National Security and Energy Independence by Michael Cochrane

The term, “national security” has come to be synonymous with national defense. But given the geography of the United States, it’s unlikely we would ever need to use our defense forces to secure the homeland from an invading army. National security really has more to do with the protection of those critical infrastructures the loss or degradation of which would place the country in a position of economic and military vulnerability. These infrastructures include:

o Banking and Finance: The nation’s banking system and securities exchanges as well as the public confidence in this system

o Transportation: Road, rail and waterway networks, airports and seaports

o Power: Electrical power generation, transformation and distribution, pipelines for natural gas and oil

o Public Works: Reservoirs, aqueducts, wastewater treatment plants and drainage systems

o Communication: Radio and television networks, satellite networks, computer networks, the internet

Of these critical infrastructures, I would argue that power, or energy production and distribution, is the most sensitive to disruption; not just from physical attack, but because the very sources of energy we rely upon are largely imported from politically and socially unstable regions of the world. For this reason, I believe the United States’ national security is increasingly tied to its energy security.

In the pre-industrial age – before the rise of steam power, gasoline engines and electricity, communities and entire societies were based on an agricultural foundation. Fuel was primarily associated with wood for cooking and heating fires and to generate heat for basic ore smelting and metalworking. This fact of history was brought home to me when we lived in England during the 1980s. The rolling green countryside of central England had once been covered in dense, deciduous forest. By the 20th century, after thousands of years of human habitation, most of these vast forests had disappeared; the trees having been cleared for farming and grazing land, and subsequently used for fuel and building material.

Today, in a post-industrial world, all the technologies we rely upon for everything from food to shelter to transportation, depend on energy. Securing stable sources of energy has now become a key objective of our national security strategy. Despite all the technological advances in the last century, our primary sources of energy in this country remain fossil fuels: coal, oil, and natural gas. According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), as a result of a combination of declining oil production and increasing demand, net US imports of oil and petroleum products increased by 400% from 3.16 million barrels per day in 1970 to 12.04 million barrels per day in 2007. The largest net suppliers of oil and petroleum products to the US are Canada and Mexico, which supply about 30% of the US daily oil demand. Another 28% of this demand is supplied by other countries, including OPEC nations such as Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. This means that the US domestic production supplies only about 42% of our own oil demand.

According to the EIA, about 86% of the coal mined in the US is used for the production of electricity. Coal plants account for 52% of the electricity generated in the United States. Unlike oil, the US is actually a net exporter of coal, so the situation is not nearly as dire. Coal reserves are estimated to be sufficient to last for hundreds of years at current rates of consumption.

The only other existing source of energy for the production of electricity (other than hydroelectric power) is nuclear energy, which provides 19% of the electric power in the US. Nuclear power, while a relatively untapped source of clean energy (nuclear energy comprises only 14% of the world’s electricity production), spent nuclear fuel is highly radioactive and extremely hazardous. Transport and long term storage of nuclear waste is fraught with controversy.

But the point of this article is that US energy supplies are a critical strategic vulnerability for the future security of the country. We know that fossil fuels will become increasingly more expensive to extract, and will eventually be depleted altogether. No new petroleum refineries have been built in the United States for decades, and the existing refineries are operating at near peak capacity. Nuclear energy is unpopular, highly regulated and as a result, new reactors are slow to come on line.

The solution is energy independence. To the degree we can become free of dependence on external sources of fuel we also free ourselves from the threat of being held captive by petroleum supplying nations or cartels who clearly could care less about the economic well being of the United States. Those who are old enough to remember the days of the OPEC oil embargo in the early 1970s realize the potential devastation that might be wreaked on this nation in the event of a major disruption in oil supplies. And that embargo occurred at the point of America’s peak domestic oil production! We have since become embarrassingly dependent on oil imports to fuel our economy.

This need for secure, stable and environmentally friendly sources of energy is so vital to our national security that this country should invest in a national research and development program on the scale of the Apollo project of the 1960s. Such a program’s goal would be nothing less than the invention and development of next generation energy technology, whether that be nuclear fusion, electrical storage technology (batteries) or significant advances in solar, or other sources of renewable energy supply. In the meantime, all efforts should be made to exploit the reserves of oil, coal and natural gas that exist within our borders, whether they are in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or off our nation’s coasts.

The technology for extracting fossil fuels with a minimum of environmental disruption exists today. Contrary to the assertions of environmental lobbies, this is not an “either/or” situation. It is possible to shift the production of energy back to a domestic basis while at the same time driving toward the next generation solution. As a nation, we should accept that the goal of achieving independence from fossil fuels will involve a period in which we simultaneously cushion ourselves from disruptions in external sources of supply while we wean ourselves from oil. This cushion is necessary. Neither should we hamstring ourselves with the needless burden of cap and trade regulations, the outgrowth of a completely fabricated global climate “emergency”.

Those critics of President Bush, who accused him of waging a “war for oil” may not have been that far off the mark. The middle east would likely not be such a strategically significant part of the world for America were it not for the fact that is currently in our national interest to ensure middle east oil supplies continue to remain on the open market. That’s a reality we must live with. Imagine what it would be like if we didn’t have to.

© 2009 by Michael Cochrane. Used with permission. All rights reserved.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights by Craig Covello

I was at the hospital earlier this week for a meeting with some folks in ICU regarding a new technology we are piloting.  Walking back to my motorcycle after the meeting, I nodded to a black security guard in the parking lot with the expectation that he might disapprove of my self-made parking space at the end of the isle.  Instead, the gentleman said hello with a distinctly foreign accent.  We managed to strike up a conversation in which he shared something about his background and politics.

He grew up in small county in Africa, lived in London for about 10 years and finally settled as a legal immigrant in the U.S about 8 years ago.  I asked him what he thought of the current political climate and without hesitation he expressed deep concern that America was changing for the worse. He believed that most of the people in the world look to to our country as "heaven."  It is considered as a place to escape oppression and embrace freedom.  He liked America's values while recognizing some of its faults.  But those faults paled in comparison to America's virtues.  He was glad to be here, but worried that if American freedom is lost to the radical left, there would be no place left to go.

In one respect, his comments were heartwarming, but his concerns were also a little chilling.  In a nutshell, his focus was about freedom and innate rights.  Rights to express your own opinion.  Rights to raise a family without government intervention.  Rights to make your own decisions and go your own way.  Rights to believe in God without being persecuted.  Rights to make an honest living with the possibility of greater financial success.  Rights to keep your own property.  Some would call these Human Rights.

A little history....On December 10, 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  The U.N. Assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories."  Whether I agreed with the charter of the United Nations, I thought it might be interesting to review all 30 articles in this declaration and compare them with the current policies, statements and actions of the Obama administration.  Not surprisingly, I found our current leadership's vision at odds with about 25% of these declarations.  Areas of contention included -

1.  The UN's prohibition on involuntary servitude vs. the US's excessive taxation, unsustainable debt, discussion of compulsory public non-military service and unfunded government mandates.

2.  The UN's belief in personal privacy vs. Senator John Rockefeller’s Internet Bill S.773, which gives the Secretary of Commerce access to all privately owned information networks.

3.  The UN's support of the family as a "natural and fundamental group unit of society" vs. Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) recent actions urging his fellow lawmakers to consider a repeal of a 1996 law that defines marriage as union of one man and one woman.

4.  The UN's belief in personal property ownership vs. Obama's advocacy of wealth redistribution.

5.  The UN's belief in freedom of opinion and expression vs. the White Houses attack on Fox News, talk radio and the US Chamber of Commerce.

6.  The UN's prohibition on forced membership in associations vs. the proposed US "Employee Free Choice Act" which can make unionization votes public and allow supervisor to join union ranks.

