fewer physicians which will amount to rationing of care. The math simply does not add up - more patients + fewer physicians = limited access (rationing). But, once again Congress is determined to pass these cuts even though this scenario is inevitable. This is how they intend to fund the reform bill, on the backs of our senior citizens. These cuts also apply to Tricare, which is the insurance provided to retired military and their families. In actuality, this bill will be paid for with the blood, sweat and tears of those who have served this Nation. What a wonderful Christmas present to give!?
The debate in the Senate has gotten ugly too. Reid is threatening to take away Lieberman's committee chairmanship if he does not vote for this bill and the Republicans are not even being allowed to speak their mind on the Senate floor. Just yesterday, John McCain (R-Arizona) scolded the newest member of the Senate, Al Franken (D - Minnesota) for refusing to allow his colleague Joe Lieberman an extra one to two minutes to complete his statement. This is dirty politics, plain and simple. I guarantee if that had been Mary Landrieu (D- Louisiana)asking for a few more minutes, he would not have been opposed. I realize that the Democrats control Congress with a majority, but there are many states and millions of people that elected the Republicans as their representation and those voices should be heard equally. To ignore them is to ignore millions of Americans and that is simply unacceptable.
I hope that this bill fails miserably in the Senate and that the American people receive a Christmas present they deserve - a legislature that LISTENS to their concerns and follows the wishes of the people. That would be a present worthy of the sacrifices made by so many to keep this nation free and maintain it as the Democratic Republic that our Founders gave us. This "health care reform" bill is the first step towards socialism and that step cannot and should not be taken. We are the last great bastion of capitalism and our system must be preserved. Perhaps, they should consider the words of a great statesman and President. Their duty is simple: to "preserve for our children, this, the last, best hope of man on earth".
Monday, December 7, 2009
Civil Rights?
Today begins the trial of 3 Navy Seals charged with mistreating a prisoner of war, aka terrorist. The arraignment will take place in Norfolk, Virginia on the largest naval base in the world. A protest has been planned by supporters of the Navy SEALs and will take place today outside the courthouse during the arraignment. These three men, Matthew McCabe, Julio Huertas and Jonathan Keefe, are all accused of punching a terrorist in the mouth while he was detained. The terrorist, Ahmed Hashim Abed, is suspected of participating in the murder of four Blackwater employees in Iraq in 2004. Just to refresh your memory - these four men were civilian contractors helping with security operations in Fallujah when their convoy was attacked by Iraqi gunmen with small arms and grenades. The four men were killed or injured and the Iraqis dragged their bodies through the streets, burned them and hung their burned bodies from a bridge in Fallujah. This was an absolutely disgusting and appalling act committed by Islamic extremists and constituted (in my mind) an act of terror. As a result, Abed was added to the "Most Wanted" list of terrorists. After trying to capture him for five years, three brave Navy SEALs approached his camp under cover of darkness, captured him and successfully detained him: all without firing a shot. Apparently, Abed received a bloody lip in the process and filed charges against these men. There is no corroborating evidence from any other servicemen who came in contact with Abed, but the Navy is bringing them up on charges anyway. Fast forward to the present - these men are being court-martialed and face possible dishonorable discharge and incarceration time. They will be pleading "not guilty".
This is ludicrous! Our Navy is charging three of their own elite special operations men with punching a terrorist with NO evidence to support the terrorist's claim. The bravest amongst us are being forced to defend THEIR actions while arresting a TERRORIST! This is nothing but a knee-jerk reaction spurred on by the "mistreatment" of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and should not be allowed to happen. Many people lament the length and cost of our War on Terror and complain that we need to get our soldiers out of Iraq and Afghanistan, but never consider the cost of early withdrawal from these areas. Our leaders have tied the hands of our soldiers behind their backs with ridiculous and unnecessary rules of engagement and procedures for detention and interrogation all designed to protect the rights of the terrorists. Let me say that again: our nation's leaders are more concerned with protecting the civil rights of the TERRORISTS that we are fighting. What is wrong with this picture?
