The Virginian Federalist

Thousands answer call to support Obama

2010-09-21T21:38:00.003-04:00

Organizing for America (AKA BarackObama.com), the 'grass roots' arm of the Democratic National Committee reported in an email to supporter that "Thousands of you have already answered the President's call to donate, volunteer, and commit to vote." It is at least curious that the described commitment was to vote, for anyone at all, not specifically for Democrats and that 'thousands' responded. Not millions or hundreds of thousands or even tens of thousands responded to even vote for someone, anyone out of the millions who participated in OFA in 2008.

Great Rant

2010-09-20T21:43:00.002-04:00

If you want a wonderful rant, please see The Palin Card, at Doctor Zero. Here is just a taste: Who wants to contemplate the economic wisdom of a guy who looted the Treasury for a trillion dollars, with less benefit than we could have achieved by stuffing hundred dollar bills into random cereal boxes? Who’s excited to hear about the next plan to convert taxpayer dollars into Democrat campaign funds? Who’s hungry for another hour of tedious excuses about permanently broken markets and the titanic dead hand of George W. Bush? Hat tip to James Taranto of OpinionJournal

Still waiting: With the Consent of the Governed

2010-09-20T21:09:00.003-04:00

Despite months of growing doubts about the direction of this administration, rejection of its policies in polls and at the polls the fundamental objection by many to all of the Obama policies is only partly content based. More accurately the objections relate to the method of adoption, without the apparent consent of the governed.The recent appointment of special advisor Elizabeth Warren (shown with President Obama in the accompanying AP photo) to guide the establishment of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection is the latest example. Like all of the previously appointed czars, the president made the appointment without sending it through the Senate. The Washington Post opined, "For all intents and purposes, the president has created, and filled, a de facto directorship. This might have been in keeping with the letter of the laws, but not with their spirit."

The Washington Post's editorial also identified Ms. Warren as a 'progressive.' A key tenet of that philosophy is disdain for the consent of the governed. The Heritage Foundation's The Foundry blog has a particularly salient post about that today.

Which leaves us to consider that not only the governed feel their consent is not needed, but those governing do not as well. The voters may decide to reassert their position as best they can on November 2nd. Both the president and congress would do well to take heed.

With the Consent of the Governed

2010-01-28T21:23:00.005-05:00

In his State of the Union address Wednesday, President Obama made a particular point about the mood of the public and the affect of that mood on elected officials in Congress. "To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve some problems, not run for the hills." That is, the President is telling the Congress that in writing and passing laws he supports, the opposition of the public should be ignored. What the President seems to have missed is the element of consent of the governed. Why should laws obnoxious to the public ever be enacted by their representatives?

It might be helpful if the President reread the Declaration of Independence:

...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...

Mr. President, the American people will not long permit you and your party to enact laws and policies which they strongly oppose.

SOTU-POTUS

2010-01-28T01:04:00.004-05:00

The full text of the State of the Union address and interspersed commentary is provided below the fold. The response provided by Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell in the chamber of the oldest legislative body in America was brilliant and a stark contrast to the address by President Obama. In Richmond, an address of optimism belonging to a free people who are capable, self sufficient and generous and who can govern themselves at government which is close to and response to them. In Washington, an address of a petty tyrant, that national government is the only answer to all problems for a people who are dependent serfs. Comments are shown offset by breaks and contrasting color.

Our Constitution declares that from time to time, the President
shall give to Congress information about the state of our union. For
two hundred and twenty years, our leaders have fulfilled this duty.
They have done so during periods of prosperity and tranquility. And
they have done so in the midst of war and depression; at moments of
great strife and great struggle.

It's tempting to look back on these moments and assume that our
progress was inevitable – that America was always destined to succeed.
But when the Union was turned back at Bull Run and the Allies first
landed at Omaha Beach, victory was very much in doubt. When the market
crashed on Black Tuesday and civil rights marchers were beaten on
Bloody Sunday, the future was anything but certain. These were times
that tested the courage of our convictions, and the strength of our
union. And despite all our divisions and disagreements; our hesitations
and our fears; America prevailed because we chose to move forward as
one nation, and one people.

Again, we are tested. And again, we must answer history's call.

One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by
severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a
government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum
warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression. So we
acted – immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of
the storm has passed.

But the devastation remains. One in ten Americans still cannot find
work. Many businesses have shuttered. Home values have declined. Small
towns and rural communities have been hit especially hard. For those
who had already known poverty, life has become that much harder.

This recession has also compounded the burdens that America's
families have been dealing with for decades – the burden of working
harder and longer for less; of being unable to save enough to retire or
help kids with college.

So I know the anxieties that are out there right now. They're not
new. These struggles are the reason I ran for President. These
struggles are what I've witnessed for years in places like Elkhart,
Indiana and Galesburg, Illinois. I hear about them in the letters that
I read each night. The toughest to read are those written by children –
asking why they have to move from their home, or when their mom or dad
will be able to go back to work.

For these Americans and so many others, change has not come fast
enough. Some are frustrated; some are angry. They don't understand why
it seems like bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded but hard work on
Main Street isn't; or why Washington has been unable or unwilling to
solve any of our problems. They are tired of the partisanship and the
shouting and the pettiness. They know we can't afford it. Not now.

So we face big and difficult challenges. And what the American
people hope – what they deserve – is for all of us, Democrats and
Republicans, to work through our differences; to overcome the numbing
weight of our politics. For while the people who sent us here have
different backgrounds, different stories and different beliefs, the
anxieties they face are the same. The aspirations they hold are shared.

=========================
The people do not have shared aspirations. Some have aspirations that the rest will pay for their health care, mortgage, rent, food, education etc. The rest hope to pay for these things themselves. If the first group succeeds the second cannot, and for the second group higher taxes, fewer choices, diminished freedom destroys their hope and ability to give their children a better life.

================================

A job that pays the bills. A chance to get ahead. Most of all, the
ability to give their children a better life.

You know what else they share? They share a stubborn resilience in
the face of adversity. After one of the most difficult years in our
history, they remain busy building cars and teaching kids; starting
businesses and going back to school. They're coaching little league and
helping their neighbors. As one woman wrote me, "We are strained but
hopeful, struggling but encouraged."

It is because of this spirit – this great decency and great strength
– that I have never been more hopeful about America's future than I am
tonight. Despite our hardships, our union is strong. We do not give up.
We do not quit. We do not allow fear or division to break our spirit.
In this new decade, it's time the American people get a government that
matches their decency; that embodies their strength.

And tonight, I'd like to talk about how together, we can deliver on that promise.

It begins with our economy.

Our most urgent task upon taking office was to shore up the same
banks that helped cause this crisis. It was not easy to do. And if
there's one thing that has unified Democrats and Republicans, it's that
we all hated the bank bailout. I hated it. You hated it. It was about
as popular as a root canal.

But when I ran for President, I promised I wouldn't just do what was
popular – I would do what was necessary. And if we had allowed the
meltdown of the financial system, unemployment might be double what it
is today. More businesses would certainly have closed. More homes would
have surely been lost.

So I supported the last administration's efforts to create the
financial rescue program. And when we took the program over, we made it
more transparent and accountable. As a result, the markets are now
stabilized, and we have recovered most of the money we spent on the
banks.

To recover the rest, I have proposed a fee on the biggest banks. I
know Wall Street isn't keen on this idea, but if these firms can afford
to hand out big bonuses again, they can afford a modest fee to pay back
the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need.

As we stabilized the financial system, we also took steps to get our
economy growing again, save as many jobs as possible, and help
Americans who had become unemployed.

That's why we extended or increased unemployment benefits for more
than 18 million Americans; made health insurance 65% cheaper for
families who get their coverage through COBRA; and passed 25 different
tax cuts.

Let me repeat: we cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95% of working
families. We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for
first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for
their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for
college. As a result, millions of Americans had more to spend on gas,
and food, and other necessities, all of which helped businesses keep
more workers. And we haven't raised income taxes by a single dime on a
single person. Not a single dime.

==========================

By letting the tax cuts expire you have raised taxes on every single person and by hundreds of dollars not dimes.

==========================

Because of the steps we took, there are about two million Americans
working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. 200,000 work in
construction and clean energy. 300,000 are teachers and other education
workers. Tens of thousands are cops, firefighters, correctional
officers, and first responders. And we are on track to add another one
and a half million jobs to this total by the end of the year.

The plan that has made all of this possible, from the tax cuts to
the jobs, is the Recovery Act. That's right – the Recovery Act, also
known as the Stimulus Bill. Economists on the left and the right say
that this bill has helped saved jobs and avert disaster. But you don't
have to take their word for it.

Talk to the small business in Phoenix that will triple its workforce because of the Recovery Act.

Talk to the window manufacturer in Philadelphia who said he used to
be skeptical about the Recovery Act, until he had to add two more work
shifts just because of the business it created.

Talk to the single teacher raising two kids who was told by her
principal in the last week of school that because of the Recovery Act,
she wouldn't be laid off after all.

There are stories like this all across America. And after two years
of recession, the economy is growing again. Retirement funds have
started to gain back some of their value. Businesses are beginning to
invest again, and slowly some are starting to hire again.

But I realize that for every success story, there are other stories,
of men and women who wake up with the anguish of not knowing where
their next paycheck will come from; who send out resumes week after
week and hear nothing in response. That is why jobs must be our number
one focus in 2010, and that is why I am calling for a new jobs bill
tonight.

Now, the true engine of job creation in this country will always be
America's businesses. But government can create the conditions
necessary for businesses to expand and hire more workers.

We should start where most new jobs do – in small businesses,
companies that begin when an entrepreneur takes a chance on a dream, or
a worker decides its time she became her own boss.

Through sheer grit and determination, these companies have weathered
the recession and are ready to grow. But when you talk to small
business owners in places like Allentown, Pennsylvania or Elyria, Ohio,
you find out that even though banks on Wall Street are lending again,
they are mostly lending to bigger companies. But financing remains
difficult for small business owners across the country.

So tonight, I'm proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall
Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small
businesses the credit they need to stay afloat. I am also proposing a
new small business tax credit – one that will go to over one million
small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages. While we're at
it, let's also eliminate all capital gains taxes on small business
investment; and provide a tax incentive for all businesses, large and
small, to invest in new plants and equipment.

Next, we can put Americans to work today building the infrastructure
of tomorrow. From the first railroads to the interstate highway system,
our nation has always been built to compete. There's no reason Europe
or China should have the fastest trains, or the new factories that
manufacture clean energy products.

Tomorrow, I'll visit Tampa, Florida, where workers will soon break
ground on a new high-speed railroad funded by the Recovery Act. There
are projects like that all across this country that will create jobs
and help our nation move goods, services, and information. We should
put more Americans to work building clean energy facilities, and give
rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy efficient, which
supports clean energy jobs. And to encourage these and other businesses
to stay within our borders, it's time to finally slash the tax breaks
for companies that ship our jobs overseas and give those tax breaks to
companies that create jobs in the United States of America.

The House has passed a jobs bill that includes some of these steps.
As the first order of business this year, I urge the Senate to do the
same. People are out of work. They are hurting. They need our help. And
I want a jobs bill on my desk without delay.

But the truth is, these steps still won't make up for the seven
million jobs we've lost over the last two years. The only way to move
to full employment is to lay a new foundation for long-term economic
growth, and finally address the problems that America's families have
confronted for years.

We cannot afford another so-called economic "expansion" like the one
from last decade – what some call the "lost decade" – where jobs grew
more slowly than during any prior expansion; where the income of the
average American household declined while the cost of health care and
tuition reached record highs;

==============================

Tuition, health care and housing prices reached record highs only as the result of government interference in the market place.

==============================

where prosperity was built on a housing
bubble and financial speculation.

From the day I took office, I have been told that addressing our
larger challenges is too ambitious – that such efforts would be too
contentious, that our political system is too gridlocked, and that we
should just put things on hold for awhile.

For those who make these claims, I have one simple question:

How long should we wait? How long should America put its future on hold?

You see, Washington has been telling us to wait for decades, even as
the problems have grown worse. Meanwhile, China's not waiting to revamp
its economy. Germany's not waiting. India's not waiting. These nations
aren't standing still. These nations aren't playing for second place.
They're putting more emphasis on math and science. They're rebuilding
their infrastructure. They are making serious investments in clean
energy because they want those jobs.

Well I do not accept second-place for the United States of America.

================================

Or first place. In fact I would prefer last place, but I am not quite there yet. I still need cap and tax to get there.

=================================

As hard as it may be, as uncomfortable and contentious as the debates
may be, it's time to get serious about fixing the problems that are
hampering our growth.

One place to start is serious financial reform. Look, I am not
interested in punishing banks, I'm interested in protecting our
economy. A strong, healthy financial market makes it possible for
businesses to access credit and create new jobs. It channels the
savings of families into investments that raise incomes. But that can
only happen if we guard against the same recklessness that nearly
brought down our entire economy.

We need to make sure consumers and middle-class families have the
information they need to make financial decisions. We can't allow
financial institutions, including those that take your deposits, to
take risks that threaten the whole economy.

=====================

Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, AIG, Fannie and Freddie all were not deposit taking institutions. It was their failure that threatened the economy. How can a tax on banks improve the stability of the financial system?

======================

The House has already passed financial reform with many of these
changes. And the lobbyists are already trying to kill it. Well, we
cannot let them win this fight. And if the bill that ends up on my desk
does not meet the test of real reform, I will send it back.

Next, we need to encourage American innovation. Last year, we made
the largest investment in basic research funding in history – an
investment that could lead to the world's cheapest solar cells or
treatment that kills cancer cells but leaves healthy ones untouched.
And no area is more ripe for such innovation than energy. You can see
the results of last year's investment in clean energy – in the North
Carolina company that will create 1200 jobs nationwide helping to make
advanced batteries; or in the California business that will put 1,000
people to work making solar panels.

But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more
production, more efficiency, more incentives. That means building a new
generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. It
means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil
and gas development. It means continued investment in advanced biofuels
and clean coal technologies. And yes, it means passing a comprehensive
energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean
energy the profitable kind of energy in America.

I am grateful to the House for passing such a bill last year. This
year, I am eager to help advance the bipartisan effort in the Senate. I
know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes
in a tough economy; and I know that there are those who disagree with
the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. But even if you
doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy efficiency and
clean energy are the right thing to do for our future – because the
nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that
leads the global economy. And America must be that nation.

Third, we need to export more of our goods. Because the more
products we make and sell to other countries, the more jobs we support
right here in America. So tonight, we set a new goal: We will double
our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support two
million jobs in America. To help meet this goal, we're launching a
National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses
increase their exports, and reform export controls consistent with
national security.

We have to seek new markets aggressively, just as our competitors
are. If America sits on the sidelines while other nations sign trade
deals, we will lose the chance to create jobs on our shores.

=================================

Free nations do not trade. Companies and individuals trade. Governments can only negotiate to remove governmental barriers to free trade between individuals and enterprises.

==============================

But
realizing those benefits also means enforcing those agreements so our
trading partners play by the rules. And that's why we will continue to
shape a Doha trade agreement that opens global markets, and why we will
strengthen our trade relations in Asia and with key partners like South
Korea, Panama, and Colombia.

Fourth, we need to invest in the skills and education of our people.

This year, we have broken through the stalemate between left and
right by launching a national competition to improve our schools. The
idea here is simple: instead of rewarding failure, we only reward
success. Instead of funding the status quo, we only invest in reform –
reform that raises student achievement, inspires students to excel in
math and science, and turns around failing schools that steal the
future of too many young Americans, from rural communities to
inner-cities. In the 21st century, one of the best anti-poverty
programs is a world-class education. In this country, the success of
our children cannot depend more on where they live than their potential.

==============================

But meanwhile he did not oppose ending vouchers in D.C. and condemning the students their to attend their failed school system.

===============================

When we renew the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we will
work with Congress to expand these reforms to all fifty states. Still,
in this economy, a high school diploma no longer guarantees a good job.
I urge the Senate to follow the House and pass a bill that will
revitalize our community colleges, which are a career pathway to the
children of so many working families. To make college more affordable,
this bill will finally end the unwarranted taxpayer-subsidies that go
to banks for student loans. Instead, let's take that money and give
families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase
Pell Grants. And let's tell another one million students that when they
graduate, they will be required to pay only ten percent of their income
on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after twenty
years

=============================

Profligacy writ large. Encourage students to incur debts which are wildly out of proportion the the earnings their education would enable, and then write the debt off when it is unpaid.

=======================================

– and forgiven after ten years if they choose a career in public
service. Because in the United States of America, no one should go
broke because they chose to go to college. And it's time for colleges
and universities to get serious about cutting their own costs – because
they too have a responsibility to help solve this problem.

Now, the price of college tuition is just one of the burdens facing
the middle-class. That's why last year I asked Vice President Biden to
chair a task force on Middle-Class Families. That's why we're nearly
doubling the child care tax credit, and making it easier to save for
retirement by giving every worker access to a retirement account and
expanding the tax credit for those who start a nest egg. That's why
we're working to lift the value of a family's single largest investment
– their home. The steps we took last year to shore up the housing
market have allowed millions of Americans to take out new loans and
save an average of $1,500 on mortgage payments.

================================

Save an average of $1,500 on mortgage payments? A year? A month? Life of mortgage?

