Canadian Healthcare, a Different Perspective

Here is an article from today's LA Times about the current state of the Canadian Health Care System. There are apparently a few legal challenges to whether doctors will be permitted to practice privately outside of the public system.

Just click on the title and it will direct you to the link.

Let me know what you think.

Supporting Our Troops

This weekend I had the pleasure of attending the GI Film Festival at the Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley. The Festival took place in one day and showed films that portray American enlisted men and women in a favorable light as opposed to the usual Hollywood fare. This festival was an offshoot of the main GI Film Festival which takes place in May every year in Washington D.C. The main event lasts seven days and includes showings of approximately 50 films. This was a one day shortened version in which the crème of the crop were exhibited. You can find out more details about the festival at: http://www.gifilmfestival.com/. I also recommend that if you are so inclined, you make a donation to this worthy cause.

Among the screened films was a documentary entitled “About Face,” which was directed by Steve Karras. To me, the film is a masterpiece. It depicts a group of Jewish Refugees from both Germany and Austria that joined the American and British Armed Forces in WWII to fight against their native lands. The film was both moving and educational. In fact, I must state I was not even aware there was so many of these refugees. Apparently, they numbered approximately 10,000. And, because of their knowledge of the native languages of the enemy, many of them were placed in positions that put them directly into contact with the same Germans who were persecuting their family and relatives.

The film explored the motivations of these soldiers and the feelings that many of them have regarding Nazism and the war to this day. You must remember that although these people were Jews, they were also Germans. Their native language was German. They were schooled in Germany prior to the Nazi takeover. All of their friends were Germans and some of those friends were even fighting in the war against the Allies. One of the refugees interviewed stated that he came across a childhood friend of his towards the end of the war and that it was an emotional experience for them both.

Another of the refugees was shown going back to his hometown for the first time since leaving before the war. He was walking the streets of his childhood and searching for some of his boyhood friends. Again, the question came up regarding what he would have done in the event he was confronted with killing one of them. Remember, these were all Jews who were fighting the same Nazis who had decreed that Jews were inferior and must be annihilated.

When asked while standing on one of the beaches at Normandy, what should be done to stop another holocaust and war with the scope of WWII, one of the documentary’s subjects stated, “Never allow another fanatic to gain control of a powerful country.” To no surprise, this garnered the most applause from the obvious partisan crowd.

Another film that I found extremely moving was a documentary entitled “Bedford: The Town They Left Behind.” This film traces the effects of D-Day on a small town in Virginia that had the largest per capita casualties on D-Day of anyplace in the United States. It also deals with the current effects of the citizenry as a result of the National Guard troops being called up in 2004 to fight in the “War on Terror.” Obviously, the D-Day losses are still considered and in the minds of the residents. A common question being asked by the residents today is, “Could this possibly happen again?”

This film was almost as emotional as “About Face.” It is hard to believe that this town was so affected by the losses sustained on D-Day. It was just their turn of bad luck that the National Guard branch based in Bedford was on the front lines storming Normandy on June 6, 1944. The town truly paid its price for Democracy. And, to their credit, the town people have learned to be proud of their boys and not regret the sacrifices which made.

There were many other films shown at the festival that were moving and made me proud of the Armed Forces and of being an American. Among them were “Spitfire 944” a short about an American pilot seeing a crash landing in which he survived during WWII 50 years after the war for the first time on film; “Witt’s Daughter” which fictionally explored the effects on a family of a soldier’s absence during the Korean conflict; and, “A Touch of Home” which is a documentary about the Vietnam War’s Red Cross Girls and their memories of the experience.

At the conclusion of the screenings, Gary Sinise hosted a reception honoring the filmmakers, the festival and the Armed Forces in general. Mr. Sinise appeared with his usual humbleness and towered praises upon the people that risk their lives for democracy and for the United States of America. This is a man that has devoted a major portion of his free time to supporting the military and asks for nothing in exchange. He is a true patriot and a true gentleman.

On the whole, the experience was a great one. It was both pleasant and unusual to be with a group of filmmakers and film aficionados that were of a like conservative mind and proud to be Americans. The usual gatherings of film people are full of condemnation of the country and its form of government. I hope that you all find a way to see these truly patriotic films. In closing, I salute the troops. I salute Gary Sinise for his untiring work for them and his love for America. And, I salute the founders and supporters of the festival. Thank you.

© 2009 by Frank T. DeMartini. Permission to copy will be granted freely upon request.