Yesterday marks the 68th Anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor where 2,402 people were killed, 1,282 were wounded, 15 Navy ships were badly damaged or sunk and 188 aircraft were destroyed in an attack that lasted just a few hours. Following this attack, President Roosevelt spoke to the nation and declared that December 7, 1941 was "a day that will live in infamy". We officially entered World War II by declaring war on Japan and began launching our own attacks on their ships and aircraft and eventually organized and executed the "Doolittle Raid" which struck at the heart of Japan. After four years of brutal war against the Japanese, the United States dropped the atomic bomb on the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima effectively ending the war with Japan. This history lesson is meant to refresh your memory and remind you that we did not expect our soldiers to fight the Japanese and the Nazis with one hand tied behind their backs like they are expected to do now. Imagine if we had used "kid gloves" throughout World War II; would we be saluting a Nazi flag today? Perhaps. If the war had not been fought in such an effective and determined manner the outcome might have been very different. This was a war fought against an extremist ideology, Nazism; not unlike the war we are currently engaged in against Islamic extremism. Thank God our President and Congress were not afraid of trampling on the non-existent civil rights of the men we were fighting against.
The Global War on Terror is being fought with a lack of concern for our fighting forces and a unwarranted emphasis on the manner in which it is fought, i.e. protecting the "feelings" of the terrorists we are fighting against. This latest trial is just another example of this misguided method of fighting a war. McCabe, Huertas and Keefe should be hailed as heroes, not brought to trial for allegedly punching a Most Wanted murderer while attempting to capture him so that he may be brought to Justice for the heinous atrocities he committed against American citizens. I believe that this war would be much closer to completion if we were not so preoccupied with the civil rights of our enemies. Another example of this can be seen in the decision by the Obama administration to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others in a civilian court in New York City. Once again, a lack of emphasis on the rights of the victims and the assignation of American citizen's rights to terrorists.
What about the rights of the American men and women killed by terrorists? The 3,000 dead in the attacks of September 11th, the 17 dead in the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, the many dead in the embassy attacks of the last decade, the soldiers, airmen, sailors and Marines killed while fighting in the War on Terror, Daniel Pearl, the four Blackwater employees, Scott Helvenston, Jerry Zovko, Wesley Bartelona and Michael Teague, and the countless others murdered by Islamic terrorists? Their rights were certainly not even considered by their murderers. The families of these men and women are entitled to justice for their loved ones and their rights should be paramount to the rights of the terrorists guilty of murder. Here's hoping that justice will be meted out with a firm hand and the guilty will be properly punished.
This is ludicrous! Our Navy is charging three of their own elite special operations men with punching a terrorist with NO evidence to support the terrorist's claim. The bravest amongst us are being forced to defend THEIR actions while arresting a TERRORIST! This is nothing but a knee-jerk reaction spurred on by the "mistreatment" of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and should not be allowed to happen. Many people lament the length and cost of our War on Terror and complain that we need to get our soldiers out of Iraq and Afghanistan, but never consider the cost of early withdrawal from these areas. Our leaders have tied the hands of our soldiers behind their backs with ridiculous and unnecessary rules of engagement and procedures for detention and interrogation all designed to protect the rights of the terrorists. Let me say that again: our nation's leaders are more concerned with protecting the civil rights of the TERRORISTS that we are fighting. What is wrong with this picture?
Yesterday marks the 68th Anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor where 2,402 people were killed, 1,282 were wounded, 15 Navy ships were badly damaged or sunk and 188 aircraft were destroyed in an attack that lasted just a few hours. Following this attack, President Roosevelt spoke to the nation and declared that December 7, 1941 was "a day that will live in infamy". We officially entered World War II by declaring war on Japan and began launching our own attacks on their ships and aircraft and eventually organized and executed the "Doolittle Raid" which struck at the heart of Japan. After four years of brutal war against the Japanese, the United States dropped the atomic bomb on the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima effectively ending the war with Japan. This history lesson is meant to refresh your memory and remind you that we did not expect our soldiers to fight the Japanese and the Nazis with one hand tied behind their backs like they are expected to do now. Imagine if we had used "kid gloves" throughout World War II; would we be saluting a Nazi flag today? Perhaps. If the war had not been fought in such an effective and determined manner the outcome might have been very different. This was a war fought against an extremist ideology, Nazism; not unlike the war we are currently engaged in against Islamic extremism. Thank God our President and Congress were not afraid of trampling on the non-existent civil rights of the men we were fighting against.