=============================

This year, we will step
up re-financing so that homeowners can move into more affordable
mortgages. And it is precisely to relieve the burden on middle-class
families that we still need health insurance reform.

Now let's be clear – I did not choose to tackle this issue to get
some legislative victory under my belt. And by now it should be fairly
obvious that I didn't take on health care because it was good politics.

I took on health care because of the stories I've heard

=======================

His national health care reform plan is based on stories he has heard?

=======================

from Americans with pre-existing conditions whose lives depend on getting
coverage; patients who've been denied coverage; and families – even
those with insurance – who are just one illness away from financial
ruin.

After nearly a century of trying, we are closer than ever to
bringing more security to the lives of so many Americans. The approach
we've taken would protect every American from the worst practices of
the insurance industry. It would give small businesses and uninsured
Americans a chance to choose an affordable health care plan in a
competitive market. It would require every insurance plan to cover
preventive care. And by the way, I want to acknowledge our First Lady,
Michelle Obama, who this year is creating a national movement to tackle
the epidemic of childhood obesity and make our kids healthier.

==============================

Mrs. Obama is appointed fat czar.

==============================

Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have
insurance to keep their doctor and their plan. It would reduce costs
and premiums for millions of families and businesses. And according to
the Congressional Budget Office – the independent organization that
both parties have cited as the official scorekeeper for Congress – our
approach would bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over
the next two decades.

==========================

His approach is cut Medicare by $500 billion per year. For 20 years that is $10 trillion. How come the savings will be just $1 trillion for 20 years?

==========================

Still, this is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the
more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not
explaining it more clearly to the American people. And I know that with
all the lobbying and horse-trading, this process left most Americans
wondering what's in it for them.

But I also know this problem is not going away. By the time I'm
finished speaking tonight, more Americans will have lost their health
insurance. Millions will lose it this year. Our deficit will grow.
Premiums will go up. Patients will be denied the care they need. Small
business owners will continue to drop coverage altogether. I will not
walk away from these Americans, and neither should the people in this
chamber.

As temperatures cool, I want everyone to take another look at the
plan we've proposed. There's a reason why many doctors, nurses, and
health care experts who know our system best consider this approach a
vast improvement over the status quo. But if anyone from either party
has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the
deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop
insurance company abuses, let me know. Here's what I ask of Congress,
though: Do not walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so
close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the
American people.

Now, even as health care reform would reduce our deficit, it's not
enough to dig us out of a massive fiscal hole in which we find
ourselves. It's a challenge that makes all others that much harder to
solve, and one that's been subject to a lot of political posturing.

So let me start the discussion of government spending by setting the
record straight. At the beginning of the last decade, America had a
budget surplus of over $200 billion. By the time I took office, we had
a one year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8
trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not
paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug
program.

=======================

Is Obama proposing doing away with Medicare Part D? Seniors should be concerned. First death panels, now no drugs.

=======================

On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion
hole in our budget. That was before I walked in the door.

Now if we had taken office in ordinary times, I would have liked
nothing more than to start bringing down the deficit. But we took
office amid a crisis, and our efforts to prevent a second Depression
have added another $1 trillion to our national debt.

I am absolutely convinced that was the right thing to do. But
families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough
decisions. The federal government should do the same. So tonight, I'm
proposing specific steps to pay for the $1 trillion that it took to
rescue the economy last year.

==================================

Wipe out the $1 trillion deficit, $15 billion at a time for 3 years. This does not add up. Did the President take any of those math courses he is promoting?

==================================

Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for
three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare,
Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other
discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family,
we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice
what we don't. And if I have to enforce this discipline by veto, I will.

We will continue to go through the budget line by line to eliminate
programs that we can't afford and don't work. We've already identified
$20 billion in savings for next year. To help working families, we will
extend our middle-class tax cuts. But at a time of record deficits, we
will not continue tax cuts for oil companies, investment fund managers,
and those making over $250,000 a year. We just can't afford it.

Now, even after paying for what we spent on my watch, we will still
face the massive deficit we had when I took office. More importantly,
the cost of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will continue to
skyrocket. That's why I've called for a bipartisan, Fiscal Commission,
modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent
Conrad. This can't be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us
pretend we solved a problem. The Commission will have to provide a
specific set of solutions by a certain deadline. Yesterday, the Senate
blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue
an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse
to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans. And when
the vote comes tomorrow, the Senate should restore the pay-as-you-go
law that was a big reason why we had record surpluses in the 1990s.

=================

The reaction to this was just derisive laughter. The president was openly mocked at this point.

=================

I know that some in my own party will argue that we cannot address
the deficit or freeze government spending when so many are still
hurting. I agree, which is why this freeze will not take effect until
next year, when the economy is stronger.

===================

The 2010 budget has already been signed without any freeze. That is why any freeze cannot take place until 2011.

===================

But understand – if we do not
take meaningful steps to rein in our debt, it could damage our markets,
increase the cost of borrowing, and jeopardize our recovery – all of
which could have an even worse effect on our job growth and family
incomes.

From some on the right, I expect we'll hear a different argument –
that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts
for wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations, and maintain the
status quo on health care, our deficits will go away. The problem is,
that's what we did for eight years. That's what helped lead us into
this crisis. It's what helped lead to these deficits. And we cannot do
it again.

Rather than fight the same tired battles that have dominated
Washington for decades, it's time to try something new. Let's invest in
our people without leaving them a mountain of debt. Let's meet our
responsibility to the citizens who sent us here. Let's try common sense.

To do that, we have to recognize that we face more than a deficit of
dollars right now. We face a deficit of trust – deep and corrosive
doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years. To
close that credibility gap we must take action on both ends of
Pennsylvania Avenue to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do
our work openly; and to give our people the government they deserve.

That's what I came to Washington to do. That's why – for the first
time in history – my Administration posts our White House visitors
online. And that's why we've excluded lobbyists from policy-making jobs
or seats on federal boards and commissions.

=====================

There may be a job or seat that has not been filled by a lobbyist. If so I have not heard of it. But to say that lobbyists have been excluded from policy making jobs is a flat lie.

====================

But we can't stop there. It's time to require lobbyists to disclose
each contact they make on behalf of a client with my Administration or
Congress. And it's time to put strict limits on the contributions that
lobbyists give to candidates for federal office. Last week, the Supreme
Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special
interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in
our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be
bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign
entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why
I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right
this wrong.

==========================

Congress shall make no law respecting freedom of speech. What part of no do you not understand Mr. President. Your oath was to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution. When you disrespect the Supreme Court sitting right in front of you, you make yourself look the petty tyrant.

==========================

I'm also calling on Congress to continue down the path of earmark
reform.

============================

That omnibus spending bill with 8000+ earmarks was the path or earmark reform?

============================

You have trimmed some of this spending and embraced some
meaningful change. But restoring the public trust demands more. For
example, some members of Congress post some earmark requests online.
Tonight, I'm calling on Congress to publish all earmark requests on a
single website before there's a vote so that the American people can
see how their money is being spent.

Of course, none of these reforms will even happen if we don't also reform how we work with one another.

Now, I am not naïve. I never thought the mere fact of my election
would usher in peace, harmony, and some post-partisan era. I knew that
both parties have fed divisions that are deeply entrenched. And on some
issues, there are simply philosophical differences that will always
cause us to part ways.

===================================

Slavery versus freedom is not a philosophical difference. We will always be unalterably opposed to every tyranny over the minds of man.

================================

These disagreements, about the role of
government in our lives, about our national priorities and our national
security, have been taking place for over two hundred years. They are
the very essence of our democracy.

But what frustrates the American people is a Washington where every
day is Election Day. We cannot wage a perpetual campaign where the only
goal is to see who can get the most embarrassing headlines about their
opponent – a belief that if you lose, I win.

==============================

Was it not Obama who told Republicans, we had an election, I won you lost?

==============================

Neither party should delay
or obstruct every single bill just because they can.

===================================

They should not obstruct every bill, just those that trample on the rights of the people and destroy the substance.

========================

The confirmation
of well-qualified public servants should not be held hostage to the pet
projects or grudges of a few individual Senators. Washington may think
that saying anything about the other side, no matter how false, is just
part of the game. But it is precisely such politics that has stopped
either party from helping the American people. Worse yet, it is sowing
further division among our citizens and further distrust in our
government.

So no, I will not give up on changing the tone of our politics. I
know it's an election year. And after last week, it is clear that
campaign fever has come even earlier than usual. But we still need to
govern. To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest
majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve some problems,
not run for the hills.

============================

Why would democrats be running for the hills unless they know the American people have no confidence in their program and are looking to promote them into careers outside of government.

============================

And if the Republican leadership is going to
insist that sixty votes in the Senate are required to do any business
at all in this town, then the responsibility to govern is now yours as
well. Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but
it's not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our
ambitions. So let's show the American people that we can do it
together. This week, I'll be addressing a meeting of the House
Republicans. And I would like to begin monthly meetings with both the
Democratic and Republican leadership. I know you can't wait.

Throughout our history, no issue has united this country more than
our security. Sadly, some of the unity we felt after 9/11 has
dissipated. We can argue all we want about who's to blame for this, but
I am not interested in re-litigating the past. I know that all of us
love this country. All of us are committed to its defense. So let's put
aside the schoolyard taunts about who is tough. Let's reject the false
choice between protecting our people and upholding our values. Let's
leave behind the fear and division, and do what it takes to defend our
nation and forge a more hopeful future – for America and the world.

That is the work we began last year. Since the day I took office, we
have renewed our focus on the terrorists who threaten our nation.

===================================

Focus like a laser beam, but be effective. Don't mirandize panty bomber leaving America vulnerable.

=============================

We have made substantial investments in our homeland security and
disrupted plots that threatened to take American lives. We are filling
unacceptable gaps revealed by the failed Christmas attack, with better
airline security, and swifter action on our intelligence. We have
prohibited torture and strengthened partnerships from the Pacific to
South Asia to the Arabian Peninsula. And in the last year, hundreds of
Al Qaeda's fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have
been captured or killed – far more than in 2008.

In Afghanistan, we are increasing our troops and training Afghan
Security Forces so they can begin to take the lead in July of 2011, and
our troops can begin to come home. We will reward good governance,
reduce corruption, and support the rights of all Afghans – men and
women alike. We are joined by allies and partners who have increased
their own commitment, and who will come together tomorrow in London to
reaffirm our common purpose. There will be difficult days ahead. But I
am confident we will succeed.

======================

Dead silence, no applause to the line 'I am confident we will succeed. Not one member of congress believed him.

======================

As we take the fight to al Qaeda, we are responsibly leaving Iraq to
its people. As a candidate, I promised that I would end this war, and
that is what I am doing as President. We will have all of our combat
troops out of Iraq by the end of this August. We will support the Iraqi
government as they hold elections, and continue to partner with the
Iraqi people to promote regional peace and prosperity. But make no
mistake: this war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home.

=========================

Our combat troops will be out of Iraq or all of our troops are coming home. Which is it?

=========================

Tonight, all of our men and women in uniform -- in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and around the world – must know that they have our
respect, our gratitude, and our full support. And just as they must
have the resources they need in war, we all have a responsibility to
support them when they come home. That is why we made the largest
increase in investments for veterans in decades. That is why we are
building a 21st century VA. And that is why Michelle has joined with
Jill Biden to forge a national commitment to support military families.

==========================

Mrs. Biden and Obama will work to reduce obesity among military children. That will support them.

==========================

Even as we prosecute two wars, we are also confronting perhaps the
greatest danger to the American people – the threat of nuclear weapons.
I have embraced the vision of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan through
a strategy that reverses the spread of these weapons, and seeks a world
without them. To reduce our stockpiles and launchers, while ensuring
our deterrent, the United States and Russia are completing negotiations
on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades. And
at April's Nuclear Security Summit, we will bring forty-four nations
together behind a clear goal: securing all vulnerable nuclear materials
around the world in four years, so that they never fall into the hands
of terrorists.

=====================

The vulnerable nuclear material is in North Korea and Pakistan. Just how will diplomats in wet panties go about this task. Strongly worded letters threatening paper cuts.

=====================

These diplomatic efforts have also strengthened our hand in dealing
with those nations that insist on violating international agreements in
pursuit of these weapons. That is why North Korea now faces increased
isolation, and stronger sanctions – sanctions that are being vigorously
enforced. That is why the international community is more united, and
the Islamic Republic of Iran is more isolated. And as Iran's leaders
continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: they,
too, will face growing consequences.

That is the leadership that we are providing – engagement that
advances the common security and prosperity of all people. We are
working through the G-20 to sustain a lasting global recovery. We are
working with Muslim communities around the world to promote science,
education and innovation. We have gone from a bystander to a leader in
the fight against climate change. We are helping developing countries
to feed themselves, and continuing the fight against HIV/AIDS. And we
are launching a new initiative that will give us the capacity to
respond faster and more effectively to bio-terrorism or an infectious
disease – a plan that will counter threats at home, and strengthen
public health abroad.

As we have for over sixty years, America takes these actions because
our destiny is connected to those beyond our shores. But we also do it
because it is right. That is why, as we meet here tonight, over 10,000
Americans are working with many nations to help the people of Haiti
recover and rebuild. That is why we stand with the girl who yearns to
go to school in Afghanistan; we support the human rights of the women
marching through the streets of Iran; and we advocate for the young man
denied a job by corruption in Guinea. For America must always stand on
the side of freedom and human dignity.

Abroad, America's greatest source of strength has always been our
ideals. The same is true at home. We find unity in our incredible
diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the
notion that we are all created equal, that no matter who you are or
what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by
it;

===================================

This is exactly wrong. You are protected by the constitution and the laws if you abide by them or not, if you adhere to our common values or not.

===================================

that if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no
different than anyone else.

We must continually renew this promise. My Administration has a
Civil Rights Division that is once again prosecuting civil rights
violations and employment discrimination. We finally strengthened our
laws to protect against crimes driven by hate. This year, I will work
with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies
gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who
they are. We are going to crack down on violations of equal pay laws –
so that women get equal pay for an equal day's work. And we should
continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system – to secure
our borders, enforce our laws, and ensure that everyone who plays by
the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nations.

In the end, it is our ideals, our values, that built America –
values that allowed us to forge a nation made up of immigrants from
every corner of the globe; values that drive our citizens still. Every
day, Americans meet their responsibilities to their families and their
employers. Time and again, they lend a hand to their neighbors and give
back to their country. They take pride in their labor, and are generous
in spirit. These aren't Republican values or Democratic values they're
living by; business values or labor values. They are American values.

Unfortunately, too many of our citizens have lost faith that our
biggest institutions – our corporations, our media, and yes, our
government – still reflect these same values. Each of these
institutions are full of honorable men and women doing important work
that helps our country prosper. But each time a CEO rewards himself for
failure, or a banker puts the rest of us at risk for his own selfish
gain, people's doubts grow. Each time lobbyists game the system or
politicians tear each other down instead of lifting this country up, we
lose faith. The more that TV pundits reduce serious debates into silly
arguments, and big issues into sound bites, our citizens turn away.

No wonder there's so much cynicism out there.

=======================

Every time we payoff senators in the hundreds of millions for their votes and conduct negotiations in secret and abjure amendments and vote on thousand page bills no one has read we redouble the cynicism and disappointment.
=======================

No wonder there's so much disappointment.

I campaigned on the promise of change – change we can believe in,
the slogan went. And right now, I know there are many Americans who
aren't sure if they still believe we can change – or at least, that I
can deliver it.

But remember this – I never suggested that change would be easy, or
that I can do it alone. Democracy in a nation of three hundred million
people can be noisy and messy and complicated. And when you try to do
big things and make big changes, it stirs passions and controversy.
That's just how it is.

Those of us in public office can respond to this reality by playing
it safe and avoid telling hard truths. We can do what's necessary to
keep our poll numbers high, and get through the next election instead
of doing what's best for the next generation.

But I also know this: if people had made that decision fifty years
ago or one hundred years ago or two hundred years ago, we wouldn't be
here tonight. The only reason we are is because generations of
Americans were unafraid to do what was hard; to do what was needed even
when success was uncertain; to do what it took to keep the dream of
this nation alive for their children and grandchildren.

=======================================

We, the people, have always done what is hard, for ourselves and our families. The government never does what is hard, just what will be in their personal political interest.

=======================================

Our administration has had some political setbacks this year, and
some of them were deserved. But I wake up every day knowing that they
are nothing compared to the setbacks that families all across this
country have faced this year. And what keeps me going – what keeps me
fighting – is that despite all these setbacks, that spirit of
determination and optimism – that fundamental decency that has always
been at the core of the American people – lives on.

It lives on in the struggling small business owner who wrote to me
of his company, "None of us," he said, "…are willing to consider, even
slightly, that we might fail."

It lives on in the woman who said that even though she and her
neighbors have felt the pain of recession, "We are strong. We are
resilient. We are American."

It lives on in the 8-year old boy in Louisiana, who just sent me his
allowance and asked if I would give it to the people of Haiti. And it
lives on in all the Americans who've dropped everything to go some
place they've never been and pull people they've never known from
rubble, prompting chants of "U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A!" when another life
was saved.

The spirit that has sustained this nation for more than two centuries lives on in you, its people.

======================

We, the people, will not quit defending our freedom. And that means getting rid of you and your party.