7.  The UN's belief that higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit vs. the US Affirmative Action legislation.

8.  The UN's belief that parents have the right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children vs. the radical left's overwhelming influence over public schools. Case in point - Obama's appointment of Kevin Jennings as "safe school czar who is on record as supporting Harry Hay of the North American Association for Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).

These represent some of my conclusions, but I encourage you to read all 30 articles for yourself.  You may have a different interpretation that thankfully can still be expressed on the internet without fear of government retribution.  That's why my friend from Africa lives here.  Let's hope he does not have to move again.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
 
Copyright 2009 by Craig Covello.  All rights reserved.  Used by Permission.

SAG and The Independent

A few months ago I wrote a column about the effect IATSE’s wage increase in Michigan would have on future production in Michigan. Just recently, the company I have my first look deal with decided to produce another picture in Michigan and was informed my column made it impossible for IATSE to negotiate or help us in any way. They basically said this is the deal, take it or leave it if you want to shoot here; your employee ruined it for you.

My company then proceeded to disavow any knowledge of my column and said that what I write is of my own doing and not the policy of the company. This is true. It is my own doing. No one tells me what to write or censors my editorial content.

I still believe IATSE is harming the burgeoning film industry in Michigan. I believe that if IATSE was doing the right thing in Michigan, the state of Michigan would be putting all of the other tax incentive states out of business. Producers would be running there in droves.

Unions are supposed to be the mechanism to level the playing field for the working man. Their job is to protect the working man from “the man,” and to keep their members employed fairly. Isn’t employment what unions are really all about: Especially now when unemployment is so rampant all over the United States particularly in Michigan and California. You would think the unions would be bending over backwards to work with “the man” in a mutually beneficial situation. Let us all do whatever is necessary to keep employment in the United States; not Eastern Europe or Asia.

Unfortunately, this is not the case with IATSE in Michigan and with the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) anywhere. SAG does their best to stop movies from being made instead of helping the independent producer hire their mass of unemployed.

I will now give some examples of how SAG harms the independent. My first look deal is with Nu Image, Inc., one of, if not largest independent production companies in the business. In the last 10 years, this company has produced more than 150 films ranging in size from one million dollars to sixty million dollars. It has employed more than 1,000 actors; the majority of which are members of SAG.

Does SAG do anything to make life easier for this company? No. SAG does everything in their power to stop this company from making movies. In fact, over the past ten years, there have been many incidents where this company has had to threaten to shut a movie down and sue SAG in order to get any cooperation whatsoever.

This is a company that employs, pay actors millions of dollars and pays residuals to actors on a regular basis. Can you tell me one true independent that has been doing this since 1992? Probably not!

Just last week, Nu Image was about to shoot a thirty million dollar film and was held hostage the day before principal photography was to start over a dispute regarding the SAG Bond which is a “guarantee” that actors will be paid. SAG insisted on a bond in the approximate amount of $400,000 which was based upon erroneous SAG employment figures provided by the production staff on location. SAG did not care. They were going to call actors’ agents and shut the movie down the day before it was scheduled to start. The matter was resolved at the twenty-fourth hour, but not before threats were made from both sides that almost put the picture in jeopardy. At one point, a SAG employee told us, well if a production employee provided erroneous figures, you should fire him/her. Is this the way a union represents workers?

Another nightmare for the independent producer is the SAG security interest which is a lien on the film’s copyright for the life of the copyright. The theory behind this is to protect the actors against unscrupulous producers failing to pay residuals. Fine. It makes sense for one-off producers or producers with a bad reputation. But, is it necessary for a major independent production company with a history of paying residuals? Why must SAG demand cash - which is desperately needed to fund the production – be removed from the budget to pay SAG deposits? Why must the threats go back and forth every time any request is made?

Then after all of the stress with SAG during production, the independent must beg for the return of the SAG Bond after it has paid the actors in full. As you already know, this amount of cash can be substantial and for smaller companies is actually needed to complete the movie. Thank God, Nu Image has the capability to complete movies without this money. I have heard horror stories from other companies where the SAG bond has caused foreclosure on loans and investor liens because sometimes they will just not return it. Sometimes they unilaterally convert it to a residuals bond to guarantee the payment of residuals. Doesn’t that amount to conversion?

Sometimes the reason given for its non-return is absolutely asinine. For example, SAG has a document that must be completed on every film to show minority hiring. You must show the number of females and people of color hired by the production. This form is a survey and nothing more. There are no quotas in the SAG system and a producer may hire whoever they choose. However, if this form is not filed by the producer, the bond is not returned. The same is true of every piece of paper that SAG employees have on their checklist. No one will think out of the box. No one will pull the trigger and give the money back until this checklist is complete.

And, no one will give the money back with any interest that matters. Back in the day when CD’s were paying 4-5%, SAG was paying 1.5% or less on the bond. I’m sure now they are holding money in some cases for more than a year and paying 0% interest. I wonder what they do with the money they earn?

Lastly, the SAG arbitration system must be discussed. Talk about an uneven playing field! Prior to producing films, I was an entertainment attorney. In all, I have been in the business for 25 years give or take. During that time, I have not seen one SAG arbitration ruled in favor of the producer. In fact, some arbitrators on the SAG list have never ruled in favor of management. I can think of a few names that are on my strike list just because of personal experiences.

In one circumstance, a former SAG Board member, Seymour Cassel was hired by a company that I was involved with. Mr. Cassel, being on the SAG Board forced the union to pursue a grievance on his behalf. That matter was fairly simple. He believed he had a two week guarantee of employment and the employer felt there was no guarantee and paid him for the one week he actually worked.

The matter went to arbitration and Mr. Cassel won. He was given the second week. It seems like it should have been a swearing contest and the arbitrator just chose to believe the representatives of Mr. Cassel. Sorry, nope.

It was much more complicated than that. Mr. Cassel had actually signed both a SAG deal memo and a long form agreement, neither of which mentioned anything about a guarantee. In fact, they specifically stated there was no guarantee. But, there was an interoffice memo from Mr. Cassel’s agent that said the deal was for a two week guarantee. This document was not signed by anybody. In legal parlance, it not only was pure hearsay, but it violated the merger rule. It should not even have been entered into evidence.

This did not matter to the arbitrator, he ruled for Mr. Cassel based upon the interoffice memo.

By the way, Mr. Cassel was just thrown off the SAG Board last week for “conduct unbecoming a member,” and his membership was suspended. (Daily Variety – October 20, 2009). In the Daily Variety article, it stated that Mr. Cassel was considering filing for “financial core” status which would permit him to work on union and non-union films during the course of his suspension.

“Financial Core” is a really interesting animal. It is based upon a Supreme Court decision (Communications Workers of America v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988)) in which a union member sued the union because he did not want to be associated with the Union’s political lobbying activities. The Supreme Court found for the union member and stated that no one could be obligated to pay for the political positions of the union. They only had to be obligated to pay union dues for the “financial core” of the union.

Based on this Supreme Court ruling, any member of any union in the country can go “Financial Core.” All it requires is that they write a one sentence letter to their union stating that they have elected Financial Core membership. A “Financial Core” member of any union is still covered by all union benefits such as pension, health and welfare. They can then work on all union and non-union movies without being subject to any penalty from the union at all. The only things a “Financial Core” member of a union cannot do is vote in union elections or hold elected positions within the union.

Personally I am amazed that droves of actors, directors, writers and crew members have not chosen Financial Core membership. Maybe it’s because the unions all try to keep it a total secret and will do almost anything to avoid their members becoming aware of its benefits. Imagine – union members being able to decide for themselves who they will work for and under what conditions. It would mean they have to be treated as adults - not obedient children by their unions! It would certainly make life easier for independent producers and allow them to spend their hard won cash on making movies not paying for union bureaucracies. Maybe Seymour Cassel will start a trend – who knows! It may even help the employment situation for actors and all member of the entertainment industry. After all, isn’t that what we need to end this recession; more employment!