The Global War on Terror is being fought with a lack of concern for our fighting forces and a unwarranted emphasis on the manner in which it is fought, i.e. protecting the "feelings" of the terrorists we are fighting against. This latest trial is just another example of this misguided method of fighting a war. McCabe, Huertas and Keefe should be hailed as heroes, not brought to trial for allegedly punching a Most Wanted murderer while attempting to capture him so that he may be brought to Justice for the heinous atrocities he committed against American citizens. I believe that this war would be much closer to completion if we were not so preoccupied with the civil rights of our enemies. Another example of this can be seen in the decision by the Obama administration to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others in a civilian court in New York City. Once again, a lack of emphasis on the rights of the victims and the assignation of American citizen's rights to terrorists.
What about the rights of the American men and women killed by terrorists? The 3,000 dead in the attacks of September 11th, the 17 dead in the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, the many dead in the embassy attacks of the last decade, the soldiers, airmen, sailors and Marines killed while fighting in the War on Terror, Daniel Pearl, the four Blackwater employees, Scott Helvenston, Jerry Zovko, Wesley Bartelona and Michael Teague, and the countless others murdered by Islamic terrorists? Their rights were certainly not even considered by their murderers. The families of these men and women are entitled to justice for their loved ones and their rights should be paramount to the rights of the terrorists guilty of murder. Here's hoping that justice will be meted out with a firm hand and the guilty will be properly punished.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Be Back Soon....
Sorry it has been a while since I wrote on this blog. Time has not been my friend lately. I hope to post later this evening or tomorrow. Please check back then. Thanks for understanding and thank you for reading my blog.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Whose Side Are You On, Anyway?
As I sit writing today, I am in a state of amazement once again. The reason: our President and another one of his poor choices. The choice is the decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other terror suspects in New York City in a civilian court, rather than in a military tribunal in Guantanamo. This decision showcases another example of bad judgment by President Obama.
I was very dismayed on Friday when I learned that Obama's Attorney General, Eric Holder, had decided to bring five terrorists to the homeland to stand trial for their terrorist acts. This decision reflects the most flagrant disregard for the families and friends of those lost on the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or KSM, as he is known, is the self-proclaimed mastermind behind 9/11 and should be tried as the terrorist that he is, instead of being granted the rights of an American citizen and being brought to New York to stand trial. Upon his arrest in 2003, he asked for two things: to stand trial in a civilian court and to be brought to New York for that trial; the Obama administration has now decided to grant both of those requests. When did the American President start granting the wishes of terrorists? This decision is completely distasteful to many families of the victims of 9/11 and to the family of Daniel Pearl, the journalist who was beheaded by KSM.
Previously, the Bush administration and now, the Obama administration has created military tribunals for exactly this purpose - trying the detainees at Gitmo - and will be using these tribunals for trials of other suspected terrorists. All this does is grant KSM and the other 9/11 terrorists an opportunity to spew hatred, preach jihad and mock the victims of the attacks in a public forum. This is unacceptable and Obama should demonstrate that he cares more for the rights of the victims and Americans than he does for the rights of terrorists. Although there have been several civilian trials of terror suspects in the past, most of those were prior to the attacks on 9/11. The exception has been the trial of Zacarias Moussai, who was tried in Alexandria, Virginia in 2006 as the "20th hijacker". The important difference in this trial; Moussaui was arrested in Indiana prior to September 11th. The FBI mirandized him and maintained a clear chain of evidence to assure his conviction. This did not happen with the "arrests" of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his cohorts. KSM was detained in a pre-dawn raid in Pakistan and was not read his "Miranda rights" at the time. Also, he has been water boarded 183 times since his arrest and the Obama administration has ruled that water boarding is torture.
Any defense attorney is required to provide the best defense for his client and will most certainly move to have any evidence obtained from "torture" ruled as inadmissible. Also, these men will request access to classified information to help provide for their defense,and in a civilian court, they will most likely be granted this access. This presents a major security concern for the United States and could allow for the media (inadvertently) or the suspects to leak valuable information to our enemies. If evidence is ruled as inadmissible, it is a great possibility that KSM and the four others will walk away as free men from this trial. This would be the greatest travesty in American justice and would be a devastating blow to the families and victims of the 9/11 attacks.