======================

We have finished a difficult year. We have come through a difficult
decade. But a new year has come. A new decade stretches before us. We
don't quit. I don't quit. Let's seize this moment – to start anew, to
carry the dream forward, and to strengthen our union once more.

Thank you. God Bless You. And God Bless the United States of America.

71st Governor of Virginia Inauguration

2010-01-16T19:57:00.003-05:00

It was a great day for the Commonwealth of Virginia. At noon today, under sunny skies, on the steps of the historic seat of government of the oldest legislative body in the United States, Robert Francis McDonnell took the oath of office and was inaugurated the 71st Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Preceding him, similar solemn oaths were administered to Kenneth Thomas Cuccinelli, II as Attorney-General and William Troy Bolling as Lieutenant Governor.

Gov. McDonnell in his inaugural speech promised the assembled citizens to build a Commonwealth of Opportunity for all Virginians:

- creating jobs and economic opportunities
- providing opportunities for innovation
- ensuring world class educational opportunities
- making Virginia the Energy Capital of the East Coast
- maximizing recreational opportunities for further generations

Governor McDonnell signed two executive orders before leaving the dais. The first executive order is titled: "Establishing the Chief Job Creation Officer and the Governor’s Economic Development and Job Creation Commission" with the Lieutenant Governor appointed as the Chief job Creation Officer.

The second executive order establishes Governor’s Commission on Government Reform and Restructuring to:

Identify opportunities for creating efficiencies in state government, including streamlining, consolidating, or eliminating redundant and unnecessary agency services, governing bodies, regulations and programs;

Explore innovative ways to deliver state services at the lowest cost and best value to Virginia taxpayers;

Seek out means to more effectively and efficiently perform core state functions, including potential privatization of government operations where appropriate, and restore focus on core mission oriented service; and

Examine ways for state government to be more transparent, user friendly and accountable to the citizens of the Commonwealth.

The Virginian Federalist extends our fullest commendation to Governor McDonnell at the inauguration of his Administration.

The Health Care Excise Tax

2010-01-14T07:38:00.002-05:00

The health care reform bill H.R. 3590, which passed the Senate on December 24, 2009 contains in Section 9001 of Title IX a new excise tax on high cost employer sponsored health coverage.

While some have described this tax as being aimed at 'cadillac health plans' a closer look at the bill reveals it is a death threat to health care coverage for those whose employer's sponsor self funded plans.

The 40% excise tax this bill imposes on costs in any month of over $708.33 for any single worker and $1916.67 for any family will quickly lead such employers to terminate the health coverage of their workers covered by such plans. Any worker or family member with a hospitalization would easily incur costs which exceed the monthly cap. In any month the cap is exceeded the 40% tax is imposed on the amount paid for health care for that worker which is over the cap.

Senator's Jim Webb and Mark Warner (both D-VA) voted for the bill with this provision in it. If you are a Virginian in an employer sponsored self funded health plan, you might want to let your Senator's know that you oppose this particularly foul pernicious section. (The links are to their web site email form.)

Afghanistan Marginalia

2009-12-03T07:30:00.001-05:00

The MSM and the blogosphere are surfeited with comments on President Obama's (shown in official White House photo) Afghanistan policy described in his Tuesday night address at the U.S. Military academy. I have taken the liberty of including some marginal comments (in italics) to the full text below the fold. The full text is taken from the official White House press release.

Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation on the Way Forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan
Eisenhower Hall Theatre, United States Military Academy at West Point, West Point, New York

8:01 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. To the United States Corps of Cadets (Perhaps the United States Military Academy Corps of Cadets, but not to be noticed by those with no familiarity with it), to the men and women of our Armed Services (This is a speech about war, can't we remember to call these folks the Armed Forces?), and to my fellow Americans: I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan -- the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion. It's an extraordinary honor for me to do so here at West Point -- where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security, and to represent what is finest about our country.

To address these important issues, it's important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of passengers onboard one of those flights, they could have also struck at (another) one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.

As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda -- a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world’s great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban -- a ruthless, repressive and radical movement (more folks who have distorted and defiled Islam?) that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.

Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them -- an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to nothing. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 -- the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda’s terrorist network and to protect our common security.

Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy -- and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden -- we sent our troops into Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its (The Taliban are animate humans, why are they referred to as it?) heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the U.N., a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.

Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war, in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq war is well-known and need not be repeated here. It's enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq war drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention -- and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world. (Those who supported Iraq, those who hoped to minimize American power and those who supported al Qaeda. The rest of the world excepting the much would be our allies.)

Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011 (Without the combat brigades who will defend the remaining troops?). That we are doing so is a testament to the character of the men and women in uniform. (Applause.) Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance (in the face of my strong, vocal and persistent opposition), we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people.

But while we've achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002 (before the war in Iraq began), al Qaeda’s leadership established a safe haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it's been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient security forces.

Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to control additional swaths of territory in Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating attacks of terrorism against the Pakistani people.

Now, throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. And that's why, shortly after taking office, I approved a longstanding request for more troops. After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan and the extremist safe havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian efforts.

Since then, we've made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we've stepped up the pressure on al Qaeda worldwide. In Pakistan, that nation's army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and -- although it was marred by fraud -- that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan's laws and constitution.

Yet huge challenges remain. Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. There's no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan security forces and better secure the population. Our new commander in Afghanistan -- General McChrystal -- has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short: The status quo is not sustainable.

As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. Some of you fought in Afghanistan. Some of you will deploy there. As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service. And that's why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy (August 30 McChrystal submits study showing need for more troops. August 20 Afghan elections) Now, let me be clear: There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war during this review period. Instead, the review has allowed me to ask the hard questions, and to explore all the different options, along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and our key partners. And given the stakes involved, I owed the American people -- and our troops -- no less.

This review is now complete. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.

I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions. (What Obama actually said in his October 2, 2002 speech was "I don't oppose all wars." "What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war....What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income.") We have been at war now for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort. (A partisan backdrop created principally by myself and my party.) And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home.

Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you -- a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens. As President, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their (Did anyone proofread this speech anyone, their) life in these wars. I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed. I visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed. I've (even once ) traveled to (all the way from Washington DC to ) Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place. I see firsthand the terrible wages of war. If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.

So, no, I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11 (The attacks were launched from planes taking off from Boston and New York), and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. And this danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.

Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America's war. Since 9/11, al Qaeda’s safe havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.

These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.

To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe haven. We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future.

We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban's momentum and increase Afghanistan's capacity over the next 18 months.

The 30,000 additional troops that I'm announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 -- the fastest possible pace -- so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They'll increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.

Because this is an international effort, I've asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we're confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. And now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what's at stake is not simply a test of NATO's credibility -- what's at stake is the security of our allies, and the common security of the world.

But taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces (the additional forces or all of the forces?) out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. (What is special about July as opposed to June or August?) Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We'll continue to advise and assist Afghanistan's security forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government -- and, more importantly, to the Afghan people -- that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country. (But our national interest as described is not the Afghan government responsibility for the country, but that the Taliban not gain control and provide a safehaven for al Qaeda. Why would we be able to withdraw if the Afghan government does not successfully take responsibility for the country?)

Second, we will work with our partners, the United Nations, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security.

This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai's inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We'll support Afghan ministries, governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas -- such as agriculture -- that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.

The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They've been confronted with occupation -- by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand -- America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect -- to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron.

Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.

We're in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That's why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.

In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who've argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.

In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interest, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear. America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan’s democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistan people must know America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan’s security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.

These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.

I recognize there are a range of concerns about our approach. So let me briefly address a few of the more prominent arguments that I've heard, and which I take very seriously.

First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we're better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. I believe this argument depends on a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now -- and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance -- would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.

Second, there are those who acknowledge that we can't leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we already have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan security forces and give them the space to take over.

Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a time frame for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort -- one that would commit us to a nation-building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what can be achieved at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a time frame for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.

As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, or our interests. (And the goals I have set are: 1) deny al Qaeda a safe haven. 2) reverse the Taliban's momentum and 3) deny it the ability to overthrow the government, but just for 18 months. After that somehow the security interests of the United States will change to not require achieving these goals. Al Qaeda will be able to have a safe haven, and the Taliban can regain momentum when we withdraw military support from the Afghan government.) And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I don't have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I'm mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who -- in discussing our national security -- said, "Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs."

Over the past several years, we have lost that balance. We've failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our neighbors and friends are out of work and struggle to pay the bills. Too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we can't simply afford to ignore the price of these wars. (By Obama's reckoning 1 trillion in 10 years as opposed to stimulus and TARP of 2 trillion in one year.)

All told, by the time I took office the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly $30 billion for the military this year (Although we will not deploy the troops that make up that approach until 2010 so we are talking about nine months of costs in Federal Fiscal Year 2010, about 3 percent of the Defense Department budget.), and I'll work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit. (It is unclear to me just what work closely with the Congrees to address these costs means.)

But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. That's why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended -- because the nation that I'm most interested in building is our own.

Now, let me be clear: None of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world. And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions, failed states, diffuse enemies.

So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict -- not just how we wage wars. We'll have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold -- whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere -- they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships.

And we can't count on military might alone. We have to invest in our homeland security, because we can't capture or kill every violent extremist abroad. We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence, so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks.

We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. And that's why I've made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists, to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and to pursue the goal of a world without them -- because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever more destructive weapons; true security will come for those who reject them.

We'll have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone. I've spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships. And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim world -- one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict, and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity.

And finally, we must draw on the strength of our values -- for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not. That's why we must promote our values by living them at home -- which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom and justice and opportunity and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the source, the moral source, of America’s authority.

Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents and great-grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. (Now that all those World War I vets have passed on, we don't need to recognize their efforts in global affairs) We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions -- from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank -- that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.

We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades -- a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, and markets open, and billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress and advancing frontiers of human liberty.

For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for -- what we continue to fight for -- is a better future for our children and grandchildren. And we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity. (Applause.)

As a country, we're not as young -- and perhaps not as innocent -- as we were when Roosevelt was President. Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom. And now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age.

In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people -- from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children, and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people, and for the people a reality on this Earth. (Applause.)
This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue -- nor should we. But I also know that we, as a country, cannot sustain our leadership, nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time, if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that (I have used) has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.

It's easy to forget that when this war began, we were united -- bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack, and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. (Applause.) I believe with every fiber of my being that we -- as Americans -- can still come together behind a common purpose. For our values are not simply words written into parchment -- they are a creed that calls us together, and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, as one people.

America -- we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering (for 18 months). We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes. (Applause.)

Thank you. God bless you. May God bless the United States of America. (Applause.) Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause.)

N.Y. Terror Trial Muddle

2009-11-16T08:30:00.001-05:00

The weekend news reports and talk show discussions are full of viewpoints regarding the announced terrorism trials to be held in New York City. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani remarked on the security threats trials in New York would pose as well as the publicity platform which such trials may provide to the defendants. Meanwhile, the AP reports Senator Patrick Leahy D-Vt, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee expressed the opinion, "If someone murders Americans in this country, they should be tried in the U.S" Senator Leahy has apparently missed the Supreme Court interpretation that the prisoners held in Guantanamo are within the U.S. at least for the purposes of access to the federal courts.

Senator Jack Reed, D-R.I., also commented on holding the trials in New York. He mentioned that the terrorists to be tried want to be considered holy warriors or jihadists which could be corroborated by a military commission trial. Reed is quoted as saying: "if we try them before military officers, that image of a soldier will be portrayed by the Islamic community. That's not the image we want."

The real muddle created by pursuing a criminal trial in federal court may be directly connected not to security, or sound bites, but to the legal details of trying the defendants. Senator Reed's comments suggest the desire to see the acts committed by those to be tried as criminal acts amenable to a criminal trial. If we accept that reasoning, we must also consider the due process requirements that a criminal trial requires.

The defendants for the trials in New York are reported to be Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, Walid bin Attash, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali and Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi.

According to the London based Telegraph Mohammed confessed to Yosri Fouda, an al-Jazeera reporter that he took part in the planning for the 9/11 attacks on New York in 2001 (Attacks depicted in the accompanying Pulitzer prize winning photo by Steve Ludlum, New York Times staff photographer). He was captured in March 2003 at a house in Rawalpindi Pakistan. He made his al-Jazeera confession alongside Ramzi bin al-Sibh. Although he allegedly participated in the planning for 9/11, al-Sibh was unable to get a U.S. visa and was unable to directly participate in the attacks. Walid bin Attash is suspected of training some of the 9/11 hijackers while Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi is supsected of organizing the financing for the 9/11 attackers. Ali Abdal Aziz Ali is the maternal nephew of Mohammed and is also believed to have participated in the financing and logistics for the 9/11 attacks. (Analysis of the criminal trial legal muddle continues below the fold.)

18 USC 2331 provides definitions for the following criminal articles relating to terrorism. It appears to be limited in application by the the apparent intent of the participants. The required elements of the definition are that overt acts are intended to coerce a civilian population, or influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping and with the overt acts occuring within United States territory.

Terrorism penalties are prescribed in the following section 2332. The death penalty in this section is allowed only for murdering a U.S. national outside the United States but participation in a conspiracy resulting in murder is not a capital offense.

It would seem that the conspiracy that each of the defendants are accused of participating in cannot result in a death penalty finding. The elements of the offense with regard to intent also would seem difficult to establish and prove. Indeed it is entirely possible that the intent of the attack was simply to cause death and destruction and not necessarily to coerce the population, influence government policy or affect the conduct of the government. It is possible however that the last element, affecting the conduct of the government to withdraw military forces from within the claimed Moslem caliphate may have been a motive.

Before the elements can be proved however, the government will need to establish that the arrests of the defendants took place pursuant to a warrant properly sworn and issued and that the defendants were given the due process protections required under the fourth amendment such as advise of the charges, warnings against self incrimination, access to effective counsel, and opportunity for writ of habeas corpus. During the trial they will also need to be given access to call witnesses and confront all witnesses against them. These may be problematic.

When we look outside the criminal process, we can consider the actions of the defendants in terms of acts of war. If they were acts of war they could be held as prisoners though out the duration of the conflict until properly exchanged. If they were acts of war, and they were combatants, the military forces of the United States would be obliged to kill them whenever or wherever found unless they surrendered or became incapable of defense. If they were acts of war the intent of each individual participant is not subject to review, as each combatant is equally subject to the use of deadly military force against them without regard to their individual circumstances, motives or intent. Violations of the law of war committed during the conduct of war are separately and individually punishable.

Taking all of the above into consideration, it is substantially likely that the criminal prosecutions against these defendants may founder on the legal issues and the administration may come to regret wading into this legal quagmire, especially for the sake of denying jihadist status to the defendants.

Blogs United Conference Nov 21

2009-11-12T22:58:00.002-05:00

The Blogs United Conference will be held at Christopher Newport University, Newport News VA in the Washington Room of the student union Saturday Nov. 21 from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. (doors open at 8 a.m.). Continental Breakfast and Lunch come with registration.

Cost is $15.

Invited guests include Sen. Jim Webb, Rep. Rob Wittman, Rep. Glenn Nye, reporters - Ryan Nobles, Anita Kumar, Julian Walker, and Kimball Payne, as well as Scott Hirons of the House Republican Campaign Committee and Greg Scanlon of the Virginia Democratic Party. There is also the possibility of a very special guest.

Topics during the conference include a lessons-learned discussion on the past campaign, opportunities to cover the General Assembly, the balance between being media and bloggers, and a tech discussion on the newest concepts in blogging.

We also will get a legal brief on some of the legal issues facing bloggers today.

Signup is here. Y'all come.

More charges for Hasan?

2009-11-12T22:12:00.003-05:00

Although Michelle Malkin makes an important case for 14 murder charges not 13 against Major Nidal Hasan (shown in the accompanying UK Telegraph photo composite), the Fort Hood jihadi murder suspect, there does appear to be at least one more charge that should be brought by his command against him.

Article 104 of the Uniform code of Military Justice defines the crime of Aiding the Enemy. This crime is committed by any person who, without proper authority, communicates or corresponds with the enemy, either directly or indirectly. Those who violate article 104 shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct. (Complete text below the fold)

The Authorization for Use of Military Force passed by the Congress on September 18, 2001 defines the authority to use military force against those nations, organizations, or persons determined to have planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001.

ABC News reports Thursday evening that Hasan "used multiple e-mail addresses and screen names as he contacted several jihadist web sites around the world." ABC News also reports, "In addition to his contacts with suspected al Qaeda recruiter Anwar al Awlaki in Yemen, authorities said there is evidence he contacted other radical sites and individuals, including some in Europe."

Since al Qaeda has been determined to be an organization that planned, authorized, and committed the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001 and it has been reported that Hasan communicated with Anwar al Awlaki, a recruiter for al Qaeda, it would appear that all of there is evidence to prove all of the elements of the offense described in Article 104 of the UCMJ. Is there any reason that Major Nidal Hasan should not be charged with that offense?

904. ART. 104. AIDING THE ENEMY
Any person who--
(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or
(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or [protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly;
shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.