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

Dismantling America (OneNewsNow.com)

Here is an interesting article about Obama's policies and his ideas for "Change in America". I hope you like.


Dismantling America (OneNewsNow.com)

"When Pigs Fly" by Ira Schwartz

Senator John Rockefeller’s Internet Bill S.773 has been winding its way around Capitol Hill for the last few months. Below is the Governments brief description of the bill.

“A bill to ensure the continued free flow of commerce within the United States and with its global trading partners through secure cyber communications, to provide for the continued development and exploitation of the Internet and intranet communications for such purposes, to provide for the development of a cadre of information technology specialists to improve and maintain effective cyber security defenses against disruption, and for other purposes.

The Bill directs the Secretary of Commerce to develop or coordinate a national licensing, certification, and recertification program for cyber security professionals and makes it unlawful to provide certain cyber security services without being licensed and certified. Requires Advisory Panel approval for renewal or modification of a contract related to the operation of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority. Requires development of a strategy to implement a secure domain name addressing system. Requires the National Science Foundation (NSF) to support specified types of research and to establish a program of grants to higher education institutions to establish cyber security test beds.”

You got all that…good. Now if all that doesn’t upset you this will. S 773 also allows the Secretary of Commerce access to all privately owned information networks deemed to be critical to the nation's infrastructure "without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy restricting such access."

In other words it allows our government free access to all information, private or public, available over the internet, secure or unsecure, whenever “they” deem it necessary regardless of how many laws they are breaking and regardless of the constitution. An internet “Get out of jail for free” card that never expires.

Leslie Harris, president of the Center for Democracy and Technology, said, "The cyber security threat is real. But such a drastic federal intervention in private communications technology and networks could harm both security and privacy."

S 773 basically says the President has the authority, in the event of a cyber attack, to disconnect "critical infrastructure" networks from the Internet – including private citizens' banks and health records. The problem is the bill fails to explain what exactly a “cyber attack” is.

Also the bill give the Department of Commerce the authority to monitor private information networks deemed a part of the "critical infrastructure. The feds get to look through your health and financial records whenever they want to without a warrant. Where’s that Bill of Rights? I know I had it here just a minute ago. I’ll bet the constitutional attorneys are salivating over that one.

Also to be one of the “Cyber Security Professionals” you will have to be licensed by the Government. Sure why not…lets just give all the keys to the chicken coop to the wolves. And while we’re at it lets create “another government agency” and name another “czar” to run it. We’ll just print more money to pay for it…or is it borrow more money from China, Medicare or Social Security.

Larry Seltzer, software developer, who has written articles for such magazines as Fortune Small Business, Windows 2000 Magazine (now Windows and .NET Magazine), ZDNet and Sam Whitmore's Media Survey, said in an interview for eWeek, "The whole thing smells bad to me. I don't like the chances of the government improving this situation by taking it over generally, and I definitely don't like the idea of politicizing this authority by putting it in the direct control of the president. Let's think about this," continues Seltzer. "I'm especially curious as to how you take the telecommunications networks off of the Internet when they are, in large part, what the Internet is comprised of. And if my bank were taken offline, I would think about going into my branch and asking for all of my deposits in cash."

P.S. So would I.

According to the Center for Democracy and Technologies senior counsel, Greg Nojeim, in an interview with” Mother Jones”, “This bill would undermine the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA). That law, (ECPA) enacted in the mid '80s, requires law enforcement seek a warrant before tapping in to data transmissions between computers.” OOPPSS…How convenient.

Over the last 30 years the internet has become an integral source of communication and information for the whole world. When China suppresses sections of the internet we are quick to scream about “human rights” violations yet right now in our own backyard our representatives are preparing to do the same thing under the guise of security.

I know I’ve used this quote from Ben Franklin before but we seem to have the need to constantly be reminded of this. “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

A few years ago a legislator, who requested the reporter not use his name, was asked about the possibility of the government placing restrictions on the internet. The legislator chuckled then responded, “Yeah right Son, when pigs fly.”

What’s that flapping sound I hear?

© 2009 by Ira Schwartz. Printed with permission of the author.

Intangible Added Value by Craig Covello

Here is a short articles written by Craig Covello that I found very interesting.  Let me know what you think.

Intangible Added Value

A liberal friend of mine posted to Facebook what he considered to be an interesting and entertaining speech. It was made by Rory Sutherland, who is in advertising and not to be confused with the professional bicycle racer. In fact, Rory is the Executive Creative Director and Vice-Chairman, OgilvyOne London and Vice-Chairman, Ogilvy Group UK. The 15 minute video clip posted on this link was indeed entertaining, as testament by the laughter coming from his live audience. Rory made several assertions about public behavior based upon observations in his long career in advertising, but the over-arching point was rather unsettling. He contends that there are limited resources in the world which require all of us to do with less material things. In order to achieve a reduction in product innovation which fuels consumption, the masses need to be taught to see existing goods and services from a new perspective. A perspective not based in reality or objective analysis, but on spin. He calls this idea "Intangible Added Value", which asserts that you do not need to change the actual product to add value. You simply need to readjust the consumer thought process so that they believe the product has more value than it really does.

It can be argued that politics and advertising are interchangeable at times, so it is natural to view this concept in the context of liberal ideology. Rory's very notion of "Intangible Added Value" is really the celebration and advocacy of manipulating people under the assumption that the majority are stupid and need to be "tricked" into "desired behavior". (As opposed to Bill Maher's philosophy that you will never get popular consensus, so you must "drag them to it!" His words, not mine.) The desired behavior proposed in this clip can be summed up as making do with less without complaining or worse, rioting. But there is more. The clip also purports that perception is more important than reality if the desired objective is met. In this case, the objective is getting people to like something that they normally would reject.

So the next question is obvious. Who decides what people should want? Rory's rather disturbing assertion represents an elitist philosophy that only the few know what is best for the many. Sound familiar? We are to accept that the world's evils come from consumption. We are to accept that the earth cannot sustain us. We should believe that innovation in the tangible, material world is now secondary to advertising spin. Rory contends that it is much easier to change someone's perception than to create something of tangible value. Great stuff, right? We can all move this great nation forward by simply imagining things are good instead of working hard to create something new, something of value. There is only one problem with this. Many of the liberal elite in Washington and the entertainment industry seem to be hooked on consumption. Private jets, multiple homes, fine restaurants, new cars and the best, most innovative health care. These things are born of incentive which fosters innovation and entrepreneurism. Take the incentive away from the masses and these things eventually dry up. So why do the liberal elite think the rest of us should do with less while they continue living what some would term as extravagant lifestyles? Don't they realize that what goes around comes around? Perhaps they feel immune, but if they are wrong, perhaps their potentially diminished lifestyle can be embraced through "intangible value added" perception.

Here is the clip. Come to your own conclusions...

http://www.ted.com/talks/rory_sutherland_life_lessons_from_an_ad_man.html

© 2009 by Craig Covello – All Rights Reserved

Where is California’s Representation?

I have been a California resident for the past 23 years. During that time, I have seen the best of times and worst of times. Prior to this economic disaster, the only serious recession in those 23 years was in 1991-1992. At that time, myself and many others in similar situations faced economic turmoil. However, nothing comes close to what is happening now in what used to be the greatest State in the union.

According to the most recent reports, the unemployment rate in California has reached 12.2%. The rate in Los Angeles County is at 12.7%. Some cities within the county such as Compton and Commerce are over 20%. These are all far worse than the national rate of 9.8%.