Obama should exercise his leadership as President and overrule Holder by requiring that these murderers be tried in a military court since their "crimes" were not really crimes, but acts of war. This decision has taken us back to a pre-9/11 mindset with regards to terrorism and represents a very dangerous move by this administration. This mindset is what allowed the attacks on our embassies, the USS Cole and the attacks of September 11, 2001. It could even be argued that the Fort Hood massacre could have been prevented if political correctness was not the order of the day when dealing with Islamic extremists, like Major Nidal Hasan.
These trials have the potential to become recruiting grounds for more "jihadis" and to encourage future terrorist attacks on American soil. Let's hope that the administration reconsiders in light of the political backlash and decides to ensure a conviction by keeping these trials private and in the military justice system.
I was very dismayed on Friday when I learned that Obama's Attorney General, Eric Holder, had decided to bring five terrorists to the homeland to stand trial for their terrorist acts. This decision reflects the most flagrant disregard for the families and friends of those lost on the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or KSM, as he is known, is the self-proclaimed mastermind behind 9/11 and should be tried as the terrorist that he is, instead of being granted the rights of an American citizen and being brought to New York to stand trial. Upon his arrest in 2003, he asked for two things: to stand trial in a civilian court and to be brought to New York for that trial; the Obama administration has now decided to grant both of those requests. When did the American President start granting the wishes of terrorists? This decision is completely distasteful to many families of the victims of 9/11 and to the family of Daniel Pearl, the journalist who was beheaded by KSM.
Previously, the Bush administration and now, the Obama administration has created military tribunals for exactly this purpose - trying the detainees at Gitmo - and will be using these tribunals for trials of other suspected terrorists. All this does is grant KSM and the other 9/11 terrorists an opportunity to spew hatred, preach jihad and mock the victims of the attacks in a public forum. This is unacceptable and Obama should demonstrate that he cares more for the rights of the victims and Americans than he does for the rights of terrorists. Although there have been several civilian trials of terror suspects in the past, most of those were prior to the attacks on 9/11. The exception has been the trial of Zacarias Moussai, who was tried in Alexandria, Virginia in 2006 as the "20th hijacker". The important difference in this trial; Moussaui was arrested in Indiana prior to September 11th. The FBI mirandized him and maintained a clear chain of evidence to assure his conviction. This did not happen with the "arrests" of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his cohorts. KSM was detained in a pre-dawn raid in Pakistan and was not read his "Miranda rights" at the time. Also, he has been water boarded 183 times since his arrest and the Obama administration has ruled that water boarding is torture.
Any defense attorney is required to provide the best defense for his client and will most certainly move to have any evidence obtained from "torture" ruled as inadmissible. Also, these men will request access to classified information to help provide for their defense,and in a civilian court, they will most likely be granted this access. This presents a major security concern for the United States and could allow for the media (inadvertently) or the suspects to leak valuable information to our enemies. If evidence is ruled as inadmissible, it is a great possibility that KSM and the four others will walk away as free men from this trial. This would be the greatest travesty in American justice and would be a devastating blow to the families and victims of the 9/11 attacks.
Obama should exercise his leadership as President and overrule Holder by requiring that these murderers be tried in a military court since their "crimes" were not really crimes, but acts of war. This decision has taken us back to a pre-9/11 mindset with regards to terrorism and represents a very dangerous move by this administration. This mindset is what allowed the attacks on our embassies, the USS Cole and the attacks of September 11, 2001. It could even be argued that the Fort Hood massacre could have been prevented if political correctness was not the order of the day when dealing with Islamic extremists, like Major Nidal Hasan.
These trials have the potential to become recruiting grounds for more "jihadis" and to encourage future terrorist attacks on American soil. Let's hope that the administration reconsiders in light of the political backlash and decides to ensure a conviction by keeping these trials private and in the military justice system.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
It's The People's Business, Right?
For many years, I have heard people say that government should be about the "people's business". This has two meanings: that the chosen form of government in America should be for the people and about what the people want and that the people chosen (elected) to lead should spend their time taking care of the business of the people of the nation as a whole. Lately, I think this has been forgotten in Washington. In the past nine months, rarely has Congress been "about the people's business".