The activities described by ABC News above may also be sufficient for charges of espionage in violation of UCMJ Article 106.:

906a. ART. 106a. ESPIONAGE
(A) (1) Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any entity described in paragraph (2), either directly or indirectly, any thing described in paragraph (3) shall be punished as a court-martial may direct, except that if the accused is found guilty of an offense that directly concerns (A) nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large scale attack, (B) war plans, (C) communications intelligence or cryptographic information, or (D) any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy, the accused shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court- martial may direct.
(2) An entity referred to in paragraph (1) is--
(A) a foreign government;
(B) a faction or party or military force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States
(C) a representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or citizen of such government, faction, party, or force.
(3) A thing refereed to in paragraph (1) is a document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance or information relating to the national defense.
(b) (1) No person may be sentenced by court-martial to suffer death for an offense under this section (article) unless--
(A) the members of the court-martial unanimously find at least one of the aggravating factors set out in subsection (c); and
(B) the members unanimously determine that any extenuating or mitigating circumstances are substantially outweighed by any aggravating circumstances, including the aggravating factors set out under subsection (c).
(2) Findings under this subsection may be based on--
(A) evidence introduced on the issue of guilt or innocence;
(B) evidence introduced during the sentencing proceeding; or
(C) all such evidence.
(3) The accused shall be given broad latitude to present matters in extenuation and mitigation.
(c) A sentence of death may be adjudged by a court-martial for an offense under this section (article) only if the members unanimously find, beyond a reasonable doubt, one or more of the following aggravating factors:
(1) The accused has been convicted of another offense involving espionage or treason for which either a sentence of death or imprisonment for life was authorized by statute.
(2) In the commission of the offense, the accused knowingly created a grave risk of substantial damage to the national security.
(3) In the commission of the offense, the accused knowingly created a grave risk of death to another person.
(4) Any other factor that may be prescribed by the President by regulations under section 836 of this title (Article 36).

Why Bob McDonnell should and will be Governor

2009-10-29T22:45:00.002-04:00

It is really simple. Just click below to see real leadership for Virginia. A vets vet, a citizen's citizen and the epitome of leadership. Hooah.

Master of Political Art

2009-10-29T07:31:00.005-04:00

The final candidate debate in the 93rd House District was scheduled for Wednesday evening at Christopher Newport University. As we noted in our previous post it was expected the Robin Abbott, the Democrat candidate would be a no show and that expectation was fulfilled. Her empty chair spoke pointedly about her unwillingness to discuss public issues in public with the voters she proposed to represent. It also highlighted that a candidate who cannot face her opponent or the public cannot have a claim to be prepared to legislate for that public.

The more important part of the story though is what followed the introductions and notice of the empty chair. On stage was Joel Rubin, long time public affairs interview format host and Delegate Phil Hamilton. One on one, no prepared script, no advance questions, no novices. What the audience received was a tour de force presentation of the art, substance and subtlety of Virginia legislative politics as only Phil Hamilton could deliver it, with clarity, nuance and depth of knowledge.

From health care, to the budget process, to education spending, places to adjust the budget, Hamilton demonstrated effortlessly the value he delivers to his 93rd district constituents, and to the Commonwealth. It is not often that voters get to hear the real truth, that there are no free roads, no easy solutions and no part of the budget is up for grabs. The state budget, all of it, is a sacred cow to some constituency and to some delegate, or the money would not be set aside for that purpose in the budget. The practical art is working with the priorities to fashion a budget bill that can fit within the revenue available and pass both legislative houses. The Phil Hamilton's insight seemed a cake walk.

Robin Abbott should have been there. She missed a master lesson from a legislative master of the political art. The voters of the 93rd should have no doubt that Phil Hamilton should continue to serve as their delegate.

Abbott AWOL from 93rd District Campaign

2009-10-24T04:43:00.003-04:00

In our post more than a week ago, we reported evidence that Robin Abbott, 93rd House District candidate had abandoned her campaign. Now there is more evidence. A press release from Phil Hamilton's (R-Newport News) campaign claims Abbott has refused to participate in a candidate forum at Christopher Newport University scheduled for October 28. That forum, sponsored by the university's Judy Ford Wason Center for Public Policy, and CNU Young Democrats and College Republicans is the third forum in two weeks that Abbott has failed to appear or refused to attend. Compounding Abbott's refusal is the fact that she is a CNU graduate.

Can Virginia afford a Liar as Attorney General?

2009-10-22T08:41:00.001-04:00

In his attack ad, which his campaign labels Ken Cuccinelli's Crony Politics, Democrat Attorney General nominee Steve Shannon claims "Cuccinelli said Hamilton should stay in Office" and cites the Washington Post 8/24/09 and the Daily Press 9/18/09 as sources for his allegation. In fact, Shannon's claim is a lie, and therefore Shannon is a liar. Here is what the Washington Post actually said:

Del. Steve Shannon of Fairfax County, the Democratic nominee for attorney general, called on Hamilton to resign from the legislature.
Shannon's Republican opponent, state Sen. Ken Cuccinelli, weighed in
too with a comment about wishing the events had unfolded differently.
But like other Republicans who said they were disappointed with
Hamilton, Cuccinelli stopped short of a call for Hamilton's ouster. Hamilton
said he considered resigning but decided against it, and he spent the
weekend knocking on doors, apologizing and otherwise battened down in the interest of weathering the darkest storm of his 21-year career in the House.

Just where in the Washington Post's quote does Sen. Cuccinelli call for Hamilton to stay in office?

and this is what the Daily Press actually reported:

So far, Republican attorney general nominee Ken Cuccinelli is the only
statewide candidate who hasn't called for Hamilton to step down from
the House. But this week while discussing Hamilton's ODU ties,
Cuccinelli said it would be appropriate for Hamilton to be removed from
appropriations because of the pending probes.

Just where in this Daily Press piece is Sen. Cuccinelli quoted as saying Hamilton should stay?

As we noted in our earlier post, it appears that Hamilton's opponent paid Shannon $50,000 to attack Hamilton. The only way to respond to Steve Shannon is to use the words made famous by Rep. Joe Wilson: You Lie.

Virginia cannot afford to elect a liar (and perhaps a hired liar) to be the senior officer of the court for the Commonwealth. If his ads were made as statements in court Shannon would be found to be a perjurer. Shannon should be disqualified from any post of trust or responsibility. Virginia beware.

Watch the Shannon ad for yourself taken directly from Shannon's website. Remember the tag line, I'm Steve Shannon, candidate for Attorney General, and I am a liar.

Have Abbott and West abandoned campaigns?

2009-10-15T21:50:00.005-04:00

The Newport News Southern Christian Leadership Conference held its House of Delegates candidate forum Thursday night at the Newport News City School Administration Building. The forum was to feature the candidates for the 93rd and 94th districts and was a followup to a similar forum held in April 2009. At the April forum all of the candidates agreed to the followup scheduled for Thursday night. To the surprise and consternation of the nearly 100 voters who crowded into the School Board chamber, neither Robin Abbott, Democratic candidate in the 93rd district, nor Gary West, Democratic candidate in the 94th district showed up for the forum. Their incumbent opponents Del. Phil Hamilton and Del. Glenn Oder did appear at the forum and took questions from the moderators, Bill Thomas of Hampton University and Kathy Barnstorff of NASA Langley and from the audience. Also in attendance were members of the Newport News City Council, Dr. Pat Woodbury and Tina Vick.

Given Abbott and West's previous commitment to attend the forum, the large audience and its sponsorship by the SCLC it is difficult to attribute the failure of both Democratic candidates to appear to anything but their abandonment of their election campaigns.

Obama says he will end Don't Ask Don't Tell

2009-10-10T21:59:00.003-04:00

The Wall Street Journal is reporting Saturday night that President Obama has pledged to end the ban on gays serving openly in the armed forces. Speaking at the annual dinner of the Human Rights Campaign, a advocacy group for gay rights, Mr. Obama was quoted as saying: "I will end "don't ask-don't tell.'" No time frame was associated with his promise.

While Mr. Obama made the first person pledge, don't ask-don't tell is not a policy malleable by the president, it is a law which requires action by the Congress to change. Even if done at the request of the president, it would never be accurate to say the president changed the law, only that Congress changed the law. The Whitehouse lists a livestream link to the speech audio but the link does not appear to be working. (Accompanying Getty Image photo of Pres. Obama and TOTUS addressing HRC link from online.WSJ.com)

Treat Juvenile Violent Offenders more leniently?

2009-10-05T08:35:00.003-04:00

Sunday's Daily Press reports on the arrest of two seventeen-year-olds on charges of murder, burglary, grand larceny, conspiracy, and the use of a firearm in the commission of a felony.

During last Thursday's Voices for Children candidate forum, Robin Abbott, Democratic party candidate for delegate in the 93rd district staked out a position that Virginia should not routinely treat juveniles, like the two arrested, as adults because they have statistically different outcomes then those in juvenile facilities. (Her remarks are in the embedded video)

No matter how serious their crimes, young people, who are adjudicated as juveniles, cannot serve sentences past their 21st birthday. For the two arrested today, that would mean a sentence of not more than four years for murder, and the use of a firearm in a felony. Virginia and the 93rd district cannot afford a delegate so out of tune with public safety, favoring holding the two juveniles in the Daily Press story fully accountable for their actions.

Stimulas Working? Not! Unemployment rises to 9.8%

2009-10-02T11:42:00.003-04:00

Although having predicted that unemployment would not increase beyond 8% if the immediately needed $787 billion stimulus package was passed, the Washington Post reports today that the unemployment rate reached 9.8% in September, and the economy lost a further 263,000 jobs in September, more than the revised 201,000 jobs lost in August.

When the August results were announced, the President declared:

"that while lost jobs are still “unacceptable” there are some signs of light.

“For the second straight month, we lost fewer jobs than the month before and it was the fewest jobs lost in a year. So make no mistake. We're moving in the right direction. We're on the road to recovery. Ohio. Don’t let anybody tell you otherwise.”

Now that the loss of jobs has increased from August to September(see accompanying Washington Post chart) and the overall unemployment rate has risen, not fallen, I think we can tell Mr. Obama otherwise. Perhaps we can judge the honesty of the President's remarks using the words now made famous by Representative Joe Wilson: "You Lie."

The American Dream Sunset?

2009-10-02T10:21:00.003-04:00

Sunset on the American Dream? Don't count on it. Over 2000 Defenders of the American Dream are gathering at Arlington Virginia's Crystal Gateway Marriott to make sure it is a rising not a setting sun. They will be storming Capital Hill this afternoon to remind our representatives that we expect them to defend the dream also and not be drawing the curtains.

What is the American Dream? In a word freedom. Freedom for ourselves and our children. Freedom to succeed or learn from our failures. Freedom to achieve, grow and prosper. Freedom to pursue happiness, an inalienable right, which along with life and liberty form the basis of our republican ideals.

The Defending the American Dream Summit will be underway today and tomorrow sponsored by Americans for Prosperity. Following visits to Capital Hill, this evening's highlight is the 'Tribute to Ronald Reagan' Dinner with Laura Ingraham, Congressman Mike Pence (R-IN), Dr. Jim Miller, former Reagan administration budget director, and American's for Prosperity Chairman Art Pope.

The VirginianFederalist is live blogging from the conference's blogger's row. Follow updates here, and on twitter (#dad09).

Defend the American Dream!

Peninsula Candidates Mental Health Forum

2009-09-30T07:30:00.000-04:00

The Colonial Services Board and the Hampton-Newport News Community Services Board hosted a General Assembly candidates forum Tuesday evening at Dozier Middle School in Newport News. The forum attracted candidates from the 64th, 91st, 93rd and 94th House Districts, covering the Peninsula and extending across the James. The forum focused on services for people with mental illness, developmental disabilities and and substance use disorders, and was very timely not only for the upcoming general election but in light of the significant budget cuts announced by Governor Kaine this month.

Del. William Barlow (D-64), Samuel Eure (D) and Gordon Helsel (I) candidates in the 91st district, Del Phil Hamilton (R-93) and candidate Robin Abbott (D), Del. Glenn Oder (R-94) and candidate Gary West (D), and Del. Brenda Pogge (R-94) participated in the forum hosted by David Coe, Executive Director, Colonial Services Board and moderated by Renee Cabral-Daniels of the Williamsburg Community Health Foundation.
Read some interesting opinions and candidate thoughts below the fold.

A recurring theme throughout the forum and among all the candidates was support for shifting treatment resources and responsibility in tandem to community based services like those provided by the Community Services Boards, and support for reducing the number of people waiting for community services funding under the Medicaid MR Waiver program.

In his opening remarks Mr. Eure surprised audience members when he described the purpose of providing services to people with developmental disabilities as "to help as much as possible for the benefit of the state."

Gordon Helsel clearly acknowledged the plight of aging parents with developmentally delayed children who remain unsure who will look after their children when they become to old to do so, or are no longer there.

Del. Hamilton remarked on the appropriateness of having a public policy discussion for a change with only 35 days remaining before the election. He noted that he was the chief sponsor for legislation with created the Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy to ensure an independent voice to protect the vulnerable as well as the creation of an Inspector General within the Department of Behavioral Health and Disability Services. He also mentioned that he was one of only two legislators on the Mental Health Law Commission. (The other is Attorney General Candidate Senator Ken Cuccinelli.) Del. Hamilton also pointed to his efforts to find the funds to modernize and rebuild facilities at Eastern State Hospital, South-East Virginia Training Center, and the Commonwealth Center in Staunton. He stated that he was the only legislator to publicly oppose the Governor's action to cut half of new Medicaid disability waivers out of the FY 2010 budget.

Ms. Abbott recognized that funding for services for those on the MR Waiver waiting list was important but seemed somewhat confused about the actual numbers even though this information was presented by others earlier. Del. Oder remarked on his personal connection to the Sarah Bonwell Hudgins Foundation services for persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Mr. West described his experiences as an attorney seeking assistance for his clients from insurance companies, government bureaucracies, and the courts. Del. Pogge reminded the audience that even before the inception of the United States, Virginia had recognized that the treatment of people with mental illness was a core function of government marked by the establishment in Williamsburg of the first public hospital for the mentally ill.

While all of the participants responding to a question about Drug Courts expressed support for this treatment option, Mr. Eure expressed the view that non-violent drug offenders should not be jailed. He did not mention that the drug treatment courts are effective as an alternative only because they are an alternative to jail. Del. Hamilton noted that the disparity in state support for drug treatment courts which has resulted in only 14 of the 29 courts receiving state funding and recognized that with limited overall state funding the House has traditionally given priority to the funding of MR waivers.

In response to a question about how to fund MR waivers for those critically needing services, Robin Abbott that the funds could be found by reducing the waste, fraud and abuse in the state budget but failed to mention what she considered to be current wasteful, fraudulent or abusive spending. Del. Hamilton respond by noting that this was not a line item in the 400+ page state budget. Mr. Eure expressed his support for keeping all options open for funding services including raising taxes.

The forum was civil, well attended and a rare example of political discourse focused on real problems and solutions.

Did Hamilton's Opponent Buy Steve Shannon's call for Resignation?

2009-09-27T12:28:00.004-04:00

Robin Abbott is Phil Hamilton's Democrat opponent in Virginia's 93rd House District race. On August 24, 2009, Steve Shannon (D), nominee for Attorney General called for Phil Hamilton to resign, which would pave the way for Abbott's unopposed election. Abbott's law firm is Consumer Litigation Associates , whose address she lists as her official address on campaign reports.. According to records published by the Virginia Public Access Project, Consumer Litigation Associates made a contribution of $10,000 to Shannon's campaign on March 19, 2009. (The firm is the largest contributor to Abbott's campaign, $75,833 through 8/31) Just seven days after Shannon assisted Abbott in calling for Hamilton's resignation, Consumer Litigation Associates contributed another $40,000 to Shannon's campaign. Consumer Litigation Associates' $50,000 in contributions makes the firm the largest single contributor to his campaign after the Democratic Attorney Generals Association.

Did Robin Abbott simply buy Shannon's opposition to Hamilton for $50,000? Can Virginia afford an Attorney General so easy to buy. Can the citizens of the 93rd House District afford a delegate willing to bribe others to promote her candidacy?

(Accompanying photo of Shannon, 95th District Delegate Mamye BaCote, Abbott and Charlie Stanton (of Senator Webb's Hampton Roads office and Chairman, Newport News City Democratic Committee)from Abbott's public website.

Lies and More Lies

2009-09-09T23:16:00.002-04:00

President Obama spoke to the Congress and the country about health care in a speech Wednesday night. The full text of the speech is available here. I have not witnessed previously any previous forty-eight minutes as crammed packed with lies, falsehoods, and prevarications. If this speech were made under oath it would be almost in its entirety perjurious. Here are some examples (below the fold)

Here are just some examples.

Obama begins by talking about health insurance and those that do not have it. He mentions that "these are middle-class Americans." Yet the ranks of the uninsured is not primarily middle class Americans. One third are not Americans at all. One third are not middle class but those poor enough to be eligible for Medicaid and the children's health insurance plan who do not enroll.

He continues: "Some can’t get insurance on the job. Others are self-employed, and can’t afford it, since buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer." What are we to make of this statement. Buying individual insurance does not cost three times as much as the cost of employer provided insurance. The key to the half-truth here is the you as 'costs you three times as much'. This really is a lie. The employer may not directly charge you for the health insurance the employer is paying for, but you are paying for it in lower wages. The insurance itself does not cost three times as much, in fact if you could buy a policy that provided you the coverage you wanted and allowed you to accept the risks you wanted you could pay substantially less than the employer does.