Finding Waldo by Ira Schwartz

“YOU LIE!!” sliced through the Congress like a knife forcing everyone into stunned silence. “You lie”, two words that took Republican Joe Wilson less than two seconds to say but will haunt him for a lifetime. Two words that did more damage to a struggling Republican Party than Joshua’s trumpet did to the walls of Jericho. In those two seconds the Presidents Health Care Reform speech ceased to be the lead news story, now Joe Wilson was.

Republican John McCain on CNN’s Larry King Live said, “He (Wilson) was totally disrespectful for yelling out “You lie” and continued, “He must apologize for it immediately”. Shortly after the speech Wilson did just that and called the White House and apologized for his “inappropriate and regrettable comments”. The next day President Obama told the cabinet meeting he accepted the Congressman’s apology. End of story right? Well not quite.

Republicans and Democrats alike have said the apology by Wilson was not quite good enough. They wanted him to do it in the place where the crime occurred…Congress. Democrats delayed a House vote last Thursday so Wilson could issue his apology but none took place. No one in the Republican Party made Joe Wilson understand that his remark not only slighted the President but Congress and the Republican Party as well. The truth be told George W. Bush faired much worse than President Obama against his democratic opposition over the eight years of his term. But no one stood up before congress and the American people and insulted the president to his face. So my question is this….who’s running the Republican Party?

Margaret Thatcher said, “Consensus is the absence of leadership”. It appears today’s Republicans have taken that to heart. Since the election of Barack Obama to the presidency the Grand Old Party has become the Grand Invisible Party. Most of its members content at staying in the background and waiting for the Democrats to self destruct so they can fill the void. They hope the American people will have a very short memory; they hope the American people will forget the last eight years of Republican rule. They are making a serious error.

Lately GOP Chairman Michael Steele has stepped out of the shadows and into the light. His latest video, “Bill of Rights for Seniors” is aimed directly at the Democratic Healthcare Reform bill and has been getting a large number of hits on “YouTube”. This needs to continue…in spades. Though he is the party Chairman can he be considered the leader? Usually the party leader is the most viable candidate for the presidency. That being the case Mike Steele is out.

So let’s see if we can find Waldo in that consensus the honorable Margaret Thatcher was talking about. To start with there is Piyush “Bobby” Jindal, Republican Governor of Louisiana. Jindal was on the fast track to become the next golden boy of the Republican Party till his sad rebuttal to President Obama’s first speech to Congress was unilaterally panned by both Democrats and Republicans.

Next we have Ex vice Presidential Candidate and ex Governor Sarah Palin. Still in the news but the press she is gathering is more suitable to a game show host then any real viable candidate. He numbers have been dropping steadily. A CNN poll shows her popularity dropping from 46% to 39%. A new USA/GALLOP poll shows 19% of Americans would vote for her 41% would not. Among Republicans 35% said they would, 37% said “maybe”. Not good enough don’t ya’ know.

Third is Tim Pawlenty, current two term Governor of Minnesota. He managed to erase his state’s 4.3 billion dollar deficit without raising taxes in his first year. Since Governor Pawlenty has been in office Minnesota has ranked first in overall quality of life for its citizens, first in percentage of residents with a high school diploma, and first in residents over 25 with a bachelors degree. Minnesota is also ranked among the "Healthiest States in America." He was also in the running to be John McCain’s running mate in the ’08 elections.

Eric Cantor, a two term congressman from Virginia who was unanimously voted to the position of Republican Whip in 2008 is also on the short list. During his first term Cantor served as Chairman of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare. Later in his career he was a member of The House Financial Services Committee, the House International Relations Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee. Like Tim Pawlenty, Eric Cantor name was also tossed into the ring as a possible running mate for John McCain in ’08. Instead the Republicans picked Sarah Palin and lost the election.

But coming up fast on the outside is none other than Mike Huckabee, who managed to gather 29% of the votes in the latest straw poll taken this weekend. His closest competitors only managed a paltry 12%. At that same convention Mitt Romney had the quote of the week when he said, “I'll bet you never dreamed you'd look back at Jimmy Carter as the good old days." Sad but true.

At a time when the Republican Party is shrinking (AP polls indicate 42.6% of registered voters are Democrat, 32.5% are Republican and 24.8% are independent) someone needs to step forward and light a fire under the sleeping Republicans. Mike Steele is trying but he can’t do it alone. There needs to be one voice. A voice capable of silencing the shrill cries of Sarah Palin, a quitter and Joe Wilson, an embarrassed Congressman. If these are the true faces of the New Republican Party then I think most of us will continue to search for Waldo.