It all started with a stimulus package that most Americans were against and viewed as having very little chance of actually stimulating the economy, but Congress rammed it through in record time and Obama signed it. With one pen stroke, he saddled our children and grandchildren with an almost insurmountable debt. Then, came the bailout of the auto industry or more specifically, GM and Chrysler. Of course, the jobs of the auto workers in Michigan were important, but their importance did not justify the United States government entering into the auto manufacturing business or the forced resignation of GM's CEO, Rick Wagoner. Since when did it become the federal government's right to tell the CEO of a private industry that he must resign? Next, Obama and certain members of Congress began pushing the "Cap and Trade" bill in an effort to "protect the environment". Of course, this plan does little to protect the environment and much to destroy private industry and increase utility taxes on every taxpayer. Fortunately, this bill still has a few hurdles to make before becoming law since it was sidelined to focus on the next offender - health care, or if you prefer, Obama-care.
The Congress has spent countless hours on the creation of a health care plan to provide insurance for all 307+ million Americans. Although the health insurance industry needs some revision, most Americans are happy with the insurance plan they currently have. In spite of record turnouts at Town Hall meetings nationwide throughout the August recess and national polls from multiple, unbiased sources, the Democrats are still determined to pass a health care bill that insures everyone and includes a public option, and most likely, allows illegals to participate in the system. The Democratic members of both the House and the Senate are willing to force the passage of this bill without any bi-partisan support merely because Reid and Pelosi are twisting their arms to do so. Even the so called "Blue Dog Democrats" are being manhandled into submission by their party leaders and urged to fall into lockstep with the rest of the party on this issue.
Perhaps it is because they are aware that the prediction of Sen Jim DeMint could become true if this fails. In July, he said "If we're (Republicans) able to stop Obama on this (health care), it will be his Waterloo." Obama has attempted to paint the insurance industry with the same brush that he paints all his political enemies with - that of ignorance, lack of compassion, unimaginable profit margins and general disgust and has trotted out his party faithful to back up his claims. Earlier this year, Democrats have made claims that the insurance industry's profit margins are "obscene" and "immoral" and Obama has said that this plan "would keep insurance companies honest", which of course, implies that they are not. Several organizations have done some fact checking and have shown for 2008, the health insurance industry profits rank 35th in the nation, below railroads, Yahoo, Coors and even Tupperware, which had a 7.5% profit margin. The average profit for insurance - just 2.2%. Does this sound like an industry with "obscene" and "immoral" profits? Not to me, it doesn't.
Reform needs to take place within the health care system, but a complete overhaul with government funded health care is not the answer. This system will inevitably lead to poorer health care and inadequate services. It is a simple matter of mathematics: if you take 200,000 doctors who are currently seeing 200 million patients and add an additional 50 million people to the system with no additional physicians, there simply won't be enough physicians to handle the number of patients. The answer then becomes long lines and rationed care. Right now, we have the finest medical care in the world. People travel from distant lands to visit our physicians and have surgeries performed in our hospitals by the finest surgeons. Rationed health care will most certainly damage this quality of care and Americans will suffer from limited access to necessary medical services. This is not what Americans want and this is not the people's business they should be focusing on.
While Congress and President Obama deliberate on health care, unemployment continues to rise, factories are still being shut down, workers being laid off and in many cases, their jobs outsourced to foreign countries, banks are still closing, homes are still being foreclosed on and our troops are still languishing in the field awaiting reinforcements. Surely, these issues have a greater impact on "the people" than passing a health care bill that won't even go into effect until 2013. Surely, our members of Congress could spend less time demonizing Humana and Blue Cross and more time demonizing the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Surely Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi could twist the arms of their party members to prevail upon business owners in their districts to keep their businesses open and the workers employed. This IS the business of the people and this is the reason they were elected.
There is no provision for health care in the Constitution, but it does mention their obligation to their duties as a member of Congress. This duty is to represent the WILL OF THE PEOPLE, not the will of the Majority Leader or Speaker of the House or even the President. The oath states: "I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely' without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God." This is an oath they are sworn to uphold and as citizens and voters, we are duty bound to ensure that they do so. The true test of this duty will come in November 2010. I sure hope we pass with flying colors.