What makes these numbers even scarier is that they have not hit rock bottom according to economic estimates at both the state and federal level. In fact, the State Government estimate of a maximum unemployment rate of 12.8% seems like it is going to be topped shortly, probably by early winter. Is it possible that California’s unemployment rate will top the number in 1940 of 14.7% which is the highest recorded on record?

All of these numbers really do not mean anything unless you compare them to other numbers in the country to get a real picture of just how bad things are here right now. The California rate is currently the fourth worst in the country. The only one significantly worse is Michigan at 15.2%. Notice any similarities between the two by the way? Not much except maybe extremely powerful unions in both!

And, on top of all this, the economy is primed to get much worse. When I drive down the streets in Los Angeles, I see nothing but empty storefronts on all major boulevards. Portions of Laurel Canyon Blvd have four to five empty storefronts on each block. Ventura Blvd., Wilshire Blvd., and Sunset Blvd are not fairing much better. And, I am told it is worse in other parts of the state.

According to some reports, the only real estate changing hands here are foreclosures and estate sales. Banks are not even evicting foreclosed owners in some parts of the Inland Empire because they want the house to be saleable when the economy finally does turn around. I mean, who wants to purchase a foreclosed house that has been destroyed by vandals. I know of one particular situation where a family has made no mortgage payments since May, 2007 and is still living in the house free of rent or tax payments.

Are there any solutions to this problem? Is there any quick fix? Or, must we just wait it out in hope that this Great State will make a comeback? I really do not believe any of the Federal Stimulus money will help the California job market. It has done nothing so far except allow some families to survive with the extension of unemployment benefits. It is definitely not helping the ailing real estate or worsening job market. If anything, the excessive federal spending is hurting the economy.

And, what have our representatives in Congress done to help us? Nancy Pelosi does nothing accept cost the US and California jobs with her constant big government, regulatory, liberal agenda. Her support of “Cap and Trade” and HR 3200 will not only effect the US Economy on the whole, but will have a double impact on the state of California. Outsourcing is already a problem here, but it will get much worse if either of these bills become law. In fact, it seems that there is already evidence that California employers are not hiring until the result of both “Cap and Trade” and health care reform are known.

The same goes for Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein. Neither of them are doing anything to support the economy in the state. They are just following the same liberal agenda regardless of how it affects the people of California.

One prime example is that there is not one Congressman representing Californians doing anything to overturn the Federal Order which stopped irrigation in the Sacramento area after it was ruled the necessary irrigation had caused the Delta Smelt, a small fish, to become endangered. This has caused the farming industry in the Sacramento and Fresno area to pretty much come to a standstill and bring the unemployment rate in the area to approximately 17%. In fact, the city of Mendota has an unemployment rate of 41%, the highest in the country. (That’s right 41%. It’s not a typo.)

Comedian Paul Rodriguez, a former Democrat and Obama supporter, whose family are farmers in the area, has left his liberal roots as a result of this fiasco. He has now appeared on Sean Hannity’s show stating that the entire area is in extreme danger. Farms are being lost, unemployment is rampant and people are starving: All to protect a little two inch fish.

And what do our Senators and Representatives in California do about this; again, absolutely nothing. It seems it is more important to protect the Delta Smelt than to protect the people of the Central Valley. Let the people starve and the fish thrive. Who cares if 80,000 people in the area are unemployed? If they can not afford bread, let them eat cake.

That is the whole problem with the current Administration and Congress in Washington and the State Legislature in Sacramento, including the aforementioned Ms. Pelosi, Ms. Boxer, and Ms. Feinstein, as well as, Mr. Waxman, Ms. Waters, Ms. Watson and the favorite of this column, Mr. Dan Lungren. They simply do not care about the people, economy or problems of the State. They care only about the special interest groups that finance and support them.

I am reminded of “Legally Blonde 2” in which Elle’s boss, the Congresswomen, stabbed Elle in the back because a strong campaign financer was against the proposed animal rights bill. It is true whether it be fact or fiction.

In the end, the free market will bring this State back to its former glory provided that the regulators and liberals currently in control, including the Obama Administration and his cabinet, do not destroy it completely. The people of California must rise up against their current so called Representatives and do whatever is necessary to take our government back so that it is a government of the people and for the people, not for the governors!

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

**BREAKING** ACORN Video: Prostitution Scandal in Philadelphia, PA Part I

Here is a new video showing that Acorn lied about the sting in Philadelphia. It is breaking news and was published on Big Government this morning. you shoudl all check it out. If they are lying directly to the media, how many other things are the lying about. And, remember President Obama worked for these people during his ascendency to power.



**BREAKING** ACORN Video: Prostitution Scandal in Philadelphia, PA Part I

Make Mine Freedom

This is a cartoon from 1948 that is getting an awful lot of hits in the past few weeks.  I suggest that you all see it.  It's nine minutes long but it is very prevalent for what is going on with our government right now.  In fact, it's almost scary how much of this is in the news regarding the way our country is being handled by the big government liberals.

Click on the title above and it will take you right to the cartoon on You Tube.

I'm sure you will appreciate it and I would love your comments.

Franky

Poll: Only 34 percent of Californians approve of Pelosi's performance - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

Here is an article I just discovered today that is very interesting.  Does it mean that she is beatable in 2010.  I hope.  I also hope that Barbara Boxer is because I have just started working with Al Ramirez who is seeking the Republican nomination for the Senate.

Poll: Only 34 percent of Californians approve of Pelosi's performance - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

Shared via AddThis

It's Time For Change

As you can all tell, we are currently going through a change of format to make our blog better.  Our internet guru is trying to get the new page totally up and running.  Once it is completely operational, Ira and I will be back to our writing and commentary.

Until, then the original material may be a little delayed and less frequent.  I will try to get a new column out today or tomorrow, but I wanted to address the questions I've been getting from readers regarding the format change.

Hopefully, this change will be a step in the right direction.  Let me know what you all think.

Thanks,

Climate Change by Michael F. Cochrane

Now, that I'm trying to have something new posted everyday, which by the way is not easy, I will have more guest writers. The writer today is my godmother's cousin. I have known him for more than 30 years. He is a graduate of West Point and currently lives on the east coast. He has recently started his own blog entitled "Scribere est cogitare". You can find it at: http://scribereestcogitare.blogspot.com/ My plan is still to have a new column written by me tomorrow.

Climate Change

There are so many perspectives and angles of approach one can take when trying to think clearly about the issue of global warming, or as it is currently being referred to: “climate change”. There’s the scientific perspective (what is the evidence for climate change and how rigorous is the science?) and the public policy perspective (what regulations should be in place to deal with climate change?). There is also a social science perspective (why is climate change controversial and seemingly divided along ideological lines?) and even a religious perspective (did God give man stewardship over the earth, or is the earth to be venerated by man?)

My thinking on this subject tends to be drawn to the structure of the relationship between the claim that the effects of climate change demand a response by governments on a massive scale, and the nature of that response. The French philosopher, Blaise Pascal, once proposed an approach to decision making that has come to be known as “Pascal’s wager”. The question for Pascal was the relationship between the existence of God and the state of his own belief in God. Should he believe in God or not? He suggested that there were two possible “states of nature” with respect to the existence of God: Either God existed, or he did not. There were also two possible responses Pascal could take with respect to these states of nature: Believe in God, or don’t believe in God. So Pascal created four possible outcomes based on these states of nature and his responses to them:

1. God exists/I believe in God – therefore a positive outcome
2. God exists/I don’t believe in God – most likely a very negative outcome!
3. God does not exist/I believe in God – a less negative outcome than (2)
4. God does not exist/I don’t believe in God – a rather neutral outcome

As in the case of climate change, there are also two basic “states of nature”: either the planet is warming or it is not. But unlike Pascal’s simple decision aid, our problem is more complicated (it is actually a decision tree, and if this were not a blog post, I’d probably try and show an illustration of that at this point). But I think you can get an idea of the complexity of the decision problem by examining the table below:

The potential states of nature range from no global warming to significant increases in world temperatures in a relatively short period of time. The potential responses can be grouped into three categories: 1) do nothing, 2) take defensive measures (that is, assume that global temperature increases are incapable of being reversed, so we must protect civilization from the inevitable effects – rising sea levels, increasing areas of arid land, etc.), 3) take pro-active measures (reverse the effects of global warming).