"Many other Americans who are willing and able to pay are still denied insurance due to previous illnesses or conditions that insurance companies decide are too risky or expensive to cover." Another lie. These denied Americans are simply unwilling to pay the actual cost of the care they wish to purchase. Try buying a $100,000 life insurance policy while waiting for open heart surgery. The premium would be close to $100,000 in order to cover the huge risk that the payout will be required before the ink is dry on the policy. If you have a high risk of incurring large medical bills the cost of insuring that risk will be proportionately high. For it to be less requires that someone else incur the cost either voluntarily or by force.

In berating the country for not having solved the supposed health care crisis until now, Obama notes: "There are now more than thirty million American citizens who cannot get coverage." This statement is patently untrue. All of these thirty million could get coverage, but the cost might be at a price greater than they are willing to pay. The administration claims 46 million or so people without coverage. If we deduct those who are not Americans (12 million) this leaves 34 million. Of these 9 million are now eligible for Medicaid or other entitlements but have not applied. They can get coverage. With this in mind it is not possible for there to be 30 million who cannot get coverage. Mr. Obama is not being truthful.

Mr. Obama mentions that: "More and more Americans worry that if you move, lose your job, or change your job, you’ll lose your health insurance too." The issue is not the level of worry. There are lots of Americans who worry that an asteroid will destroy the earth tomorrow, that some polar bear will drown when the ocean levels rise to cover the Rocky Mountains, that the Yankees will not beat the Red Sox. Their inordinate and uninformed worries are their own. No one moving from house to house loses their life insurance. No one losing their job or changing their job loses their auto insurance. Their worry about losing the health insurance arises from the fact that they don't purchase that insurance with their own money and instead are reliant on someone else to pay for it. If they purchased their own health insurance, suitable to their needs, with their own money, they would not be worrying about the circumstances of their employment or choice of residence.

Mr. Obama describes: "Then there’s the problem of rising costs. We spend one-and-a-half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren’t any healthier for it." Here Obama's sophistry is in the use of the word we. Just who is the we. Many Americans spend money on health care. This includes food supplements, laser eye surgery, botox, massage therapy, aroma therapy, gender reassignment and cosmetic surgery. I am perfectly happy for Americans to spend their own money on any of these services if that makes those individuals happy, whether they are healthier for it or not. If they spend their own money on what they desire, it does not cost we anything. In those other advanced democracies much admired by the president, the we there does not have those costs because the we their refuses to pay for it, along with advanced medications, modern technology and if the British newspapers are correct even food or water for those who might die.

Further along Mr. Obama claims: "And it’s why those of us with health insurance are also paying a hidden and growing tax for those without it – about $1000 per year that pays for somebody else’s emergency room and charitable care. " He also asserts, "There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false – the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally."
If there is a hidden cost of $1,000 per year paying for 'somebody else's emergency room and charitable care' and those 12 million illegal immigrants will not be covered, won't that $1,000 per year hidden tax still exist unless illegal immigrants are to be denied any health care they don't pay for themselves?

We may also appropriately ask just how will payments for health care for illegal immigrants be denied? Under current law, patients cannot be denied necessary emergency room treatment because they cannot pay. Hospitals may not even ask how the service will be paid for before providing it. the 'reforms I'm proposing' will not apply to those here illegally, hospitals would be required to demand up front payment or deny the care all while trying to sift out the issue of which patient is here legally and which is not. Mr. Obama is not telling the whole truth here either.

If the only way Mr. Obama has to overcome the well-founded objections of the American people is to offer lies and more lies, than his proposals should receive the reception they deserve. Those who plan to vote for these proposals should be counted by the people as among the liars and enemies of the nation. As for me and my house we will not support them.

(Accompanying AP/Chalres Dharapak photo from the Wall Street Journal)

U.K. Political Correctness run Amok

2009-09-06T07:51:00.007-04:00

Headline and lead in the U.K. Daily Telegraph Sunday morning: Riot Police arrest 20 as right-wing protest in Birmingham ends in violence. Lead: At least 20 men have been arrested after violent clashes between right-wing protesters and anti-fascist campaigners in Birmingham city centre.

The story goes on to describe only one side of the disturbance participants as members of the English Defense League and quotes from an EDL statement:
"As many people are now aware, we at the English Defence League are holding a demonstration in Birmingham on Saturday 5th September to oppose Islamic Extremists.

"We would like to state that anyone who wishes to cause trouble, or use this demonstration to voice any other issues other than Islamic Fundamentalists, Radical Islam and Sharia will be turned away.

"We are not a Fascist organisation, and urge anyone who knows of anybody who is intent on causing trouble on the day to contact us."

Since the lead defines the two sides as a) right-wing protesters and b) anti-fascist campaigners which of these terms is the Telegraph applying to the English Defense League? By their own statements they are demonstrating to oppose Islamic Extremists, are not a Fascist organization and organized the event. It would seem that they would be the anti-fascist campaigners. If so, the right-wing protesters would be the Islamic extremists although there is no mention of them in the balance of the article.

I suspect though that the Telegraph meant this the other way around, meaning to identify the English Defense League as the right-wing protesters and "persons of South Asian origin" as the anti-fascist campaigners, but not being able to mention the actions or even participation of one of the two sides due to political correctness, has left us with an entirely confused impression and bereft of understanding what exactly the story was about. After all the persons of South Asian origin who are Islamic extremists cannot possibly be fascist or protesters, but freedom loving campaigners.

Contrast this with the treatment given the same story in the New York Times:

The clashes erupted Saturday when a rally by the English Defense League ran into counter-demonstrators including anti-fascists and youths of South Asian descent, West Midlands Police said.

For the first time we get the identification of the unnamed counter protester as anti-fascists and youths of South Asian descent. (That would be your Isalmic extemists). We also learn something of the background that did not appear in the Telegraph:

Clashes also erupted last month at a similar demonstration in Birmingham, a diverse city of about 1 million where nearly a third of the population is nonwhite.

[As an aside, in the photo background is a sign offering 1900 square feet for rent. I thought England had adopted the metric system and criminalized transactions in unapproved measurement systems.]

(Accompanying PA photo from Telegraph Co. U.K.)

Van Jones, Obama Green Jobs Czar out

2009-09-06T01:24:00.002-04:00

The Wall Street Journal is reporting early this morning,
that Van Jones, White House advisor for 'green jobs' has resigned. Jones and the White House had come under pressure when it was discovered that Jones had signed a 2004 petition for congressional hearing on "whether high-level government officers had allowed the attacks to occur" on September 11, 2001. A number of egregious comments made by Jones were aired on Fox News' Glen Beck Show on September 1, 2009.

On September 4, White House spokesperson Robert Gibbs declined to state that Jones enjoyed the confidence of President Obama.
(Accompanying AP photo)

UK NHS Adopts Patient Murder Protocol

2009-09-03T07:21:00.003-04:00

An extraordinarily alarming story in the UK Daily Telegraph describes the adoption by Britain's National Health Service of a protocol to end the life of patients considered terminal by withdrawing food and water and other care. The denial of care decisions are made without consultation or notice to the patient or the patients family. The policy, the Liverpool Care Pathway, was recommended by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice). Nice is the model for the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research established in the Department of Health and Human Services under the stimulus act.

While the comparative effectiveness research council would do research and make clinical recommendations, Americans receiving their health care at government expense could expect to have that care conform to the recommendations developed by the council, just as the Liverpool Care Pathway was adopted by National Health Service hospitals on recommendation by Nice.

When we begin to describe health care as costing the nation too much money, instead of recognizing the costs are borne by individuals with individual, personal rights and decision making capability we are on the same path which led to the adoption of this policy by the National Health Service.

No private health care plan, doctor of organization in the United States could adopt a policy of purposeful death of patients today without criminal and civil penalties. The fifth amendment to the Constitution states no person shall... be deprived of life...without due process of law. The current proposals to move more of the management and control of health care expenditures and decision making from individuals to government will inevitably lead to adoption of the same type of death protocols as now adopted in Britain. Government decisions to end the life of citizens without criminal conviction and without due process can have no other name than tyranny. Sic Semper Tyrannis is a proper motto for opposing the health care proposals now before the Congress. Read the story, read the accompanying comments. Who has a pike.

Roanoke Times Anti-Cuccinelli Screed

2009-08-30T08:42:00.003-04:00

Dan Case, metro columnist for the Roanoke Times, has an anti-concealed carry permit screed up this morning attacking Attorney General candidate Ken Cuccinelli for his work on the concealed carry permit law. If Case was telling the whole truth his article could almost comprise an argument, but he did not go that far. Let's look at the facts.

Case complains that he was able to obtain a concealed carry permit after taking an online course and passing a test about gun safety, without having handled a gun, but he does not indicate exactly what he is complaining about except to say that "makes as much sense as the General Assembly giving blind people permit to drive." The omission Case makes is that no permit is required to carry a gun without concealing it. How does the act of concealing the gun require more safety instruction than carrying the same gun in plain view?

Case attacks Cuccinelli for championing the bill and infers that his motive was a $1,000 campaign contribution from Robert Marcus, owner of the Concealed Carry Institute which offers the on line test Case took to qualify for his permit. What Case fails to mention is that the Virginia law is not specific to the Concealed Carry Institute or Marcus. Instead it permits as one of eight other options "Completing any firearms training or safety course or class, including an electronic, video, or on-line course, conducted by a state-certified or National Rifle Association-certified firearms instructor." Marcus may have been happy to have this section in the law, but it left him to compete with any other certified instructor in any state who had such a course. In addition the law prior to this amendment recognized any hunter education or safety course approved by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries or of any other state, or completion of "any National Rifle Association firearms safety or training course" whether it required actual contact with a gun of any sort or not.

Perhaps Case would like to share the rest of the story with his readers instead of the partial truth he has offered.

VA Dem AG Candidate favors higher spending and lower spending?

2009-07-31T20:08:00.003-04:00

The Roanoke Times at its roanoke.com website reports on a visit Wednesday by Steve Shannon who the report indicates is running for Attorney General as the Democratic party nominee.

The article notes that Shannon said he wanted to keep taxes low but increase expenditures for public and higher education, safe communities, and transportation infrastructure. Since Virginia must have a balanced budget, and is currently running a deficit, his proposals presume either increasing taxes or cutting other spending. He did not say which spending he wished to reduce. He also did not mention that other than the budget for his own office, the Attorney General has no constitutional role to play in the budget process or spending priorities.

Shannon listed his priorities for his campaign as:

a. Issues emerging from Virginia's shift from an industrial to a technological economy, including Internet-based crimes such as child pornography.

b. Gangs and drug problems, especially those that span across local jurisdictions.

c. Economic crimes, including market frauds and scams.

For priority a, I am not sure if Shannon thinks moving from industry to information based economic services is a good or bad thing, but he does apparently think Virginia has a child pornography based internet crime industry and he can either encourage or suppress it by talking about it in his campaign.

For priority b and c, it appears that market frauds and scams as well as gangs and drug problems are crimes that are beyond the capability of the commonwealth attorneys charged with prosecuting crimes defined in the Code of Virginia and that Shannon can effect these issues positively or negatively by campaigning for office.

Perhaps he meant to say he was going to propose taking some undefined action concerning these issues if elected but failed to say that or define the actions.

In the article Shannon is also quoted as saying:

"Every time I start feeling like things are getting way too partisan in Richmond, I try to think back to those kids, those kids I represented in the courtroom," Shannon said. "I try to think back of what they expected of me as a prosecutor. That's been the way I try to conduct myself in Richmond, and that's going to be the way I'll conduct myself should I be elected your next attorney general."

I am not sure exactly how to interpret this remark except to understand that, if elected Attorney General, Shannon will behave as children would expect, whatever that is. Possible option shown in accompanying photo.

Economy Mending?

2009-07-31T07:24:00.000-04:00

The Money section of USA Today's Thursday print edition was headlined, Reports show economy mending. Obama sees 'beginning of the end of the recession'. I do not know what story USA Today's editors were reading when they wrote that headline. The story by Matt Krantz which followed made the following points:
1. Five federal reserve regions were reporting economies which were subdued or weak while the Minneapolis region was faltering.
2. The Federal Reserve beige book report indicated concern about the demand for office buildings, retail space, and manufacturing facilities.
3. Jim Paulsen of Wells Capital Management was quoted as saying, "There's a lot of information that supports the idea we've turned a corner, but there's still a lot of doubt.
On the same page we also learned:
4. Orders to U.s. factories for big-ticket durable goods fell in June by the most in five months, 2.5%, much larger than the .6% decline economist had expected.
5. Unemployment rates rose from May to June in 348 of 370 metropolitan areas.
6. Oil prices fell almost 6% on Wednesday alone.
7. In trading on Wednesday the Nasdaq composite index, the Standard & Poor's 500 index and the Dow Jones Industrial Average each lost 1% of their value.
The online edition also reported
8. Banks increased borrowing from the Federal Reserve's emergency lending facility over the past week.
9. Mortgage rates rose a second week in a row which does not help the housing industry.
and
10. Even the headline quote from President Obama was not quite as positive as it appeared. The more accurate rendition provided in the article from a comment made at a town hall meeting in Raleigh, North Carolina was, "We may be seeing the beginning of the end of the recession." Or not.

Cash for Clunkers Clunks Out

2009-07-30T21:11:00.002-04:00

Bloomberg News reports Thursday evening that six days into the Cash for Clunkers program, established in the Iraq and Afghanistan War funding bill, the program is being closed because all of the $1 Billion budget has been spent. The program offered rebates of up to $4,500 per clunker. At that rate something just over 222,000 vehicles would be turned in for destruction as the program was designed. Bloomberg quotes an unnamed congressional official as saying the demand for the rebate "proved greater than expected."

My preliminary numbers would suggest that in addition to the $1 billion of additional U.S. government debt created by the program, federal highway tax revenue will decline by approximately $5 million in the first year, and the total wealth of the United States represented by the automobiles destroyed would be a further $500 million, a total cost to the nation of over $1.5 billion.
(photo from bigfatcars.com)

A district in Michigan's idiot has been found in Washington

2009-07-28T00:30:00.004-04:00

With a hat tip to Netrightnation, we consider the curious statement of Representative John Conyers (D-MI) on exercising the duties of congressman. Mr. Conyers avers:

"What good is reading the bill if it's a thousand pages and you don't have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?"

What good indeed. Mr. Conyers might well ask this of his constituents except put slightly differently. What good is having a representative that does not read or understand the legislation being considered. Just hand the voting keys to Ms. Pelosi and enjoy the perks of a health care plan your constituents will not be provided with.

If there are any readers in Mr. Conyers district please tell me this will be his final term in office.

Newport News Mayor Joe Frank will not seek Reelection

2009-07-21T22:56:00.004-04:00

Newport News Mayor Joe Frank announced Tuesday night that he would not seek reelection as Mayor in May 2010. The Mayor's announcement is provided in full below.

JOE S. FRANK

NEWPORT NEWS, VIRGINIA 23606

July 21, 2009

Letter to the Editor

It has been my honor and privilege to serve the citizens of Newport News as a Councilman and Mayor for over 21 years. It has been one of the most rewarding and fulfilling experiences of my life. I have met people that I would have never known, and learned about things that I never would have been exposed to, but for this remarkable journey. I have been welcomed into countless homes and businesses. I have shared the joys and sorrows of families from every part of the City and every walk-of-life. I have watched our young people grow and thrive in our schools and on our athletic fields, in our museums and our parks. I have heard the voices of our elderly as they reminisced and told their life stories, and learned from the richness of their experiences.

In my efforts to improve the lives of our citizens, I have been blessed to have the support, encouragement, and help of countless numbers of people: governors and senators, congressional representatives, members of the legislature and elected officials, business and civic leaders, educators, City staff, and colleagues on City Council. But the most valued support and encouragement has come from my family, friends, and the citizens of this wonderful City that I call home. These are the things that I treasure every day. I will always be proud of what we have accomplished together. As meaningful and rewarding as these experiences have been, my time and life have not been my own and it is time for me to regain that.

As I look to the years ahead, it is time for me to pave the way for a new generation of leadership for our community. So with some regret, but with absolute confidence that I have made the right decision, I have decided not to seek re-election in May. I do this now so that others who might seek the office will have ample time to organize and prepare—and more importantly—so that our citizens will have full opportunity to consider what they expect from our next Mayor and who will best meet those expectations. Personally I look forward to spending more time with my wife, children, and grandchildren, and to pursuing other opportunities.

The years ahead hold great promise for our City. A leader with clear vision and purpose will seize the many opportunities that will surely arise and continue to take us down the path of progress and assure our future success. Cities that stagnate, fail. The examples of that are all too abundant. So we are challenged to look forward; to take advantage of our many assets and build upon them, and to make this City a place of excellence, where truly, people will want to live, work, and raise a family. I wish us well!

Joe S. Frank

Mayor

McDonnell - Deeds Blogs United Debate -Not Yet

2009-07-21T22:40:00.004-04:00

Blogs United was my coming out to the world of blogging. Soon after I joined my esteemed colleagues at the Virginian Federalist. The candidates who attended that initial conference at Christopher Newport University were aware of the potential influence of the blogosphere and the value of personal contact with a wide spectrum of bloggers. Recently Blogs United invited Bob McDonnell and Creigh Deeds to a live in person debate at Christopher Newport University. The McDonnell campaign accepted. Today the Deeds campaign announced some events they would attend, but the Blogs United Debate was not one of them. ,

Jim Hoeft from Bearing Drift offered the following statement on behalf of Blogs United:

As some of you are aware, Blogs United has partnered with the Virginian-Pilot, Daily Press, WHRO, and Virginia Talks to provide citizens of the commonwealth a chance to engage with the gubernatorial candidates, Creigh Deeds and Bob McDonnell, in a forum at Christopher Newport University in late September.