It all started with a stimulus package that most Americans were against and viewed as having very little chance of actually stimulating the economy, but Congress rammed it through in record time and Obama signed it. With one pen stroke, he saddled our children and grandchildren with an almost insurmountable debt. Then, came the bailout of the auto industry or more specifically, GM and Chrysler. Of course, the jobs of the auto workers in Michigan were important, but their importance did not justify the United States government entering into the auto manufacturing business or the forced resignation of GM's CEO, Rick Wagoner. Since when did it become the federal government's right to tell the CEO of a private industry that he must resign? Next, Obama and certain members of Congress began pushing the "Cap and Trade" bill in an effort to "protect the environment". Of course, this plan does little to protect the environment and much to destroy private industry and increase utility taxes on every taxpayer. Fortunately, this bill still has a few hurdles to make before becoming law since it was sidelined to focus on the next offender - health care, or if you prefer, Obama-care.
The Congress has spent countless hours on the creation of a health care plan to provide insurance for all 307+ million Americans. Although the health insurance industry needs some revision, most Americans are happy with the insurance plan they currently have. In spite of record turnouts at Town Hall meetings nationwide throughout the August recess and national polls from multiple, unbiased sources, the Democrats are still determined to pass a health care bill that insures everyone and includes a public option, and most likely, allows illegals to participate in the system. The Democratic members of both the House and the Senate are willing to force the passage of this bill without any bi-partisan support merely because Reid and Pelosi are twisting their arms to do so. Even the so called "Blue Dog Democrats" are being manhandled into submission by their party leaders and urged to fall into lockstep with the rest of the party on this issue.
Perhaps it is because they are aware that the prediction of Sen Jim DeMint could become true if this fails. In July, he said "If we're (Republicans) able to stop Obama on this (health care), it will be his Waterloo." Obama has attempted to paint the insurance industry with the same brush that he paints all his political enemies with - that of ignorance, lack of compassion, unimaginable profit margins and general disgust and has trotted out his party faithful to back up his claims. Earlier this year, Democrats have made claims that the insurance industry's profit margins are "obscene" and "immoral" and Obama has said that this plan "would keep insurance companies honest", which of course, implies that they are not. Several organizations have done some fact checking and have shown for 2008, the health insurance industry profits rank 35th in the nation, below railroads, Yahoo, Coors and even Tupperware, which had a 7.5% profit margin. The average profit for insurance - just 2.2%. Does this sound like an industry with "obscene" and "immoral" profits? Not to me, it doesn't.
Reform needs to take place within the health care system, but a complete overhaul with government funded health care is not the answer. This system will inevitably lead to poorer health care and inadequate services. It is a simple matter of mathematics: if you take 200,000 doctors who are currently seeing 200 million patients and add an additional 50 million people to the system with no additional physicians, there simply won't be enough physicians to handle the number of patients. The answer then becomes long lines and rationed care. Right now, we have the finest medical care in the world. People travel from distant lands to visit our physicians and have surgeries performed in our hospitals by the finest surgeons. Rationed health care will most certainly damage this quality of care and Americans will suffer from limited access to necessary medical services. This is not what Americans want and this is not the people's business they should be focusing on.
While Congress and President Obama deliberate on health care, unemployment continues to rise, factories are still being shut down, workers being laid off and in many cases, their jobs outsourced to foreign countries, banks are still closing, homes are still being foreclosed on and our troops are still languishing in the field awaiting reinforcements. Surely, these issues have a greater impact on "the people" than passing a health care bill that won't even go into effect until 2013. Surely, our members of Congress could spend less time demonizing Humana and Blue Cross and more time demonizing the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Surely Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi could twist the arms of their party members to prevail upon business owners in their districts to keep their businesses open and the workers employed. This IS the business of the people and this is the reason they were elected.
There is no provision for health care in the Constitution, but it does mention their obligation to their duties as a member of Congress. This duty is to represent the WILL OF THE PEOPLE, not the will of the Majority Leader or Speaker of the House or even the President. The oath states: "I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely' without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God." This is an oath they are sworn to uphold and as citizens and voters, we are duty bound to ensure that they do so. The true test of this duty will come in November 2010. I sure hope we pass with flying colors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)