© 2009 By Ira Schwartz

NEA: Obama’s Ministry of Propaganda

NEA: Obama’s Ministry of Propaganda

Shared via AddThis

Is Obama the Next Wilson?

Just this morning, I was watching President Obama’s speech before the United Nations. I must admit it was given with eloquence and was quite moving. However, for the most part it was rhetoric and the dreams of an idealistic man in Fantasyland. I do not want to really beat a dead horse, but as stated in my last article about the ideology of liberals, President Obama’s foreign policy completely ignores reality. It is almost delusional. Obama dreams about everything being utopian, but ignores the writings on the wall. And, in the process he insults our trusted ally Israel by demanding it stop building settlements without requiring the Palestinians to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist.

The speech was also very Wilsonian. I could imagine the words of Woodrow Wilson pitching the League of Nations to the United States Congress after the end of World War One. The League of Nations . . .

“is a definite guaranty of peace. It is a definite guaranty by word against aggression. It is a definite guaranty against the things which have just come near bringing the whole structure of civilization into ruin. Its purposes do not for a moment lie vague. Its purposes are declared, and its powers are unmistakable. It is not in contemplation that this should be merely a league to secure the peace of the world. It is a league which can be used for cooperation in any international matter.”

In fact, parts of President Obama’s speech today mirrored these themes exactly.

The American Congress did not buy the sales job of Wilson and did not ratify the Versailles Treaty. America was not a member of the League of Nations. The League of Nations failed and the bloodiest war in the history of mankind resulted. As a result, for the most part, history looks at Woodrow Wilson’s presidency as a failure.

Wilson was an idealist and President Obama is an idealist. In fact, the two men have quite a lot in common. They are both of the extreme left and considered Progressives. And, there is much more.

Woodrow Wilson and Back Obama were both educated in elite Northeastern Ivy League Schools. Wilson was a graduate of Princeton; Obama a graduate of Harvard. They were both lawyers who did not practice for an extended period of time. And, most importantly, both became President with very little governmental experience. Wilson was in the midst of his first term as governor of New Jersey. Barack Obama was in the middle of his first term as a Senator from Illinois. And, both became President because of circumstances beyond their control: Wilson because of a split in the Republican Party during a three man election and Obama because of the crash of the economic system six weeks before the election.

In addition to their idealistic viewpoints on foreign affairs, both were staunch supporters of the Federal Reserve. Wilson, in fact, was President during its creation and managed to slip it through a Congress that mostly opposed it. Obama is increasing the powers of the Fed on an almost daily basis. There are many that feel the Fed is part of an idealistic world view. (See e.g., The Secret of Jekyll Island). This is the same idealistic world view that is a cornerstone of President Obama and Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy. It is also, unfortunately, socialist. The underlying theme of both is that the creation of a World Bank will make every country and every person equal.

Many of the initial supporters of the Fed and its progeny of paper money believe that the rich countries should support the rest of the world and put all nations on an even playing field. In fact, it can be argued that this was the main argument of President Obama’s speech before the General Assembly today. It is idealistically based socialism pure and simple. Unfortunately, Margaret Thatcher said it best. “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” And, that may be what is happening right now. The Fed cannot print its paper money fast enough. The realism is beginning to set in.

Will America continue to buy into Obama’s rhetoric? Maybe. Will Obama be considered a failure in the same vein as Woodrow Wilson? I hope not, but if things continue as they are, it is beginning to look more likely each and every day.

On other fronts - In my opinion President Obama made a major error last week when he agreed to withdraw the missile defense system from Poland and the Czech Republic. This is kowtowing to the Russians pure and simple. The governments of both Eastern European countries feel the President has sold out our NATO allies. Do I need to remind my readers that these two countries were once within the tyrannical control of the USSR? They are both now members of NATO. We have promised them defense. What has the President done to end their fears of another Russian takeover? Nothing. In fact, the President gives in to Russia at the expense of our Eastern European allies.

Yesterday I became aware of an Executive Order signed by President Obama on January 27 of this year. It is Executive Order Number 2009-15 and is published in the Federal Register. I simply do not understand why this was not picked up by the mainstream or any media for that matter. The order is very simple. It allocates 20.3 million dollars of our taxpayers’ money to aid refuges of the Gaza Strip. Isn’t this where the Hamas controls? Aren’t these refuges that our taxpayer money is being used for going to be enemies of Israel? Isn’t Israel one of our most important allies? I know it was before the current administration.