The problem is that there is a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the actual “state of nature” of planetary warming. All of the scenarios describing the projected effects of planetary warming are based on computer modeling. The ability to forecast the local weather (also based on computer models) over the next week is not a certain science, yet predictions of specific global temperature increases over a period of 50 to 100 years are viewed as certain. So we really don’t know how dire the situation is.

If global warming is a reality and is unstoppable (that is, will not yield to efforts by humans to reverse it) then the best recourse for public policy makers would be to take defensive measures; e.g., divert resources to protecting civilization from its effects. Sea walls and dikes should be constructed around vulnerable coastal communities like New York and New Orleans to protect these cities from the inevitable rising sea levels caused by melting polar ice.

On the other hand, if we know what causes global warming, and can reverse its effects, we should do so. But here is the problem: scientists are not certain what causes global warming. There is no “scientific consensus” about climate change. A number of distinguished researchers in this area have studied the evidence and have found that if we are in a planetary warming period, it may simply be cyclical (due to activity by the sun or other causes). In addition, they have noted that, while increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have been associated with temperature increases, such a correlation may not infer causation; that is carbon dioxide may not actually be causing atmospheric warming, but may actually be a “lagging” indicator of it.

From a public policy standpoint, then, we really do not have enough information about the extent to which human beings actually cause global warming (if, in fact, it is taking place) to commit our nation to policies and treaties that would have immediate and dire economic effects such as placing caps on carbon dioxide emissions.

To return to our decision matrix, it appears our government and society in general has decided on the solution before the problem is really defined. Continued repetition in the media of a particular theme is not a substitute for scientific rigor and evidence. Global warming may be real, but much more work needs to be done to clarify the true state of nature before committing public resources to politically acceptable “solutions”.

© 2009 by Michael F. Cochrane, Ph.D. All rights reserved.

Nothing Noble about the Nobel Peace Prize Anymore by Ira Schwartz

Here is an article written by Ira about the Nobel Peace Prize as I promised yesterday. Hopefully, this will be the last we hear of this debacle. I hope you enjoy. Tomorrow, I will have another article by a guest writer, Michael Cochrane dealing with Global Warming. I'm still trying to have an article written myself by Friday. Sorry for the delay. Been really busy.

Nothing Nobel about the Nobel Peace Prize Anymore

Well the decision by the Nobel Foundation to award President Barack Obama the 2009 prize for Peace certainly shocked everyone in the world except the Nobel Foundation. The stunned look on the Presidents face when told he had won the prestigious award pretty much summed up how the rest of us felt.

In its statement, the Committee said President Obama "created a new climate in international politics. ... Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future." It continued, "His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population."

So they are basically saying that they have given our president the award because he has created a gentler, kinder United States. I can buy that one, for better or worse he has.

He has been in office barely a year and has already made inroads with several of his international overtures, though none have yet born fruit. Israel and the Palestinians are still struggling to find common ground but are trying; North Korea is still launching missiles and has yet to agree to the “six party” talks proposed by the United States and China; Iran has agreed to let inspectors in to their nuclear facilities, though the “when” part is still unclear and have also agreed to talks with the United States, when they will start is also unclear. The President has proposed total global nuclear disarmament which no one has taken seriously and we have finally joined with the rest of the world to find a way we can all live with global warming. We’re still fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the US installed government in Iraq is so corrupt it makes Chicago politicians look like saints. I thought the Nobel Prize was given for positive results in the area of peace not for just trying to get those results. If just trying was the criteria to be nominated then the Nobel Foundation’s list must be longer than Mr. Clauses on Christmas Eve.

The rumor of the day floating around the international community is the Nobel Foundation is really giving the award to the American people for their progressive thinking for not only electing a black man to the Whitehouse but a Muslim too. Well if that is the case then give the award to the American People. We could use that 1.2 million dollars to extend the “cash for clunkers” program for another five minutes.

Whatever their reasons in the end we have to ask ourselves this question, at this time in history do we feel President Barack Obama deserves to be in the illustrious ranks of such notable people as Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Teresa, Albert Schweitzer, Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt? If not then the reasons given by the Nobel commission must be suspect and any future awards must appear a little less noble.

For those of you wondering who some of the other nominees were this year a partial list follows:

1. Chinese Human Rights Activist Hu Jia - imprisoned for campaigning for human rights in the PRC;

2. Wei Jingsheng, who spent 17 years in Chinese prisons for urging reforms of China's communist system;

3. Greg Mortenson, founder of the Central Asia Institute has built nearly 80 schools, especially for girls, in remote areas of northern Pakistan and Afghanistan over the past 15 years;

4. Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad, a philosophy professor in Jordan who risks his life by advocating interfaith dialogue between Jews and Muslims; and,

5. Afghan human rights activist Sima Samar. She currently leads the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission and serves as the U.N. special envoy to Darfur.

I guess those listed above just didn’t try hard enough.

My Swedish Summer by Anonymous

Here is another column by a reader. This reader wishes to remain anonymous. I hope you like it as it shows, again, a different perspective. I will try to get another column out before the end of the week. There will be a column by Ira Schwartz tomorrow about the Nobel Peace Prize.

My Swedish Summer

Many years ago, I left Sweden answering an ad for an Au Pair in Chappaqua, New York. I’m still here. Now married with a teenage child, and U.S. citizenship. I admit I didn’t pursue American citizenship until assured that I did not have to relinquish my beloved Swedish passport. The last three decades I’ve made Los Angeles my home (the west side and beyond). I’ve managed to return to Svenljunga, my birth village, each year for six weeks on average every year. The locals fondly refer to Svenljunga as “Texas.” Don’t ask! I’m just back with tales from the homeland:

Understand, I love Sweden and always will, but the societal difference is not so subtle now since I schooled for, and passed, my citizenship test in the United States. Except for specific dates, it wasn’t very difficult. I am told that only a small percentage of U.S. high school graduates could pass it. I commend our forefathers for the U.S. Constitution. It’s an incredible document which has withstood the test of time.

While raised in Sweden I wasn’t really aware that we were socialists. I knew that we would be taken care of from cradle to grave. “Doesn’t get any better than that,” my American born husband teases. It was a wonderful place to grow up, and still is. But socialism was not something I had any selective choice over and not something I would choose after living in the United States for more than twenty years. Following are some summer stories from family and friends over a Schnapps:

The Swedish government lists certain endangered wild animals (Lynx, wolves and eagles) to be ‘protected’ and therefore government property. My brother raises, trains, and shows champion hunting dogs, and was recently at a trials competition. He sent his dog out following a Fox scent (he tracks his dog on a special GPS), and noticed his dog had stopped moving. He went to the spot and found his champion dog covered in blood with an exposed bone protruding from his leg. He took the dog to a vet, where it was determined that the dog had been attacked by a Lynx and was lucky to have survived. Here's the silly Swedish socialist part: The government sent someone to verify the wounds were from a Lynx. They were. As the government takes responsibility for the Lynx' actions, they will reimburse thousands of dollars worth of vet bills plus the dogs lost stud fees until he is recovered enough to return to breeding. My brother submitted an estimated monetary loss for future show wins. Or why my husband calls us “Marshmallow Vikings.”