Approximately two weeks ago, the McDonnell campaign accepted our offer to participate. Today, the Deeds campaign listed ten debates they would participate in, and ours was not one of them.

As vice chairman, Vivian Paige, notes on her blog, Blogs United is not out of the mix yet because the campaigns could agree to do more than the five mutually agreed to today, and ours could be one of the ones chosen in this "tussle."

I would note that Blogs United is not the only on-line venue that the Deeds campaign did not accept. They also declined to participate in the YouTube/Politico proposed debate.

Regardless, while I am initially disappointed that the Deeds campaign has turned away from the online community, and its increasingly growing readership, I am confident that other campaigns and speakers will be interested in participating at our venue.

I also remain hopeful that the Deeds campaign will reconsider their decision.

We know that the McDonnell campaign, at least, is still interested:

"We still want to do this debate," wrote Tucker Martin, McDonnell spokesman to the Deeds campaign and the Board of Directors via email.
Posted by J.R.Hoeft at 12:28 PM

(Accompanying photo from Fairfax Chamber of Commerce)

Health Care Fantasyland

2009-07-20T21:51:00.005-04:00

Tamara Dietrich, a local columnist for the Newport News Daily Press, is among the latest uninformed and uninforming media types to consider the current proposals in Congress to reform health care. In a column appearing Monday, Ms. Dietrich manages to display a stunning degree of ignorance. Where shall we begin?

Ms. Dietrich begins by citing the concerns of a local resident, Teresa Crowson, described as being "married to a city firefighter with good private insurance." When Ms. Dietrich describes this as private insurance one should not read this to mean individual insurance obtained directly by Ms. Crowson, or a group insurance plan purchased by a private corporation, but a public government plan purchased by the city that the firefighter works for and in which she and her firefighter spouse are subscribed beneficiaries. This distinction is important because the insurance coverage purchaser, the city, determined the terms of the policy, and shortcomings of the plan, if any, are the result of the city's negotiation with the insurer or the result of a competitive public procurement based on specifications provided by the city government.

Ms. Dietrich tells us that Crowson's insurance (that is the city's health insurance) would not kick in right away because her diagnosis was only probable. It is likely that the plan the city negotiated only covered services for an actual diagnosis, not a probable one. After the initial denial it is not clear that Ms. Crowson and her physician communicated about the denial to permit the physician to confirm a diagnosis for the insurer to permit payment.

Ms. Dietrich then goes on to opine:

Insurers who drag their feet when you need them most, who drop you if you get sick, who fight you over procedures or won't take you on to begin with because you might be a drag on their profit margin — all excellent reasons for a government-run health-care plan.

There is no evidence of any foot dragging in this case, except for the doctor's unfortunate uncertain diagnosis. Group health insurance as described here does not drop anyone due to getting sick, it is open to all eligible employees defined by the employer. Being open to all employees who meet the employer's requirement, it covers employees who maintained credible insurance coverage from the previous employer regardless of prior conditions, and picks up new employees.

There is also no evidence from Ms. Dietrich that Ms. Crowson's coverage was paid on an insured basis. Many city governments have self insured plans administered by health insurance companies. In these plans the total cost of the paid claims is an expense to the city and any profits for the administrator come from the administration fees alone. The profit motive does not enter into decisions about the claims payments.

Ms. Dietrich's comment about "all excellent reasons for a government-run health-care plan" is entirely wrong given that the insurance Ms. Crowson had, the basis of their complaint, was a government-run health-care plan.

Ms. Dietrich's diatribe continues with a quote from the current Secretary for Health and Human Services, and prior late-term abortion promoter Kathleen Sebelius: "We spend twice as much on health care as any other country on earth, and we live sicker and die younger than any developed nation," Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of Health and Human Services, said this week. "So we are not getting our money's worth out of our health-care system."

Ms. Sebelius statement may have elements of truth in it, but in total it is a lie. We spend twice as much on health care as any other country on earth. If would be nice if Ms. Sebelius told us who was the "we" in we spend and who was the "we" in we are not getting our money's worth. Health care is purchased by many different entities in the United States. Individuals, employers, associations, and governments. Health care spending includes laser eye surgery paid for entirely by individuals, botox and viagra purchases by individuals, health supplements and vitamins purchased by individuals together with health care purchases through insurers and governments. All of that un-reimbursed spending by individuals including those late term abortions Ms. Sebelius had been promoting is entirely their choice. Unless Ms. Dietrich wants to decide if she approves or not, it should remain an individual choice. Perhaps Ms. Sebelius is correct that the federal agency she runs does not get its money's worth for the health care it purchases and has been purchasing for more than 30 years. If that is the case, it is no argument for more and greater ineffective and incompetent government health care purchases.

Ms. Dietrich next brings out the trope about 46 million uninsured Americans. That number includes the 12 million illegal aliens who cannot now enroll in a health care plan. One would suppose they could participate in the wonderful health plans their home country governments sponsor and would provide them if they went home. Another 9 million are already eligible for Medicaid or S-Chips but choose not to enroll. Perhaps they don't value those government health care plans quite as much as Ms. Dietrich. Another quarter of those 46 million live in household with incomes over $75,000 per year that could purchase health insurance but choose not too. If they are healthy they may find their expenses are less than the cost of the insurance and pay for it at a lower cost out of their own pocket. As an extreme but telling example here, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet don't need health insurance. If they are sick they can buy a hospital.

Finally Ms. Dietrich quotes Rep. Bobby Scott (D VA3rd):

"The public health-care option will not have multi-million-dollar CEO salaries. It will not have dividends paid to stockholders. It will not have sales commissions in advertising that would come before anybody gets any health care."

If Rep. Scott does not believe there are the same administrative costs for the 'public option' or for current government medical plans he is delusional. The agency Ms. Sebelius runs is budgeted to spend in FY2010 over $17 billion administering the Medicare program ( an increase of $646 million over 2009) not counting an agency overhead of over $7 billion. HHS will also incur $12.3 billion in expenses for the states to manage the Medicaid program.

I don't have a firm diagnosis for the cause of Ms. Dietrich's article. Willful ignorance comes to mind, perhaps recto-cranial inversion. Whatever the diagnosis, the prognosis for people believing her arguments is terminal stupidity.

(Fantasyland photo copyright Walt Disney World)

Times-Dispatch apologizes for Massive Resistance and Obfuscates the Source

2009-07-16T22:14:00.003-04:00

In an editorial Thursday in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, the paper apologizes for the role played, with the papers complicity, by its former afternoon counterpart, the The News-Leader in Massive Resistance to desegregation of Virginia's public schools.

The paper notes:

Throughout the episode, Richmond Newspapers played a central role -- but not a centering one. The hour was ignoble. Editorials in The News Leader relentlessly championed Massive Resistance and the dubious constitutional arguments justifying its unworthy cause. Although not so intimately engaged, The Times-Dispatch was complicit. The record fills us with regret, which we have expressed before.

Where the paper does not go is in identifying the Virginia source of Massive Resistance or its proponents. The editorial admits that

"Virginia long has prided itself on its gentility. The state's political tradition has lacked firebrands such as Gene Talmadge, Orval Faubus, George Wallace, Bull Connor, Theodore Bilbo, and James K. Vardaman. Massive Resistance shattered pretensions. Although the commonwealth's campaign to evade Brown v. Board of Education did not produce the pyrotechnics seen in other states, it was directed toward the same dead end."

The editorial itself reaches a dead end of courage and honesty at this point as well. What was the source of Massive Resistance? It can be epitomized in a single man, then Governor of Virginia J. Lindsay Almond and the Harry S. Byrd political machine he represented. It was Almond who on September 4, 1958 divested school superintendents of the authority to desegregate their schools. It was Almond who on September 15, 1958 closed the Warren County High School. It was Almond who on September 19, 1958 closed Lane High School and Venable Elementary School in Charlottesville to prevent desegregation. It Almond who on September 27, 1958 ordered Norfolk to close its white secondary schools to prevent desegregation. It was not until the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals on February 2, 1959 ordered the enrollment of black students in Norfolk and Arlington schools that Governor Almond's attack on the rights of Virginia citizens was turned back. Passive resistance continued for at least another ten years. Almond would later be appointed to the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals by President John F. Kennedy. (Accompanying picture sourced from the Library of Virginia)

When the editorial notes the firebrand opposition of Talmadge, Fauvus, Wallace, Connor, Bilbo and Vardaman while remaining silent about Almond, it also significantly fails to mention the political party home to all of the aforementioned. If readers are unable to immediately identify that party, a subtle hint is that it was not the party of Lincoln. Democrats, the party of slavery, secession, segregation and socialism.

Clinton's Curious Chat

2009-07-15T21:24:00.002-04:00

Hillary Clinton delivered a 30 minute chat in Washington today, billed by the State Department she heads as a major foreign policy address according to the Washington Post, and riddled with contradictions. (Text here)

Clinton said the United States does not shun dialogue with its adversaries. Clinton went on to say later in her talk that in the case of Iran the U.S. does not shun dialogue unless the Iranian government does not respond with alacrity to her overtures. If they are slow on the uptake we will punish them Clinton threatened. Clinton also warned Tehran that an offer of talks would not remain long on the table. "The time for action is now," she said. "The opportunity will not remain open indefinitely."

Clinton also pontificated that the U.S. "will reach out beyond governments, because we believe partnerships with people play a critical role in our 21st-century statecraft." This statement contradicts that of President Obama with regards to Iran, where he stated the U.S. does not meddle in the internal affairs of other countries. (President Obama, who has sought direct engagement with Iran, also said he did not want to be seen as "meddling" in Iranian internal affairs, given the two countries' rocky history.)The policy is the United States will meddle in the affairs of other countries, with independent outreach to citizens outside of government unless it does not.

In a further curious statement Clinton offered a personal commitment for developing closer ties with "major and emerging global powers" such as China, India, Brazil, Turkey, Indonesia and South Africa. In all of the cases it is not clear what it is they are emerging from. It would be particularly insulting to Russia and China to suggest they are just now becoming a global power. What were they during the Second World War or the Cold War? While Brazil, Turkey, India, South Africa and Indonesia have been and are now significant regional powers no one other than Mrs. Clinton (the world's smartest woman) has suggested that they are or soon will be global powers.

Is it possible Joe Biden wrote this speech, or Hillary borrowed the wrong teleprompter?

Does Obama Read What TOTUS Tells Him?

2009-07-14T22:29:00.003-04:00

John Stossel on his John Stossel's Take blog notes that President Obama declaimed the following to a rapt audience in Ghana:

"No business wants to invest in a place where the government skims 20 percent off the top".

A similar informed audience of businessmen in the United States would have burst into uncontrollable laughter until ushered out of His Presence. The U.S. corporate tax rate is 35%, nearly double the rate Obama found to be absurdly high.

More broadly business investment will not occur for corporations where the corporate tax rate is 35% and the resulting profits are also taxed to the individual at 45% ( tax rate of 39% plus proposed surcharge of 5.1%) as the Speaker Pelosi proposed today to support the second version of the health care destroys America plan.

The president's remarks as reported by the New York Times were part of this gem:

“No business wants to invest in a place where the government skims 20
percent off the top, or the head of the port authority is corrupt. No
person wants to live in a society where the rule of law gives way to
the rule of brutality and bribery. That is not democracy, that is
tyranny, and now is the time for it to end.”

Let's try to rewrite this for TOTUS in case this speech is recycled to an American audience:
No business wants to invest in a place where:

a. the federal, state and local government skims nearly every penny of profit off the top, and
b. the auto czar resigned because he is under investigation for bribing a state pension fund to obtain a slice of the investment business, and
c. the secretary of the treasury cheated on his taxes, and
d. the president received hundreds of millions of dollars in untraceable campaign contributions, and
e. the speaker of the house proposes to raise the income tax rate by 26% to pay for a health care plan that will leave three quarters of those now uninsured, uninsured, and
f. the federal expenditures for 2009 quarter 1 of 4,775.7 trillion dollars exceeded the current receipts by 913.7 billion dollars. (See the above chart from the Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis)

And the result is as Mr. Obama suggests. the economy is contracting, business investment is not taking place, and the citizens are looking for change they can believe in. Does Mr. Obama read or understand what TOTUS is telling him to say.

Obama and Afghanistan: Making the Vietnam error?

2009-07-13T21:13:00.005-04:00

A Strafor article today (Strategic Calculus and the Afghan War) refreshes our understanding of the current military efforts in Afghanistan. Afghanistan by itself is of little or no strategic importance or interest to the United States. While Americans can notice the relative freedom for girls to attend school, and for the many of the Afghan people to live under a less oppressive and elected government, those accomplishments are not the reason for the current conflict there, only concurrent results. The reason for conflict in 2001 and today is the nexus between Afghanistan, the Taliban and al Qaeda. As Strafor notes:

What makes Afghanistan critical to the United States is al Qaeda, the core group of jihadists that demonstrated the ability to launch transcontinental attacks against the West from Afghanistan. The argument has been that without U.S. troops in the country and a pro-American government in Kabul, al Qaeda might return, rebuild and strike again. That makes Afghanistan a strategic interest for the United States.

Stratfor then goes on to make an extraordinarily important point:

The overall threat value of al Qaeda, in our view, has declined. If this is a war that pivots on intelligence, the mission to block al Qaeda eventually may once again be left to the covert capabilities of U.S. intelligence and Special Operations Command, whether in Afghanistan, Pakistan or elsewhere.

Those covert capabilities, which include killing persons in or associated with al Qaeda, are an alternative to counter-insurgency warfare against the Taliban and other war lords. That counter-insurgency warfare comes with both a high cost in blood and treasure, and a high risk of failure. Counter-insurgency warfare can be won by insurgents by attriting American citizen support by portraying the prolonged conflict as having elusive objectives and uncertain resolution.

It appears that the Obama administration is closing the door to the first alternative, direct strikes at al Qaeda leaders by the CIA. The New York Times reports today that the Director of Central Intelligence, Leon Panetta has canceled a CIA program to dispatch small teams overseas to kill senior al Qaeda terrorists.

It appears that the administration has not yet ruled out the targeting of al Qaeda leaders by military forces. Given the administrations prediliction of providing constitutional rights to terrorists outside the United States, it would not be surprising to find the targeting of al Qaeda without advance complaints to a magistrate, grand jury indictments and the dispatch of police with warrants and Miranda warnings to request al Qaeda members to turn themselves in for questioning accompanied by U.S. funded attorneys will cease altogether. This will leave the U.S. in a futile and objectless war in Afghanistan against an enemy which may be anathema to democrcy is not a stategic threat to the United States. Obama is choosing the war we may not win over the war we can and must.

DC Metro Crash Update

2009-07-01T19:35:00.003-04:00

In the beginning there was the very public utterances that the June 22 DC Metro crash was the result of underspending on urban mass transit, failure to fund new rail cars, and the lack of a 'dedicated' funding stream for DC Metro. Less publicly uttered was the revelation that a test showed that no train could be seen to the automatic signal system on the section of track where the first train in the crash was stopped. (See our previous post). Today, the Washington Post brings a further revelation:

Investigators say equipment that is supposed to detect stopped trains failed periodically in the days leading up to a deadly Metro transit train crash in Washington, D.C.

The National Transportation Safety Board said Wednesday that signal system problems began occurring after a piece of equipment was replaced June 17, five days before the accident. The NTSB says the signaling system at the crash site also failed intermittently during tests after the crash.

Reading between the lines we learn that DC Metro was working on this section of track. The repairs they were making did not work. They knew it did not work and they still directed trains to run in automatic in this section.

DC Metro does not need more money. It needs for the current leadership, general, operations and maintenance to resign immediately. Why are these folks not under arrest now for manslaughter?

Obama on Tyrants

2009-06-28T21:41:00.002-04:00

Reuters reports today on political events in Honduras where the Armed Forces sent President Zelaya into exile at the direction of the Supreme Court. Zelaya who was limited to a single four year term had planned a referendum on overturning that constitutional provision. As a result of a dispute over the legality of the referendum Zelaya tried to sack the head of the Army.

Anonymous Obama administration officials, in a conference call organized by the State Department, told the press that "We recognize Zelaya as the duly elected and constitutional president of Honduras. We see no other," A similar position was also taken by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. (It is truly difficult to understand how official U.S. policy can be announced by officials are not authorized to speak for the United States and hide behind a false anonymity.)

In the past two weeks the Obama administration has also continued to support recognition of the current tyrannical government in Iran, following the fraudulent reelection of Iranian President Achmadinejab.

The ousted Hondouran president was report to have traveled to Nicaragua where he may be joined by President Chavez and other dictator wannabes.

In the meantime President Chavez, miming North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il, said that if the Venezuelan ambassador was killed, or troops entered the Venezuelan embassy, "that military junta would be entering a de facto state of war, we would have to act militarily." He said, "I have put the armed forces of Venezuela on alert."