Developing news on the health care front is that Harry Reid is going to use reconciliation in the Senate if he cannot get the sixty members necessary to block a filibuster. In other words, he is going to bend the rules to his favor so that a simple majority can bypass Senate rules.

Sounds a lot like what is going on in Massachusetts right now. When John Kerry was running for President and Mitt Romney was the governor, the Democratic Legislature immediately took the power out of Romney’s hands to appoint a Senator had Kerry won. I mean, God forbid that the Republican Romney would appoint a Republican to the Senate representing Massachusetts. Now, that Ted Kennedy has passed away, the situation is reversed. The Massachusetts Legislature is changing the rules again to give the Democratic Governor the power to appoint a successor to fulfill Kennedy’s term. The Democrats do not want to risk a special election in which a Republican might win. This is typical Democratic liberal behavior. The rules are only as good as long as they benefit their ideals.

Lastly, the State of California’s unemployment rate has reached a 70 year high. What can we do about it? The state is in a mess and our Democratic Legislature and Republican Governor cannot even begin to come up with a solution. The budget deficit is out of control. Storefronts are empty everywhere you look. Foreclosure rates are at an all time high. And, real estate is in a free fall. Maybe, the time is right to kick them all out of office. Couple that with our Democratic Congress that has got to go; and, maybe government will start being for the people and not for itself. Isn’t that what the American form of Democracy is supposed to be all about?

©2009 by Frank T. DeMartini. Permission to copy will be granted freely upon request.

Say "No" To Obama by Yari Shamir

Here is the correct web site for the article I tried to post yesterday. I accidentally posted an article from the New York Times about the unemployment rate in California. It is from YNet News.

http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3778526,00.html

Why Everyone is Saying No to Obama

This is an interesting article that should be read from a foreign affairs perspective.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/19/us/19calif.html?hpw

Embers By Ira Schwartz

On January 20th, 2009, the 44th President of The United States was sworn into office on the lawn of the Capital building in Washington D.C. It was a proud day for most Americans, a day when the strongest democracy in the world elected its first African American president into office. For most of us this was a day long in coming. For most of us we hoped that the fires of racial hatred would finally be suppressed even if it was for a little while. Well that “little while” lasted a bit over eight months.

On Tuesday, September 15th, former President Jimmy Carter told NBC News “I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man.” With that one statement the dying embers that had been smoldering just beneath the surface of this country for so long had been brought back to life. Reaction was immediate.

Mike Steele, Chairman of the RNC who is African American, responded:

"President Carter is flat out wrong. This isn't about race. It is about policy.” He continued, “Injecting race into the debate over critical issues facing American families doesn't create jobs, reform our health care system or reduce the growing deficit. It only divides Americans rather than uniting us to find solutions to challenges facing our nation. Characterizing Americans' disapproval of President Obama's policies as being based on race is an outrage and a troubling sign.”

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich told FOX News that it is "very destructive for America to suggest that we can't criticize a president without it being a racial act."

And as much as it pains me to say this, Newt is right. We have come a long way from those days in the sixties where smiling police turned fire hoses on black demonstrators. Where African Americans were forced to sit in the back of the bus or drink from a “Black Only” water fountain. Even though we’ve come a long way in dealing with racial prejudice, this incident also shows us we still have a long way to go. And to think that an African American President could get through his term in office without the ignorant rant of racism rearing its ugly head was a bit naïve on our part.

On the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, on that hot August day back in 1963 Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke to crowd composed of both African American and white listeners. In it he said, “I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."

Most of us are still waiting for that day to happen. Most of us realize that day is much closer now than it was back in the 60’s or 70’s. So far the 44th President of the United States has handled these outbursts with dignity and intelligence. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters, “The president does not believe that criticism comes based on the color of his skin.” End of story from his point of view, time to move on. But where do we move on to from here?

So far the fires of racial hatred are small, slightly more than embers but it wouldn’t take much to cause those embers to flare up and incinerate all the progress that has been accomplished in the last 45 years. Just look at the Los Angeles riots in 1992 that started over the Rodney King affair as an example. That’s why all of us need to be alert to racism where ever it rears its ugly head. Like a cancer in our society it needs to be eradicated before it has a chance to grow. We’re supposed to be better than this; if not we sure as hell should be.