Stockholm authorities have decided to allow wolves to repopulate the country at the same rate as about a century ago. Farmers, of course, are less than thrilled to have wolves roaming the country. The comparison of Stockholmers to farmers reminds me of the radio ad knocking a picante sauce for being made in “New York City!” A local farmer recently lost 27 lambs, killed by what was determined to be a lone wolf. The government reimbursed the farmer at about $2500 per lamb.

The state supplies ‘personal assistants’ for the permanently disabled. A friend knew of a disabled person allowed a multi week vacation in Spain. Sweden allowed two personal assistants (travel, room, and pay) to accompany him on his vacation so his wife could enjoy her vacation as well.

A friend was put on paid "stress relief" leave (paid by employer) for eighteen months. His wife was then hired by the government to be his caretaker for the first three months.

And now the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded to President Obama by a group of five Scandinavians, not Swedes, nine months and virtually no accomplishments into his White House stay. I’m not knocking the president, rather the award for “best intentions.” My husband keeps trying to educate me on baseball – not known in Sweden – and all the statistics that are cherished by fans. I wonder if baseball will add an “Intended-to-hit-a-homer” statistic now?

As Italians and Spaniards are generally considered Catholics, Swedes are Lutherans. When I was growing up, all birth, death, and marriage records were kept by the Lutheran church. Things have changed. I’m told the government now archives these records, and taxes citizens still considering themselves a member of the Lutheran Church. Dating to the 1700’s, everybody that happened to die in Svenljunga is buried at the village church cemetery.

I’m saddened to say that Swedes are constantly voicing discontentment over how poorly the state now treats them. It seems that being taken care of from birth to death is not enough anymore. The current ‘Moderat’ government is trying to trim some services that Sweden can no longer afford. As borders have been removed with the E.U. membership, so has the reality of job and industry loss.

Jealousness seems a common disease here, with a “Don’t you think you’re better than me” attitude being pervasive. Pleasing socialists seems a never-ending job. I hope to retire in the U.S. and visit my beloved Sweden each year. I continue to hope that President Obama does not change the current government here to the point where it cannot be fixed and socialism becomes its core. Remember, Margaret Thatcher said, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” And, that just might be what is happening in my homeland right now.

Picasso by Craig Covello

In our attempt to get different perspectives and opinions on the various issues at hand today, occasionally we will publish articles from guest writers. Attached hereto is an article by Craig Covello who is a Republican from Northern California that we felt was worth reading.

Picasso

We are an American family. All 300+ million of us. But something has happened, something profound and disturbing. It is 3AM and I can't sleep thinking about the political events of the past year, past month and even the past week. The President's goal of "radically transforming the United States of America", whether successful or not, comes at a price. The relatively impersonal news and commentary emanating from Washington has become a catalyst which is redefining some very personal relationships in my own life. There have been some casualties. One of my closest friends in the world is no longer my closest friend. Our views have drifted that far apart. My mother-in-law of over 30 years is now a fan of Obama. This is someone who hung a poster of Ronald Reagan in her laundry room back in the 80's. We have much less in common today. She sees the trend of government socialism as beneficial to her grandsons. I see it as a very real threat to the future and freedom of my 2 boys. So what happened? How can family and friends come to such polarized conclusions regarding the direction of this country when they share a relatively common experience?

I can only offer one possible explanation. Picasso. Have you ever looked at a Picasso painting? Really looked at it? Abstract art is difficult to interpret in the context of reality. In the absence of a clear, discernible picture, the mind will strive to make sense of the image based upon personal bias, experience and even mood. For example, consider the painting entitled "Sylvette" . This painting is described as "a 19-year-old woman in bright colours and semi-abstract, geometric forms" I see a police officer sitting at a poker table with someone peering over his shoulder. Crazy, right? But I think we see what we want to see. So it comes as no surprise that when Washington politics becomes increasingly obfuscated and at times contradictory, the harder we try to make sense of it all. The net result-widely different interpretations of the same news.

So what is the answer? In my humble opinion, pitch the Picasso and get a photo representing something we can see clearly.

1. We need to restore some trust in government by letting things settle down. The rules we grew up with are changing at an exponential rate and it is time to stop, take a breath and reassess. I like our great nation, even with some of it's faults. There will be no utopia in America because we as humans are imperfect. It is ridiculous to start over by "radically transforming the United States of America" in an attempt to solve some of our problems. Let's take them on one step at a time. And let's be on guard to watch for anyone, regardless of party, who tries to implement change at a furious pace. Would you buy a car if the deal offered was only good for 5 minutes? The sense of urgency regarding domestic issues is artificial. It is manipulative, divisive and it needs to stop.

2. I say many in Congress have worn out their welcome on both sides of the isle. We need to thoroughly reexamine those running for reelection in 2010. We need to take voting seriously by doing our homework. Are they ineffective or unethical? Do they act contrary to their rhetoric? What is their specific voting record? Do you agree with most of their votes? If not, replace them. The term "Till death do you part" does not apply here. We need to ignore spin, marketing, hype, misdirection and castigation. Stick with the facts of the candidate. The media has done this country an incredible disservice by becoming extensions of partisan public relation offices.

3. Finally, we need to decide who we are and who we want to be, both individually and as a free nation. Do we really need our lives fulfilled on the promises of some public figure who we don't personally know? Most campaigns promise to "give us something" in exchange for our vote. Those promises don't often materialize. However, some of the quid pro quo which is actually delivered often comes at the high cost of personal freedom. Ironically, there are those who could not wait to move away from Mom and Dad when they turned 18, but now have no problem being excessively regulated and restricted by a centralized government when it comes to their own life. The quote from General John Stark on July 31, 1809 got it right. (Go ahead and look it up on Google. It is time for some homework. While you are at it, look up Picasso's Sylvette as well.)

Well, it is now 4AM, but I feel better having written this.

Decisions by Ira Schwartz

“Indecision is a virus that can run through an army and destroy its will to win or even to survive.” Wendell Mayes

It’s been eight years since our troops first set foot upon Afghani soil. It’s been eight years of fighting and dying. After eight years exactly where do we stand?

Let’s take a quick look at the score card. In 2001 our army managed to literally chase Al-Qaeda out of the country and into the hills of Pakistan and drive the Taliban from power. Today the Taliban again control almost 80% of the country and are driving us back into our strongholds. In 2004 the Afghanis drafted a constitution and elected a president. Today that President, Hamid Karzai, is afraid to leave the security of his palace and is constantly denying charges that his administration is corrupt. P.S. It is. In 2002 the U.S. had approximately 5,200 boots on the ground in Afghanistan. Today we’re closer to 32,000 and our generals say we need more. Before they decide to send more troops or not the present administration wants to “re-evaluate the situation”. Sound familiar? It should. Remember a little place called “Vietnam”?

And therein lays the problem. Despite Korea and Vietnam the powers that run our military machine are still stuck in a World War ll mentality. The enemy must be forced to surrender at all costs. If we look at Korea and Vietnam in that respect then we lost both those wars. However, both South Korea and Vietnam now have strong and stable governments with strong and growing economies. Without our intervention that probably would not have happened.

So what is our strategy in Afghanistan? Why are we there?

If we are there to chase Al-Qaeda out, we did that. To topple the Taliban? We did that too. To win over the minds and hearts of the Afghani people? The Afghani people could care less about who runs their country as long as they are left alone and can grow their poppies and smoke their Hashish in peace. To set up a stable central government? A western style democratic government will never work in that region of the world. To win the war? Who did we go there to fight; Al-Qaeda or the Taliban? We’ve beaten Al-Qaeda; we will never beat the Taliban. Remember the Taliban are Afghani. They exist and live in every city, town and village in their country. The British tried to subdue them in 1838 and 1878 and failed and we all know what happened to the Russians. So where does that leave us? In an endless war we can’t win? Not necessarily.