DC Metro Crash: Not old trains but failed signals

2009-06-26T22:02:00.004-04:00

In a rush to demand more tax dollars for transit systems, federal officials and lobbyists were quick to blame the supposed aging rail cars for the June 22, 2009 crash that killed 9 and injured over 100. On closer examination though it appears the track sensor system was not working on the particular section of track where the stationary train was standing, failing to send a braking signal to the moving train. The operator DC Metro has taken the trains off the failed automatic system and taken action against the head of signals.

As UPI reported on June 26, 2009:

Deron Lovass, Natural Resources Defense Council federal transportation director, said the collision of two D.C. Metro rail cars is evidence of how little funding has been spent upgrading the country's transit system compared with U.S. highways, Time magazine reported online Friday.

"This does draw attention to the fact that we need to invest a lot more in our transit system," Lovass said. "Our highway system is world class, but we've neglected public transit along the same way."

The Federal Transit Administration tabbed more than a third of the equipment used by the top U.S. rail transit agencies with either marginal or poor ratings this spring, Time reported.

Federal officials said one of the rail cars involved in Monday's deadly collision in Washington did not have modernized equipment that could have prevented the accident.

"The Metro, like most of our larger public-transit systems, has suffered from a lack of public resources," David Goldberg, Transportation for America communications director, told Time.

From the Washington Post June 26, 2009:

A train control system that should have prevented Monday's deadly Metro crash failed in a test conducted by federal investigators, officials said yesterday, suggesting that a crucial breakdown of technology sent one train slamming into another.

Investigators with the National Transportation Safety Board performed the simulation Wednesday night. In the test, investigators positioned a train in the same location as the train that was rear-ended Monday. The system failed to detect that the idled test train was there, the NTSB said.

Obama flip flops on Guantanomo, Adopts Bush indefinite detention powers

2009-06-26T21:33:00.005-04:00

Having promised to close the detention camp at Guantanamo during his campaign, the Washington Post is reporting tonight that the Obama administration is now adopting the Bush view on the power to indefinitely detain enemy combatants. Fantasy meets reality.

From the Washington Post June 26, 2009

The Obama administration, fearing a battle with Congress that could stall plans to close the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, is drafting an executive order that would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate terrorism suspects indefinitely, according to three senior government officials with knowledge of White House deliberations.

Such an order would embrace claims by former president George W. Bush that certain people can be detained without trial for long periods under the laws of war. Obama advisers are concerned that bypassing Congress could place the president on weaker footing before the courts and anger key supporters, the officials said.

From the Boston Globe May 11, 2008:

When detainees first began arriving at Guantanamo Bay in 2002, Obama was teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago, where he told students that America's freedoms are rooted in habeas corpus - the right to challenge one's detention in court.

"Habeas is essential to the American legal system," said Geoffrey Stone, a law professor at the University of Chicago who taught during Obama's time there. "I'm quite confident that Senator Obama, as a constitutional lawyer, understands the essential importance of habeas corpus in a way that the current administration does not."

In 2005, after Obama was elected to the Senate, he saw first-hand how unpopular a cause Guantanamo Bay can be when fellow Illinois Senator Dick Durbin was widely attacked and forced to apologize for comparing the US-operated military prison in Cuba to a Soviet gulag.

But when Guantanamo Bay defense lawyers came to Obama's office in 2006 asking him to help them stop a bill that would take away detainees' habeas corpus rights, Obama agreed without hesitation.

"He said, 'I don't know which way this shakes out politically, but this is wrong, and you can count on me,' " said Thomas Wilner, one of 80 Guantanamo Bay defense lawyers who has since signed a public letter supporting Obama's candidacy. "A lot of people were afraid that they would look weak on terrorism. He really understood that our greatest strength is our values."

In 2006, Obama opposed the Military Commissions Act, offering an amendment that would sunset its provisions. When the Military Commissions Act passed anyway - without the amendment - Obama delivered a scathing speech, saying that the debate "over the fundamental human rights of the accused should be bigger than politics."
Obama now says that, as president, he would stop the military commissions and try the remaining Guantanamo Bay detainees in military courts-martial or in federal courts, which have successfully tried some terrorist cases.

That has led critics to charge that Obama's plan would lead to the release of dangerous people, since the US military could not gather the same caliber of evidence against the detainees as would be required in a US court

Obama's aides acknowledge that he has not made the difficult decision of what to do with the 200 or so detainees against whom there is little evidence. But they say he has faith in the US legal system and believes that detainees should be brought to the United States where they would have the same rights as American citizens - a plan that would almost certainly bring about the release of some of them.

House Votes to Return U.S. to Pre-industrial status, How Virginia's delegation voted

2009-06-26T19:43:00.003-04:00

The House of Representatives voted late this afternoon to return per capita energy consumption to the same level as 1875 by 2050. This pre-industrial level of carbon consumption is expected to reduce all industrial output and eliminate the capacity to export agricultural products supporting populations around the world. According to the Congressional Budget Office report the bill will increase taxes on all Americans by $872 billion between Fiscal Years 2010 and 2019 while still increasing the federal deficit by $13.5 billion and increase taxes by $258 billion in just the next four fiscal years. It is also expected to exponentially accelerate the movement of jobs from the United States to countries not participating in de-industrialization. The bill, which contained 300 pages of amendments added overnight by Democrats, and titled the American Clean Energy and Security Act, passed the House (Roll Call 477) 219 to 212. Forty-four Democrats joined 168 Republicans in opposition, while 8 Republicans (Bono Mack (CA45), Castle (DE), Kirk (IL10, Lance (NJ7), LoBiondo (NJ2), McHugh (NY23), Reichert (WA8), Smith (NJ4) provided the remaining 211 Democrats with the prevailing 7 vote margin.

Just before passage Representative Randy Forbes (R-VA4) attempted to amend the bill to make it less punishing to the nation, but this amendment failed 172 to 256.

The Virginia Delegation voted (5 in favor 6 against) as follows with a yes vote for de-industrialization.

Wittman (R) (1st) N
Nye (D) (2nd) N
Scott (D) (3rd) Y
Forbes (R) (4th) N
Perriello (D) (5th) Y
Goodlatte (R) (6th) N
Cantor (R) (7th) N
Moran (D) (8th) Y
Boucher (D) (9th) Y
Wolf (R) (10th) N
Connolly (D) (11th) Y

(Accompanying photo from come2williamsburg.com)
UPDATE

Wall of shame below hat tip twitter/larrymwalkerjr

I Stand With Obama

2009-06-25T21:38:00.004-04:00

Much as it may surprise my friends and readers, today I can honestly stand with President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. I join them in uninviting all Iranian diplomats from my Independence Day party. In fact I raise the diplomatic stakes one giant step further. I am not inviting any of those murderous thugs that make up the current government of Iran or their theocracy to any future party I may hold. This is the kind of strong sanction that is sure to lead to the downfall of the Iranian government, the overthrow of the theocracy and the restoration of world peace. Thank you Mr. President for this bold, clear, powerful and courageous initiative.

As noted in the Opinion Journal column of the Wall Street Journal:

On Wednesday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who had authorized diplomatic posts earlier this month to invite Iranians to their Independence Day parties, sent out a cable rescinding the invitations.

"Unfortunately, circumstances have changed, and participation by Iranian diplomats would not be appropriate in light of the unjust actions that the president and I have condemned," she said. Embassies that had already invited Iranian diplomats were instructed to disinvite them.

It is not clear this will be much of a snub to the Iranians. The State Department spokesman, Ian C. Kelly, said he was not aware of a single diplomat who had R.S.V.P.'d, anywhere in the world.

VA Democrat Congressman Invite Terrorists to Virginia

2009-06-18T22:22:00.003-04:00

In a test of loyalty to Nancy Pelosi vs their Constituents, The House of Representatives voted (Roll Call Votes 360 and 361) today on two amendments to the Justice Department appropriations bill which would have stripped funding to bring terrorists now held at Guantanamo to the Virginia or other states. Member Roll Call Votes 360 and 361 on the amendments and on the appropriation bill HR 2847 are shown below respectively. A no vote was a vote to defeat the amendment or the bill respectively. The final bill passed the House 259 to 157 on Roll Call Vote 408. RPV Chairman Pat Mullins reported on Rep. Perriello's votes in an email this evening stating:

Freshman Congressman Tom Perriello (D-5th District) today cast the deciding vote on a crucial measure, paving the way for the closure of the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (House Roll Call 360 and 361), thus risking the relocation of dangerous terrorists to United States soil.

“This is a vote of outrageous irresponsibility,” said Republican Party of Virginia Chairman Pat Mullins. “Tom Perriello clearly felt he had to cave under the pressure of the White House and Nancy Pelosi. His actions have opened up the possibility that we will have terrorists moving into a prison in Virginia.”

Rep. Jerry Lewis offered an amendment to prohibit the funding of President Obama’s executive order to close the facility, but it failed by a vote of 212-216. After a subsequent vote, the count was 212-213. Perriello voted with Speaker Nancy Pelosi to allow the funding, thereby clearing a path for detainees to be moved to U.S. territory.

The entire Virginia Republican delegation voted for the amendments to defund transfers and against the final bill except for Rep Wolf who voted for the final bill only.

All Virginia Democrats voted with Rep. Pelosi against the amendment except Rep Nye in support of funding transfer of terrorists from Guantanomo to Virginia, and all voted for passage of the bill.

Roll Call Votes 360, 361, 408

Wittman (R) (1st) Y Y N
Nye (D) (2nd) Y Y Y
Scott (D) (3rd) N N Y
Forbes (R) (4th) Y Y N
Perriello (D) (5th) N N Y
Goodlatte (R) (6th) Y Y N
Cantor (R) (7th) Y Y N
Moran (D) (8th) N N Y
Boucher (D) (9th) N N Y
Wolf (R) (10th) Y Y Y
Connolly (D) (11th) N N Y

Obama on Deeds, Interpreted

2009-06-15T22:50:00.004-04:00

President Obama, unsurprisingly, would like Virginians to support Creigh Deeds in his race for Governor of Virginia. One may, of course, take President Obama's words in this instance the same way we take his words in other circumstances, i.e understanding that: fiscal responsibility=profligate spending, security=weakness, lower taxes=higher taxes, close=keep open, leave=stay, transparency=obfuscation, pragmatism=unprincipled, bipartisan=all democrats, etc. So what does Mr. Obama say about Mr. Deeds in his email from barackobama.com?. (My interpretative comments in bold).

Last Tuesday, Creigh Deeds won the Democratic primary for Governor of Virginia. In a hard-fought race, Creigh ran a terrific campaign and beat two fierce competitors by winning votes in every corner of the Commonwealth. (Mr. Deeds had more votes than any other one candidate, but a majority of voters voted for someone other than Mr. Deeds.)

I know a thing or two about tough primaries (where I used all the tricks I could think of to disqualify my opponents), and I know a thing or two about running tough races in Virginia. Creigh Deeds' victory once again shows the power of people at the grassroots to win elections (Grassroots = the 6.3% of voters who showed up to vote) and bring about lasting change (with -- and he will be a better candidate this fall because of his hard work to win the nomination.

Creigh has been a dedicated public servant his entire life. As a county prosecutor and state legislator, he's been a strong advocate for economic development, high-quality education, and affordable health care -- and he's gone to great lengths to protect the environment and institute smart public transportation.

Creigh has an ability to bring people together, build consensus and deliver results. He will bring the same bipartisan (all democrat), pragmatic (no principles need intervene) approach to politics that former Governor and now Senator Mark Warner and my friend Governor Tim Kaine used to help Virginia move forward (think higher taxes and unsustainable debt with no progress on transportation) over the past eight years.

I know that approach works because I've spent some time in your great Commonwealth. In my experience, Democratic candidates with a pragmatic approach to solving problems can be successful (at raising taxes, expanding government, increasing deficits, wildly misjudging the effect of economic policies, and creating false tax revenue projections). That's the approach my campaign took last November to put Virginia in the Democratic column for the first time since 1964 (That is I lied about everything). And that's how Creigh Deeds will win this fall (He will lie about everything).

Real Pork

2009-06-10T18:44:00.002-04:00

Emporia Virginia- The Virginia Pork Festival. In contrast to the Porkulus and other bloated self indulgent federal expenditure, Emporia has on offer today a true taste of American, the Virginia Pork Festival. Under cloudy skies, a friendly crowd of thousands of Virginians are enjoying a sultry June afternoon, chowing down on unlimited quantities of multitudinous varieties of real honest to goodness pork of the porcine persuasion. There is on a biscuit, grilled, fried, or barbecued pork. There are sandwiches, sausages, and that all time favorite chitterlings. Hush puppies, sweet potatoes, roast corn, and strawberry shortcake. No worry about being thirsty either. There is all the beer, soda, ice tea and water anyone can drink. If you are not here today you are missing a great time. Plan on it next year.

Obama turns U.S. against Israel

2009-06-09T23:51:00.003-04:00

Stratfor, the commercial global intelligence outfit has a remarkable article today analyzing the Obama administration's change in policy and relationship with Israel especially with regard to Israeli settlements on the West Bank. Stratfor's analysis is that Obama is determined to create a two-state solution. In reaching for that perhaps unattainable objective, Obama "has put into motion processes to create that solution, first of all, by backing (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu into a corner" and pushing to fracture the ruling coalition.

In this equation the Israeli settlements on the west bank are seen as stumbling blocks to Palestinian participation in a peace deal. As long as Israel occupies and expands these settlements, the Palestinians will not enter in a peace agreement with Israel. One must question if these are really the stumbling blocks they are portrayed to be. First if in a peace agreement, a new border line is established with some or all of the settlements inside the expected Palestinian state, either the settlers would remain in Palestine or they would abandon the settlements allowing Palestinians to move from refugee camps to modern housing. Could the Palestinians accept Israeli settlers living in Palestine? Their demand is a right of return of Palestinians to live in Israel proper, but they do not permit the idea of Israeli's living in Palestine. Hamas goes further, denying the future existence of an Israeli state.

If the Israelis must ultimately abandon settlements which would remain on the Palestine side of a future border, why does the United States object to their existence or expansion now. The settlers, of course, are looking to the future and wish to create reality on the ground, expecting that any border will be forced to deal with the settlements and keep them on the Israeli side of the line. Nevertheless, in order for this to make a difference, the Palestinians must abandon the claimed right of return to Israel proper. If Palestinians can expect to settle anywhere within the two states by right, no agreement can be reached that would not allow Israelis the same privilege.

Just what would be the second state in the two state solution is of course even more problematic. With Fatah in control of the West Bank and Hamas in control of Gaza, there is no one party for Israel to negotiate with. No agreement which could be effective can be reached. Obama administration initiatives pushing Israel into abandoning settlement activity cannot be the basis for a two state solution, and can only be intended to impotently curry favor in the Arab world while intentionally attempting to fracture the Israeli ruling coalition. One calculus here must be the Obama administration would feel more at home and sympathetic with Ehud Barack and the Labor party socialists in government than then Netanyahu's Likud led unity government. Thus it appears the Obama has initiated a new U.S. policy which punishes U.S. ally Israel in hopes of achieving an ultimately unworkable two state solution in order to obtain leverage which will never come from Arab governments who will never allow a two state solution to be implemented. A naive and fantasy laced policy in the middle east to match the same naive and fantasy laced policies for Guantanamo, budget balance, low cost, high quality universal health care, a nuclear free earth, mythical global warming solutions, 3 million jobs created or saved, no new taxes for 95% of working Americans, world class education for all students, oh and as Miss America would say, whirled peace.

NK solution - The Goreacle

2009-06-08T22:25:00.003-04:00

The New York Times News Blog - The Lede noted on Saturday that the Obama Administration might send either Bill Richardson or Al Gore to North Korea for negotiations resolving the current crisis over two American journalists sentenced to prison by North Korean government. The original story appeared on CNN.com.

Several senior administration officials said the idea of sending either Gore or New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson to Pyongyang on a mission to get the journalists released has been floated to the North Koreans.

(We are not sure why the senior administration officials could not be named, unless they were violating their authority by talking to CNN, or would have been embarrassed to be leaking such drivel if their had been attribution.) Although both North Korea and the United States border the Pacific Ocean, sending messages in floating bottles is a problematic means of diplomatic communication. The United States and North Korea do not maintain diplomatic relations. North Korea has also announced it has abrogated the 1953 cease fire between it and the United Nations forces so technically a state of war between the North Korea and the nations participating in the Korean War under the United Nations flag has been re-initiated.

Mr. Richardson who was previously floated as a cabinet member in the Obama administration was unable to serve as he is under investigation for corruption. While an assignment outside the United States might suit both Mr. Richardson and the Obama administration, he might need leave from the court and prosecutor to leave the country.

Mr. Gore on the other hand seems to be a particularly apt choice. First the two jailed journalists work for his own news network. As their employer, he is responsible for their predicament. North Korea, eschewing cars, trucks, lighting at night and food to keep its population alive, is a model of the kind of minimal carbon footprint that Mr. Gore favors for the United States. It has also achieved this climate change hero status with a cap and trade policy of its own. The government caps both energy and food consumption and Koreans trade with their lives. Mr. Gore is likely to be sympatico with North Korean Dear Leader, Kim Jong Il (shown in the accompanying photo conjuring up the Goreacle), as they both seem to be similarly out of touch with reality and highly motivated to make political decisions calculated to maximize their own personal enrichment. Given Mr. Gore's own herculean consumption of both food and energy, the North Koreans might find it in their interest to release the two journalists if that would mean Mr. Gore would leave. If Mr. Gore on the other hand chose to stay in North Korea, we could tally that as a significant gain for America.