©2009 by Ira Schwartz

The Ideology of a Liberal

Since the health care debate has wound down a little as a result of President Obama’s speech on Wednesday which, by the way, was pure rhetoric and seen by the General Public and pundits as a failure because of its lack of new ideas and detail, I have decided to tackle a subject other than health care reform in this article. What makes a liberal tick? Why are there such major differences between the two parties in this country?

The other day I was playing on Facebook and saw a number of posts from my liberal friends regarding health care. The comments posted were all similar. No one should go without health care in this country and no one should go broke because they got sick. Why only liberals would post this amazes me, because there are not too many people in the world that disagree. However, it is just not that simple.

In response, I posted a few comments. The majority of them were along the line of “Yes, I agree too, but who is going to pay for it and how is it going to work?” Almost universally, the liberal responses were either “The Rich,” or “Bring the Troops Back from Iraq and Afghanistan.” I then realized that most thinking from Liberals is not based upon logic. In fact, from these responses, it appears liberal thinking is idealist and based upon emotion. This has been argued in the past by both Ann Coulter and Dennis Prager among others. I now agree.

Whether you agree with the War on Terror is not the issue. The troops are committed. You cannot simply bring them back. To think bringing them back can be accomplished overnight is not to think realistically. You must leave them there as long as necessary to accomplish your goals or to train the local military to do it themselves. In Iraq because of the surge, this is quickly happening. In Afghanistan, it is a different story.

The Afghanistan situation is beginning to look like Vietnam. Either we make the commitment to beat the Taliban or we will be involved in a war of attrition which cannot be won. President Obama must take the steps necessary to accomplish the goal. Anything short of that will give the Taliban and Al Qaeda the foothold they need to take over the Afghanistan government again and to possibly move on Pakistan to get control of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. This is unacceptable.

The second response “The Rich” is also idealistic. How much more taxation do you think the rich are going to take before they completely revolt? The middle class and blue collar workers at the Tea Parties on Saturday show that they are fed up. And, they are not paying nearly as much of their income as the rich. If you add another 5% to the marginal tax rate as proposed in HR 3200, most of The Rich will be paying almost 50% of their income in taxes before state income taxes are even considered. In California and New York, that is more than 10%. (This analysis includes sales taxes, property taxes, luxury taxes, etc., as well as income taxes and other income withholding). And, you wonder why people are leaving California for Nevada, Arizona, Washington and other low tax states by the thousands. People; rich, middle class or poor, will just not tolerate more.

As shown by the previous examples, both responses given me last week by the liberals are just not realistic. They are based upon emotion. There is no logic behind them. Hence we have the major difference. Conservatives think logically and based upon the reality seen in facts and figures. Liberals think emotionally and from idealistic goals and ambitions. The two do not mix.

Let us examine a few other examples:

What about the current Administration’s outlook on foreign affairs? President Obama, during his campaign, said that he would talk and negotiate with the radicals in Iran, Venezuela and North Korea. Since he has become President, what has this policy gotten him; nothing. Iran continues its nuclear ambitions unabated. Venezuela continues poking its nose at the United States and its President. And, North Korea does whatever it wants and will soon, not only have nuclear weapons, but will also have missiles capable of delivering them.

Most recently, the tape from Osama Bin Laden is just another example of the failure of President’s Obama’s policy. After his speech in Egypt, everyone on the left believed the Radical Moslems would change their attitude towards the United States. All one has to do is listen to Bin Laden’s tape released in the last two days to realize that the emotional based thinking of the left is a far cry from the realism of the situation.

In the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, the President says that Israel should cease building settlements. The Prime Minister of Israel agrees in principle provided that the Palestinians agree to recognize Israel’s right to exist. The Palestinians say ‘no’ and Israel continues its expansion into the West Bank. Another failure of idealism on the Administration’s part

Those that truly understand foreign affairs could have predicted these outcomes. Learning from the past and the use of logic as done by conservatives, works. The emotion and idealism of the left does not. The Left’s desire for everything to be right and for everything to be fair controls their policy. Unfortunately, this is not reality. And, hopefully, President Obama is beginning to get it now too. All evidence however is to the contrary.

The same is true with “Cap and Trade” and Health Care Reform. Both liberal positions are based upon idealism and emotion. Everyone would like to lower carbon emissions and make the environment a better place. Everyone would love universal health care. But, the fact of the matter is that “Cap and Trade” will cause many businesses in this country to fail and for those that do not fail, there will be many lost jobs. The realism behind Health Care Reform or any of the plans under consideration by Congress now would bankrupt the country. There is no plan that is revenue neutral at this point.