A strong, credible government does need to be established, if for nothing else than to stop the tribal conflicts and constant infighting. The government needs to be an Afghani government not a bastardised version of our own. The government needs to include all the Afghani people including the Taliban. If we include them into the mix the war stops immediately and the US government gains credibility in the Islamic world. Besides we also get an experienced, well trained army that hates Al-Qaeda as much as we do as an added bonus. Unrealistic you say? Look at Somali.

Our administration now accepts the Somali non-democratic moderate Islamic government. This thaw in our relationship allowed the US to take out an Al-Qaeda agent in Somali suspected of master minding the 2002 bombing of a Kenyan hotel. What did the Somali government due about the US attack? Nothing.

Will this work in Afghanistan? We’ll never know till we try. But I can tell you this, as soon as we pull our troops out the Karzai government will fall and the United States will takes its place in history alongside the British and the Russians as one more invading army that failed.

“Die Quickly”

Representative Joe Wilson shouts in the House Chamber to President Obama during a speech on Health Care Reform, “You Lie,” and is forced to apologize to the President directly and compelled to apologize in the House where the incident occurred. He chooses only to apologize to the President. This did not make him many friends in the Democratic Caucus. They could not bully him into a formal apology in the Chamber. What happens next, the Democratic House votes to rebuke him in a meaningless resolution. Of course, the vote is along party lines.

A few weeks later, Representative Alay Grayson of Florida, who also happens to be a Democrat, says while debating Health Care Reform on the House Floor:

"If you get sick, America, the Republican health care plan is this: Die quickly. That's right. The Republicans want you to die quickly if you get sick."

And, what happens to Grayson: Nothing! The Democratic Congress does nothing. Speaker Pelosi says she will not force him to apologize or withdraw his statement. A resolution along the lines of the one rebuking Wilson is introduced in the House by the Republicans and fails. This is just another example of the Democratic double standard that exists in Congress.

But, the deeper question is this: has the debate over health care gotten to the point where the Democrats say that Republicans want Americans to die and Sarah Palin throws remarks out like “Death Squads.” Has it all come down to fear mongering and hatred on both sides? What happened to the intellectual form of debate, not only in Congress, but in the media as well?

A few weeks ago, I wrote an article for this column entitled, “Why We Can’t Sign onto the Democrats Health Care Reform?” In that article I attempted to give a carefully thought out argument relating to Conservative issues in the current Democratic proposal. I am not in Congress. Why can’t our elected leaders do the same? Why must they resort to fear and hatred? Is it because they have no faith in the American public to understand policy decisions? If that is the case, they are deadly wrong. We do understand and that is why President Obama and the Democratic Congress cannot get HR 3200 passed in its current form despite their overwhelming majority.

Senator Baucus of Montana, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee is fighting to get his proposed bill through the Committee. The bill has been in the mark-up phase for about two weeks. Numerous amendments have been added to it such that it has been reported to be now over 1,000 pages long. Here they go again.

And, now, Congress is debating whether this bill or HR 3200 will be available online for 72 hours before any vote on them. Why are they even debating this? Wasn’t that one of President Obama’s main campaign promises? Did he not promise more transparency in government? Didn’t he want to stimulate fair and open debate?

The very liberal Saturday Night Live ran a skit last week in which President Obama was parodied. The main point of the skit was not that the President is too liberal, but that the left should be just as mad as the right because after nine months in office, the President has done absolutely nothing. You can find the skit at: http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/clips/obama-address/1163263/. And, one of those nothings is more transparency.

Both the Congress and the President do not want America to see either proposal before they are passed. They do not want any more debate. They know that if intellectual debate continues, the current form of Health Care Reform will fail. At first Senator Baucus’ bill looked like it would work. It was just a bad enough proposal to get both sides a little angry. It smelled like an old fashioned form of bipartisan compromise.

However, to the dismay of the Democratic Leadership, it did not contain the required public option. The Democrats from the far left have sworn that a bill without the public option will not happen. The Republicans will not vote for any bill with a public option. The middle of the road Democrats, the Blue Dogs, are the key. So, maybe the plan is to just sneak the public option in at the last minute, create a sense of urgency and convince the Blue Dogs to vote for it. This is not transparency. This amounts to lies and deceit. Hey, maybe Wilson was right?

I have another question regarding this issue. Why will this miraculous form of Health Care Reform that is being proposed by the Democratic Leadership not take effect until 2013? Maybe, because the President and Congress both know what a disaster it will truly be and they want the President safely into his second term before the disaster strikes. Again, this seems deceitful. Hey, maybe Wilson was right?

President Obama says he wants the bill to be revenue neutral and will sign it in no other form. Yet, neither the President nor Congress has any plan on how to pay for it and keep it that way. Other than higher taxes that is. Oh, I’m sorry; the President and Congress are not calling them taxes. Remember, Obama promised that no one making less than $250,000 per year would have higher taxes. So, how is this bill being paid for: penalties. Sounds to me like taxes, after all if it smells like a duck . . . Again, maybe Wilson was right?

But, I digress. The point of this article is supposed to be about civilized debate. That is what we need. We need Health Care Reform. We all agree on that. Maybe Congress should stop trying to bite off more than it can chew and debate the real issues on Health Care Reform. Only, after real civilized debate will we be able to come up with a plan that actually works and makes both sides a little mad and both sides a little happy.

As I have stated before, the Republicans want the following issues addressed and debated. If the President wants this bill to be bipartisan and wants some Republican support, we need the following to be debated:

1. Coverage for Pre-existing Conditions;
2. Tort Reform;
3. Insurance availability across state borders;
4. No coverage for illegal aliens;
5. No coverage for elective abortions; and,
6. A means to pay for it that makes sense across the board and that will somewhat revenue neutral. (Anyone that thinks this is not going to cost some money is dreaming).

The Republican Party does not and has not ever wanted people to “die quickly.” It does not want people to die at all. But, it does want a carefully thought out plan that protects the people, the sovereignty of the states, and is fiscally sound. Representative Alan Grayson is definitely wrong and should apologize to the American people for his outlandish and hate filled statement.

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

Obama's Liberalism Boosts Republicans

Obama's Liberalism Boosts Republicans


Here is a real interesting article from Real Clear Politics Today about the current trends in the country.

Shared via AddThis

Bobby Jindal's Republican Plan for Health Care

Bobby Jindal wrote an op-ed piece today in the Washington Post. Click on the title above for the content. I think you will find it interesting and informative. It fits my position in prior articles.

I should have a new article out on Wednesday or Thursday.

Status of Unemployment Around the World

http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/10/03/ten-views-of-unemployment-around-the-world/

Shared via AddThis

Friends Forever? by Ira Schwartz

If the Arabs put down their weapons today there would be no more violence.

If the Jews put down their weapons today there would be no more Israel.