In all of these situations, the liberal agenda is fueled by idealism and emotion. Maybe, if liberals started thinking logically and based upon the realities of the world, there would be less partisanship in Congress and more could be accomplished. Emotion is no way to govern this or any other country.

© 2009 by Frank T. DeMartini. Permission to be copied will be freely granted upon request.

Obama's Rhetoric vs. Common Sense

Obama's Rhetoric vs. Common Sense

Shared via AddThis

Hallowed Ground by Ira Schwartz

It was a crisp, clear September morning in New York City, the kind of morning most New Yorkers looked forward to as they perspired through the heat and humidity of August. Millions of people settled in for a normal day at work; millions of people went about their daily routine never realizing that today, Tuesday, September 11th, 2001 would be the day America was changed forever.

At 8:46 am, the normal hustle and bustle of rush hour in downtown New York came to a horrifying stop as American Airlines flight 11 crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade center. Seventeen minutes later, at 9:03, United Airlines flight 175 slammed into the South Tower. Minutes later hundreds of emergency personnel responded to the calls for help.

While the drama in New York unfolded on National Television a second American Airlines Flight #77 dove into the pentagon at 9:37 am and 26 minutes later at 10:03 am a fourth airliner, United Flight 93, crashed into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Several days after the attacks it was confirmed that passengers aboard Flight 93 tried to regain control of the aircraft from the terrorists and if the plane hadn’t crashed it was destined to hit the White House. By 10:30 am all the attacks were over and both towers of the World Trade Center were piles of burning debris. An hour later all commercial aircraft flying over the United States had been grounded and fighters patrolled our skies. Twenty five days later we would be at war in Afghanistan.

It would take several years before the world would know the full cost of this cowardly attack. 2,751 innocent fathers, mothers, daughters, sons, wives and husbands were killed at the World Trade center. Among those were 343 firefighters and 60 NYPD and Port Authority police who ran into the building to save people’s lives. 184 died at the pentagon crash site and another 40 perished in that field in Pennsylvania.

If the terrorists that planned this attack thought the United States would simply roll over and cower under a rock as a result of 911 they, like many before them, were making a terrible mistake. The Germans and Japanese made the same mistake in World War II; Muammar Gaddafi did it in the Gulf of Sidra in 1986; Saddam Hussein did it when he invaded Kuwait in 1990 and now it’s Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah's turn. Many say the United States simply does not understand the people of the Middle East. I say it is the Middle Eastern countries that fail to understand the people of the United States. Americans can scream and yell at each other, even severely criticize their leaders but when you threaten us we unite as one behind our government.

When Admiral Yamamoto wrote those now famous words after the attack on Pearl Harbor, "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve" the rest of the world should have been listening. If they had a lot of innocent people might be alive today. If they had we wouldn’t be entrenched in a war to ferret out the nest of rats that planned this cowardly attack. But these cowards will be found and they will be brought to justice. But they also need to be made an example for the rest of the world to see; a warning that if you mess with the United States or its people we will find you and you will be punished.

After the attack on the World Trade Center New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said “Tomorrow New York is going to be here. And we're going to rebuild, and we're going to be stronger than we were before... I want the people of New York to be an example to the rest of the country, and the rest of the world, that terrorism can't stop us.” I hope this time the rest of the world is listening.

In Memoriam 9/11/2001
May they all rest in peace and May We Never Forget

©2009 by Ira Schwartz

D-Day for Health Care Reform?

Congress is back in session after its hot and grueling August recess. More than a few of its members were drilled incessantly by citizens upset about the pending passage of HR 3200 and/or its progeny. Tomorrow, President Obama will address the nation on health care reform. It will be his final pitch to the country in hopes that he can regain his splendor with the American public which has been fairly tarnished over the whole issue.

Yesterday, the Los Angeles Times ran an article entitled, “Obama is Fast Losing White Voters’ Support.” http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-politics7-2009sep07,0,7305762.story In that article, the Times states that “Strategists in both parties blame Obama's decline on growing discontent with his policy agenda, particularly after a month of often-rowdy debate over his proposed healthcare overhaul, in which some conservatives accused him of socialism.” What else can this plan be called? In this column, we have torn apart HR 3200 in many ways. And, above all else, when the plan is carefully reviewed it is socialist.