If the Jews all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.--Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, leader of Hezbollah

We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you.--Hussein Massawi, former head of the Hezbollah, about the Western world

The Jews are the cancer spreading all over the world...the Jews are a virus like AIDS hitting humankind...Jews are responsible for all wars and conflicts....Do not ask what Germany did to the Jews but what the Jews did to Germany. True, the Germans killed and burned Jews but the Jews exaggerate the numbers to gain propaganda advantages and sympathy….--Sheikh Ibrahim Mudairis, May 13, 2005, Gaza

The simple fact of the matter is that there is no such thing on the planet as sympathy for and identification with Palestinians. There is no such thing as pro-Palestinianism. Period. When Palestinians, or when Arabs in general, are mistreated, repressed and tormented by any Arab regime, no one cares. When Palestinians were mass murdered by Syria and Jordan, no one cared. When more than 100,000 Arab civilians are massacred in Algeria, it does not even make the evening news. When Asad or Saddam Hussein carried out mass murders of Arabs, the Human Rights lobby never looked up from its cinnamon latte.--Steven E. Plaut, PhD, professor of business administration, Graduate School of Business, University of Haifa

We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children. We will only have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us.--Golda Meir in 1977

How can you think about building a better future... if you indoctrinate your children to a culture of death?--Hillary Clinton

That is just a little look into the emotions that drive the conflicts in the Middle East. It’s not a pretty picture, hatred never is. Since Israel’s birth in 1948 this small country has fought seven wars against vastly superior enemies. They have won them all. They had no choice because each war fought was a war against an enemy that was seeking Israel’s total destruction. With the help of the United States the Israeli government has built the finest standing army in the Middle East. This is one of the reasons the fragile peace has lasted as long as it has. The other is far more sinister; Israel has nukes their surrounding Arab neighbors as yet do not.

When Israel declared its independence in 1948, US President Harry Truman was the first world leader to recognize the new country. It took just eleven minutes. 51 years later Israel is still one of our closest allies. Let’s look into a few of the reasons for this close friendship.

In an area where political assassinations, military coups and constant tribal feuding is the norm Israel is the sole democracy. As a democracy Israel is committed to the same standards as the United States in regards to its peoples; freedom, equality and tolerance for all regardless of religion, race or gender. Even though Israel was established as a homeland for the Jewish people, it like the United States is a melting pot of many, including Arabs and Muslims. All Israeli citizens enjoy full and equal rights. 24% of the Israeli population is Muslim. 20% is Arab; of this 24% are Palestinian. On the opposite side of the fence, and this is only a guesstimate by the UN since all the Arab nations refuse to release any figures, there are only 5,000 Jews living as citizens in all of the surrounding Arab countries. Of the 5,000 few have any rights and must pray in secret in fear for their lives.

During “Desert Storm” Israel was being pummeled by Iraqi Scud missiles. The U.S. asked Israel not to retaliate for fear of damaging the fragile coalition. They did what we asked and suffered millions of dollars in damage, several killed and hundreds injured. That’s what friends do for one another. How many of our “other” allies would have done that? You could count them on one hand with a couple of fingers left over.

When the discussions with Iran fail, and they eventually will, it will be Israeli aircraft that take out the Iranian nuclear reactors not US fighters. Again we will publicly condemn them for this but privately applaud them for doing what we could not do without starting another war. Why would they do this? Because that’s what friends do.

But sometimes being a friend involves tough love. During a 1938 speech, the father of Israel, David Ben Gurion spoke,

"Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country."

Our present administration requested Israel, for the sake of restarting the peace negotiations with the Palestinians, to cease all settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The Israeli’s countered that this new construction is needed for the natural growth of its population. If this doesn’t sound familiar it should. Our government used the same excuse as it expanded west and displaced all the Native American’s that lived there. Right or wrong it is to this day an ugly scare in the history of the United States. But growing countries need to expand and Israel is growing.

“We regret the reports of Israel’s plans to approve additional settlement construction,” Robert Gibbs, the White House spokesman, said. “As the President has said before, the United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued settlement expansion and we urge it to stop.”

Another US official said: “In the end America will be forced to do what is necessary to bring the Israelis and the Palestinians back to the negotiation table. But the Netanyahu Government has proven difficult to work with.”

New settlement growth has been one of the main sticking points to the peace talks. The Israeli settlements, built on land marked for a future Palestinian state, are strongly supported by most of the Israelis that elected Mr. Netanyahu. Politics again stands in the way of peace. Another factor Israel has in common with the United States.

Even though we don’t always see eye to eye, it is good to have such a strong friend in a region where you constantly need someone to watch your back. And Israel has proven time and time again they’ve got our back and much, much more. The only question left is will we continue to watch theirs?

Were is Dan's Voice - Part 2

Here is an update to my column entitled "Where is Dan's Voice?" from earlier this week. My anonymous writer, who now says to just use his name, recieved a less than adequate response from his Congressman. And, keep in mind, this Congressman and the writer are both Republicans.

Enjoy!

Hello Elizabeth:

Let me first say thank you for responding to my concerns. I reviewed the links you brought to my attention with the assumption that they were intended to illustrate Congressman Lungren's visibility and leadership. It appears that the information you provided touched on 4 of the 14 items addressed in my previous e-mail.

Quite candidly, I believe the press releases, House resolutions and House bills associated with Congressman Lungren's name seemed to reflect a lack of passion or urgency regarding the developments of the last six months. For example, Dan commented on President Obama's health care speech. He was quoted as saying ““There’s a little bit of a distance between what we’ve seen in our bill and what he (the President) talked about” . Respectfully, I don't think that it was "a little bit of distance" that caused Joe Wilson's unfortunate outburst. I think the President crossed the line regarding the truth which caused an emotional outburst from a conservative representative who cares about transparency and honesty in government. That should have been said. It's time for conservative Republicans to come out swinging. This is a fight, not only against the socialization of American health care, but a fight to save the very fabric of our nation. These are extraordinary times in which a minority of radicals have gained control in order to promote themselves while marginalizing our faith in God, ethical government, personal freedoms and capitalism.

I have specific notes reflecting my analysis and opinions for each of the references you provided. If you like, I would be happy to share them with you.

RespectfullyCraig Covello

On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Donnelly, Elizabeth <Elizabeth.Donnelly@mail.house.gov> wrote:

Hello Craig,

I appreciate your frustration and concern with the challenges that we are now facing.

Below you will find various news links featuring comments by Congressman Lungren. I have also included links to pending legislation that Congressman Lungren has co-sponsored.:

Acorn related-
Congressman Lungren was a co-sponsor of HR 3571 which defunds ACORN (HR 3571). Below is a link to the text of the bill:
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3571:


Article regarding H.R. 554 which would require the Majority to allow Members of Congress, and the American public, 72 hours to review legislation before it is brought up for a vote in the House of Representatives:
http://www.obsnews.com/news/article100637_lungren-supports-bipartisan-bill-review-effort

Congressman Lungren signed a discharge petition for this resolution. If the petition receives 218 signatures, H.R. 554, can be voted on. Below is a link to Congressman Lungren’s website which discusses H.R. 554-
http://lungren.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=500&Itemid=86


Czar issue:
Video of Congressman Lungren on the House floor regarding his concern and his constituents concern with Czar’s-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Mib_U7POKw

Co-sponsor of H.CON.RES. 185. Follow link below to see text-
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.CON.RES.185:

Comments on greater transparency for the Administration’s numerous Czar’s-
http://lungren.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=497&Itemid=86


Congressman Lungren’s comment after President Obama’s speech on health care:
Link to Congressional reactions to speech-
http://www.capradio.org/articles/articledetail.aspx?articleid=7083


Congressman Lungren’s comment on the portion of the speech addressing coverage for illegal aliens and Congressman Wilson’s comment:
http://www.examiner.com/x-12837-US-Headlines-Examiner~y2009m9d10-Joe-Wilson-comment-unacceptable-but-understood


In addition to using our website for news release information, I encourage you to sign up for our email newsletter. Below is a link to the email newsletter registration:

http://lungren.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=149&Itemid=75

Also, I would suggest setting up a Google alert with Congressman Lungren’s name. The alert seems to be pretty effective in capturing print news and videos.

Please feel free to contact me at any time.

Sincerely,

Liz Donnelly

Elizabeth Donnelly
Senior Field Representative

Office of Congressman Dan Lungen
2339 Gold Meadow Way, Suite 220 Gold River, CA 95670
Office: 916.859.9906
Direct: 916.859.9145
Fax: 916.859.9976
Elizabeth.donnelly@mail.house.gov