In his speech tomorrow, Obama will make a plea to the people of America that the plan is necessary and should be supported by all. It should not be a Republican and/or Democratic issue. It is an American problem that needs to be addressed. As I have said in this column before, we all agree on that. However, we cannot agree to the President and Congress’ current plan.

In the last few days, a couple of new proposals have been introduced. One of these is that the President is willing to take the public option off of the table. This is a good start. But, to have some sort of trigger in the bill which would initiate a public option if some level of events happen or do not happen is ridiculous. Who is going to judge whether the trigger has occurred? Which Presidential Czar will be in charge of that? (I am just assuming there will be another Czar since that seems to be Obama’s answer to everything despite recent problems caused by them addressed below.)

Another option being put on the table is to tax so called “Cadillac” plans which are the crème of the crop in medical plans. These are usually plans held by top executives at major corporations. Taxing these may make a lot of sense if we must tax something to pay for this onslaught on taxpayer money. However, will that include taxing Congress’ plan as well? I do not know how else to describe Congress’ plan other than to say it is a true Cadillac plan. If Congress agrees to such a tax, I am sure top executives would agree as well. Are not the Democrats the ones wanting to make the playing field level all the time?

The Senate Finance Committee is working on what would be the first true bipartisan plan right now. As reported by Fox.com, the plan would include penalties for those who do not get insurance depending on income level and family size. It would also be the first mandatory plan in the same vein that Auto Insurance is mandatory in many states. However, it would not include a public option at all. In its place, the plan would include non-profit cooperatives (whatever the hell they are).

If this plan addresses all of the issues I addressed in my prior article I can see it being something that that Republican Party can get behind. Let’s just hope so.

Van Jones! Now, there’s a name I am sure President Obama would like to soon forget. Talk about a major screw up on the Administration’s part. Here is a man that is a self-avowed Communist; signed a petition which alleged that that Bush Administration was behind 9/11; referred to Republican’s as “assholes” within the last six months; and stated that “Black Students would never do a Columbine.” I wonder what vetting process the Obama Administration did on Mr. Jones. It took all of about ten days for Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity to out this guy.

The result of Beck and Hannity’s research was obvious. Van Jones had to go. But, he resigned and was not fired. Why? The Obama Administration is still standing behind him even though all the evidence showed this man should have never even been appointed. His resignation letter cited a “vicious smear campaign against me” as his major reason for resigning. Come on. Who is he kidding?

Did the Obama Administration vet him at all? Did they know about his past? Did they agree with his past? Or, was it just extreme ineptitude on the Administration’s part? All of these choices have scary consequences? I guess admitting they screwed up was the least damaging.

But, what about Obama’s other Czars? Have they all been properly vetted? Or, are there other potential problems lurking in the background to haunt the Administration? Are the potential problems with John Holdrum and Cass Sunstein enough to have them resign as well? Holdrum seems to advocate certain population control policies that would be opposed to a majority of the American populace. And, Sunstein believes that animals should be permitted to sue humans. (I admit this is a bit ridiculous, but do we want this guy that close to the President of the United States).

This all brings to mind major problems with the whole process of appointing Presidential Advisors. Should these advisors who obviously have the President’s ear be required to be approved by the Senate? Thus far, the answer has been no as only Cabinet Posts and other higher government positions require the “advise and consent” of the Senate. Maybe, that should be changed. Maybe, all of the Czars should be approved by the Senate. I am sure the Senate’s vetting process would have discovered the problems with Van Jones and possibly John Holdrum and Cass Sunstein as well. The Senate process did put an end to a few of Obama’s earlier nominees, including those nominated for a few Cabinet posts.

In closing, let us see how the President’s performance tomorrow is viewed by the American public. Is this the D-Day for Healthcare or just the beginning of what will be a long, hard debate?

© 2009 by Frank T. DeMartini. Permission to copy will be freely granted upon request.

Why Can’t Conservative Sign onto the Democrat’s Plan?

It is now the dog days of summer and Congress is about to go back to work. The Groundsell by the Democrats during the month of August was a complete failure. President Obama’s approval numbers are on a steady downward slide. And yet, the Democrats insist on passing this Obamanation that is more commonly known as HR 3200.

The President has just announced that he will try a more formal sell to Congress on September 9. Will this work more than the last press conference in which he appeared to have no idea what he was trying to sell? Will it be more successful than his appeal to religious leaders last week? Or, will this be the final death knell in the partisan attempt at Health Care Reform? Only time will tell.

However, the tide has definitely turned against the Democrats. More than 50% of the country on the whole and in some parts of the electorate, way more than 50% are against the current bill and its companion bills both in the House and Senate. Why? Because, Republicans and even moderate Democrats cannot stomach what is contained in them.

My last article was about the need for bipartisanship and debate in Congress. I still feel that way but I do not see it happening. In fact, both sides are digging their heals into the sand and getting ready for the tug of war. At this point, it is not about whose solution is better; it seems to be about which side will win.

HR 3200 and its progeny are disasters. It seems that everyone except the far left agrees on this. I will not get into the death panel issue as it was carefully analyzed by my friend Ira in an earlier column, but I will get into certain other issues that I feel are wrong with the bills and why almost the entire populace is rallying against them.

To begin with, the public option has to go. All moderates and conservatives agree. It is bad public policy and it is bad for America. The minute you put the public option into play, all private insurance companies will be driven out of business and we will have socialized health care which is the goal of the far left anyway. Once we have socialized health care, the parade of horribles begins. This includes rationing of health care, lack of choice and skyrocketing taxes.

However, if you regulate the current insurance industry, you will promote competition in the private sector and drive down prices. This is the whole theory behind the anti-trust laws in the United States. (By the way, regulation, however bad it is for the free market is better than the alternative). The more competitive the private sector becomes, the lower the cost of health insurance will be. Further, if you compel the entire population to become insured either through better tax credits for individuals and/or employers, regular market forces will naturally drive down the cost of insurance.

Secondly, abortion must be specifically excluded from any proposed legislation. The general public must not be forced to fund an elective procedure. Say what you will about your stance on abortion, but it is an elective procedure unless the health of the mother is in jeopardy. Then, it is a medical necessity and it is a whole different ball game.

President Obama, during his appeal to the religious community last week, contacted Catholic Bishops and Leaders. He impressed upon them the need for Health Care Reform. They unilaterally rejected his pleas. Why? Because, of the abortion issue. The entire Catholic community believes that health care for everyone is a basic human right. However, until the abortion issue is addressed, neither the Catholic Church, nor any other conservative religious organization is going to lobby their followers for Obamacare.

Just as an aside, Obama is beginning to show how much of an old fashioned politician he really is. He ran on the basis of change. During the campaign, he argued that America is no longer a Christian nation and that people cling to their religion when they are unhappy about their lives. Now, that he needs religion to help his cause, he goes running to religion. This is not change. He is a hypocrite!

The next issue is very controversial and, unfortunately, it is also a monetary one. Public money in any way, shape or form, must not be used to fund medical care for illegal immigrants. I know people from the far left are going to call me a racist and a heartless bastard. Believe me, I am not. But, if we are going to bankrupt this country with this level of major health care reform, it should only be for legal, taxpaying citizens and those holding valid visas.

I am not saying that someone lying on the street bleeding to death should not receive emergency treatment because they are illegally here. The law already states that everyone with a true emergency must be treated. All I am saying is that basic health care that is not a true emergency should not be afforded to illegal aliens. They are many people in this country that have come here properly. They should be entitled to the benefits of citizens. The rest should not.

Fourth, a plan must be developed that is revenue neutral. We cannot mortgage our children’s future any longer. If no one can come up with a way to pay for this plan without destroying the economy in the process, then there should be no plan at all. Some of the top minds in this country are in Washington right now trying to put a plan together. Let them find a way to fund it without it increasing the debt by over one trillion dollars in the next ten years.

Lastly, there should be no tax penalty for employers who do not want to provide health insurance and individuals who do not want to be insured. If a company provides health insurance, there should be tax benefits for providing it. There should be no penalty for not doing so. If an individual does not want insurance, that is a personal choice. There are many people under 30 who simply do not want to be covered. Likewise, there are many rich people that would rather be self insured and pay the medical bills themselves.

I keep hearing from many sources that the Republicans have no solutions and are just trying to kill health reform to put Obama to shame. That is not true. There are many Republican points on health care that are frankly, just being ignored by the Democrats. Among them are Tort Reform to lower medical malpractice premiums and bring medical costs down; and better tax benefits for health insurance at both the employer and individual level.

Let the Democratic Congress deal with the issues set forth herein and a bipartisan bill will be enacted. If they do not and decide to continue going it alone, the effects of that will be felt by them in 2010. Of course, that might not be all that bad. The Republicans will get control of the House and Senate again!

© 2009 by Frank T. DeMartini. Permission to copy will be granted freely upon request.