Please take a moment today to call your congressional representatives and the White House to promote the Goreacle as our man in Pyongyang.

Obamacare Promoted, Olmert treated in U.S.

2009-06-06T17:16:00.005-04:00

President Obama's radio/youtube address Saturday was the initiation of a public relations campaign to promote a health system overhaul the New York Times reported in its Saturday edition. The address came in parallel with a nationwide series of home meetings coordinated through Organizing for America. The home meetings were promoted on Mybarackobama with the intent on leveraging the election campaign organization to effect policy change. A look at the site earlier this week indicated there was only one home meeting in Newport News, along with a meeting at the Applied Reseach Center, a U.S. Department of Energy funded operation. The goals of that meeting were:

1. SHOWCASE THE SUPPORT & URGENT NEED IN VIRGINIA & AROUND THE NATION FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA'S NATIONAL HEALTH CARE REFORM PRINCIPLES,

2. REVIEW, ANSWER QUESTIONS, DISCUSS, AND SHARE OUR EXPERIENCES RELATING TO THE PRESIDENT'S HEALTH CARE REFORM PRINCIPLES & RELATED TOPICS SUCH AS GETTING OUR VIEWS HEARD, and

3. PLAN A JUNE 27 WEEKEND DAY OF HEALTH CARE COMMUNITY SERVICE ACTIVITY .

The reported priorities for the legislation Obama seeks are a government run health care plan to compete with the private sector, lowering costs, improving quality and preserving consumer choice. This is to be accomplished through extending coverage to 45 million uninsured, increasing government health care spending by $63 billion a year for 10 years, slowing Medicare growth, and higher taxes on upper income individuals.

One interpretation of those goals is to lower costs by limiting or rationing care and eliminating consumer choice. The implementation of a government health plan to compete with the private sector is the equivalent of intending to drive private insurance plans out of the market. The '45 million' uninsured include 28 million non-citizens, and 9 million children already eligible for Medicaid or CHIPS but who are not enrolled. It also includes nearly 10 million people who live in households with incomes over 75,000 per year who simply choose to pay directly for needed care instead of paying for insurance.

In the meantime, the poor quality, high cost U.S. health care system that Mr. Obama claims is in such ferocious need of reform seems to be performing better than government run systems elsewhere. Evidence this story in Haaretz today that former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert "underwent surgery in the United States yesterday to remove a cancerous growth from his prostate. Physicians at the Weill Cornell Medical College in New York state said the operation was successful and there were no complications. Olmert is recovering at the hospital, and is expected to stay in the U.S. for several weeks to undergo a series of tests."

Twitter Up on Twikini

2009-06-02T23:16:00.004-04:00

I purchased an AT&T LG Incite (Windows Mobile 6.1)primarily to use Twitter. I follow about 675 twitter accounts. I tried the Windows Mobile SMS application. Keeping up with the my share of the public timeline overwhelmed the phone. Battery life went to less than 4 hours and the displaying the messages caused the phone to freeze. Next I tried ceTwit. While initially successful this program ultimately failed to work also. Next experiment was Twikini (Trinket Software). The initial installation went well and I could refresh the timeline as often as needed. Battery life improved dramatically to more than two days on a charge. There are limitation. The timeline does not refresh itself and a refresh will only bring you the most recent tweets. To avoid missing direct messages, I set twitter to send me direct messages only by SMS and can browse non direct messages from those I am following in Twikini.

Obamacare Warning: NHS In_Action

2009-05-31T08:19:00.003-04:00

Demanding health care legislation this year or never, President Obama continues to press for Democrat designed national health care plan, the AP reports. The President told supporters that if health care legislation does not pass this year, it will never pass due to legislative dithering. The content of the 'must pass' legislation is unknown as the White House is leaving that content to the Congress with the expectation that any legislation should make provision for 'choice', 'lower costs', and coverage for the uninsured while adding to government costs by $1.5 trillion per year without a plan to pay for it.

Whatever the actual content of Obamacare legislation will be we can take little comfort from the results of the National Health Service implementation in the United Kingdom. A story, 'Patients forced to wait hours in ambulances (shown in accompanying Daily Telegraph/Martin Pope photo) parked outside A&E departments',in London's Sunday Daily Telegraph reminds us of the actuality of 'lower costs' and the impact on actual care delivered by the UK National Health Service.

The Telegraph reports that thousands of emergency call patients are being left to wait in ambulances in parking lots before they can even be admitted to emergency departments. More alarming, the practice of keeping the patients in the ambulance is to permit the emergency rooms to claim they are meeting a mandate to treat patients within four hours of arriving in the emergency room. Problem solved, don't let them in.

During a six-week period last autumn, hospital chiefs in the north east of England closed casualty units to 999 arrivals on 34 occasions, for up to 19 hours at a time.

Internal documents from the London Ambulance Service reports of extensive delays throughout December: "Ambulances have queued in large numbers for up to five hours to unload, and two hour delays were relatively common," it says.

Don't want to be a victim of Obama care improvements as the medical system is politicized, bureaucratized and hollowed out by unaccountable bureaucrats implementing stupid policies? On June 6, the President is calling on his supporters to conduct home meetings to support his non-existent health care plan. Join in, add to the fun. Sign ups are here.

Too Many Supreme Court Catholics?

2009-05-27T23:02:00.003-04:00

The Law Blog of the Wall Street Journal offered comments today on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotamayor to the Supreme Court. Highligted are the comments of Professor Doug Kmiec (shown in the accompanying WSJ photo) As the law blog notes, Kmiec, "a Pepperdine University law professor,is a former White House adviser under both President Reagan and the first President Bush and a devout Roman Catholic who made a splash last year when he wrote an essay (later a book) that Catholics would not violate the tenets of their faith by supporting a pro-choice candidate, namely Barack Obama. He wound up campaigning for the future president."

Kmiec reminds us that if confirmed Judge Sotomayor will be the sixth sitting justice of the Supreme Court professing Catholicism where professing Catholics make up less than a quarter of the population. This not only represents a severe lack of diversity in thought and religious background, but it also means a severe under representation for adherents of minority religions such as Muslims, Jews, and most protestant sects.

While Judge Sotomayor presents credentials as one of the few women who have served on the high court, and the second Hispanic, she also misses representing many other larger minority groups, blacks, gay men, transgenders, questioning people, Inuits, even the native people of her native Puerto Rico. I believe that on these grounds alone President Obama has failed to present a candidate who can improve the representation of many minorities on the court.

If the purpose of her appointment was not to improve the representation of minority groups on the court, then appointing her solely for her legal scholarship, grasp and application of constitutional law, and appeal to the entire population is also a misstep.

Which leaves us to believe that her candidacy for the court is solely based on a cynical political calculation that it will improve the number of Hispanic identity voters supporting democrats. Could this be a possibility?

#3wordslibshate

2009-05-26T01:24:00.002-04:00

Sometimes Twitter is just awesome. An idea surfaces, is picked up and ripples out in real time across the nation. Tonight's idea is #3wordslibshate. Hundreds of responses. Got twitter? Add your own. Here are some samples:
lawfully armed citizen
DC Versus Heller
Abortion is murder
Bill of Rights
no birth certificate
charter school movement
Lincoln was Republican
Taxed Enough Already
God Bless America
Duty, Honor, Country
freedom isn't free
Just Say No
Borders, Language,Culture
DC Versus Heller
The Surge Worked
Husband and Wife
On My Honor
Cold Dead Hands
Fox News Channel
Excellence in Broadcasting
Work for it
Peace Through Strength

AFP Health Care Forum: The disaster cometh

2009-05-23T19:51:00.005-04:00

Americans for Prosperity held a forum in Colonial Williamsburg this afternoon to consider the possible outcomes if President Obama's healthcare is adopted and implicated. AFP is taking their Educate Yourself Now, Patients United Now tour across Virginia and the U.S. AFP develops grass roots support for various free market, for prosperity causes.

Del Brenda Pogge (R-96) addressed the relationship of prosperity to the original concept of the Declaration of Independence, that we are endowed by our Creator with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. She further drew the connection between liberty and government control of health, especially the transfer of health care decision making authority from patients and their doctors to bureaucrats and politicians.

Dr. Lawrence A. Hunter, a former Reagan administration official and President of the Social Security Institute was the featured speaker. Dr. Hunter reminded the audience the affordable, universal, and quality healthcare cannot all coexist at the same time. President Obama's plan promises free or low cost health care but it cannot be free.

Dr. Hunter warned the packed audience of three catch phrases used in connection with the Obama health care proposals to watch out for.

a) Comparative Effectiveness Research This concept is to establish a government run health care board to determine the effectiveness of treatment for various illness, determine the recommended treatment which provides the greatest cost benefit, and prescribe that treatment as mandated. This concept suggests cookbook medicine controlling the decisions of care givers and eliminating the preference of patients. It also suggests a means of imposing rationing by adjusting the benefit calculation. It also permits political influence to determine the comparative importance between illnesses and the single illness lobbying groups.

b) Health Care Connector or Exchange. The health care connector permits the government to determine which health coverage plans will be made available and to channel citizens into the various plans. It also becomes the vehicle to establish and enforce insurance rates and payments.

and
c) Health Information Technology. The application of technology to the creation and maintenance of electronic medical records may have some benefits. It can reduce the record keeping effort, reduce health care errors, and permit record portability. It also has the potential to eliminate any privacy and any control by citizens over the transmission and disclosure of their health care records. Combined with comparative effectiveness research it offers the potential for extraordinary intrusion into the very personal details of those seeking health care.

Dr. Hunter also provided some estimates about the massive costs involved in a national health care system. He noted that the current cost estimate is $100 to $150 billion dollars per year to implement. Based on the estimates provided at the adoption of Medicare in 1966 and the actual resulting costs we should expect that these estimates will be low by a factor of 5 to 6, a cost of $600 billion to 1 trillion dollars annually. This cannot come about without ultimately rationing health care.

Additional information can be found at patientsunitednow.

Memorial Day or Veteran's Day. Does Obama know the difference?

2009-05-23T19:12:00.005-04:00

Based on the Washington Post's coverage of President 0bama's radio address today, it is difficult to know if the commander in chief knows why Memorial Day exists at all. The salient points of his radio talk were quoted as follows:

"Our fighting men and women -- and the military families who love them -- embody what is best in America."

"We have a responsibility to serve all of them as well as they serve all of us," he said. "And yet all too often in recent years and decades, we, as a nation, have failed to live up to that responsibility. We have failed to give them the support they need or pay them the respect they deserve."

"We must also do our part, not only as a nation, but as individuals for those Americans who are bearing the burden of wars being fought on our behalf." He encouraged people to write letters to troops, volunteer at health clinics where wounded soldiers are being treated, or to do "something as simple as saying 'thank you' to a veteran you pass on the street."

Perhaps these are appropriate words for Veteran's day, or Armed Forces day, but they address the living, not the dead. And it is the gallant dead, who made ultimate sacrifices that we honor on Memorial Day. And just who is the we, the President refers to who failed to give them support or pay them respect? Got a mouse in your pocket Mr. President? When laundry listing things to do for our living armed forces, was there a single mention of visiting the graves of the fallen, tending to the widow and the orphan, or teaching the lessons of sacrifice to our children? Not a word.

0bama concludes with these comments:

"It's about remembering each and every one of those moments when our survival as a nation came down not simply to the wisdom of our leaders or the resilience of our people, but to the courage and valor of our fighting men and women," Obama said. "For it is only by remembering these moments that we can truly appreciate a simple lesson of American life -- that what makes all we are and all we aspire to be possible are the sacrifices of an unbroken line of Americans that stretches back to our nation's founding."

No, Mr. President, Memorial Day is not about remembering the moments when the nation's survival was in peril (as today), nor is it about nor just about the courage and valor of our military. It is about and just about those who gave all, all in defense of their nation. Get a clue, Mr. President. If being commander-in-chief is the greatest honor bestowed on you, reciprocate but knowing how to truly comprehend and honor Memorial Day.

Obama: I need Republicans to fix Gitmo

2009-05-23T18:55:00.004-04:00

President Obama in a C-Span TV interview reported by AFP
suggested it would require a bipartisan effort to create a legal and institutional structure under which the detainees could be tried.

"We've got a lot of people there who we should have tried early, but we didn't. In some cases, evidence against them has been compromised," he said.

"They may be dangerous, in which case we can't release them.

Error 1. It does not take a single Republican to pass any legislation in the current congress.
Error 2. The Congress has already put in place a legal and institutional structure under which detainees could be tried by military commissions.
Error 3. The detainees do not need to be tried unless they have committed crimes. Those who are simply enemy combatants can be held without trial. They are not criminals, just enemies.
Error 4. If the detainees cannot be tried because of problems with the evidence of crimes, they can still be detained, until the end of the conflict in which they were participating. They should be detained because as the President has recognized, they may be dangerous.
Error 5. Holding the detainees in a U.S. prison does not provide them with any comfort over holding them at Guantanamo, perhaps less. It exposes them to undisciplined criminals who may seek to harm them, places them under a less visible detention regime, and exposes the prison population the the detainees radical philosophy.

"It's a messy situation. It's not easy," he said. And so, finding how to deal with that I think is going to be one of our biggest problems," he said.

Not our biggest problem, kimo sabe, yours. You created this mess running off at the mouth about closing Guantanamo.

Communing with Heroes

2009-05-22T22:50:00.003-04:00

I communed with heroes today. The ones I visited with were, as typical heroes, reticent to reveal the details of their actions. The details were available, but only by diligent searching and discernment. These hero friends of mine were a rather quiet bunch, but Memorial Day is Monday, and they could not be left alone on the occasion which is so closely connected with their own affairs. Some of the heroes I visited had ended their labors long ago on in struggles now only dimly remembered, some had only been stilled more recently in struggles more widely recalled. They reminded me, these heroes, that the day will come when I also will be able to lay by my daily cares and join them in the quiet pantheon that is their home.

Murtha, Pelosi: Unfit for Duty

2009-05-21T22:07:00.002-04:00

Representative John Murtha (D-PA12) (shown in accompanying msnbc photo), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee panel that oversees the CIA budget, admitted today that he does not comprehend proceedings of his committee. In defending the credibility of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA8), Murtha said it’s not unusual for members attending the same intelligence briefing to come out with different views of what was said. It’s confusing to me what the CIA says in many cases,” he says. “The thing is you have to know enough to ask the right question, and even then you may not get the right answer.”

“I know as much about defense as anyone in the country, and it is not easy,” he adds. “You go to a briefing, you listen to them, and you may interpret it differently than someone else.”

Ms. Pelosi has accused the CIA of lying to her and to the congress with regard to the use of enhanced interrogation techniques. Perhaps she is as confused as Mr. Murtha and simply cannot comprehend the testimony provided to the Congress and is incapable of asking the questions necessary to clarify that testimony. In either case neither Mr. Murtha nor Ms. Pelosi appear capable of carrying out their duties. Their constituents need to call on them to resign or admit to electing and supporting incompetents.

Brian Moran's Half Baked Soufle

2009-05-21T07:16:00.002-04:00

Brian Moran appeared at a Washington Post online forum Wednesday morning. His responses to the questions posed by his online interrogators give us some insight into his conception of political ideas. Although his opponent Terry McAuliffe appears to be leading in advance of the Democrat Primary, Moran could become the nominee.

Moran began his comments responding to a question on why he would be the best nominee. "I'm the only candidate with a progressive vission (sic) -- opposing offshore drilling and a new coal plant in the Chesapeake Bay." It is difficult to know why this is the progressive (communist) position. Off shore drilling can reduce dependence on foreign energy sources which appears to be a position of the Obama administration. Obama has also championed the use of clean coal.

Moran also pledges that every Virginia child should have health care. I am not sure that there are children in Virginia without health care or that it should be provided to children whether they are ill or healthy. Moran also claimed that because he was previously a prosecutor he will not let Bob McDonnell "make Democrats seem "soft" on safety issues" even if they are.

Moran reminded voters that he was the "first candidate for Governor to call for 25% of our energy to come from renewable sources by 2025." Although he does not mention how this would occur, one method would be to outlaw mechanization on Virginia farms and business and replace machinery with conscripted human labor. This would permit Moran to fulfill his promise to "create thousands of green jobs here in Virginia."

Moran also notes that he supports raising the minimum wage in Virginia. He does not indicate what level he would choose for the minimum wage, but we can judge from his response on health care that he would not raise it high enough for Virginians at the minimum wage level to actually purchase their own health care.

In a further example of Moran's muddled thinking he notes that "I am committed to raising teacher salaries to the national average so every child has the chance to learn from a top quality teacher." How raising the salary of a mediocre or poor teacher will make them a top quality teacher is unclear. Why raising their salary to the national average will make them top quality is also unclear. If raising teacher salaries improves teacher quality than all the top half of teachers will still be teaching in the places where the salaries are above the national average Moran sets as his upper limit. Mathematically of course this sets up an unsustainable cycle since raising Virginia's teacher salary to the national average would raise the average leaving Virginia teachers below average again. Virginia would still have the same teachers as before with the same skill level they had before their paychecks were fattened and those of the taxpayers thinned.

Moran also touched on the transportation issue. He stated that his goal was one that "gets families home to the dinner table at night." His recommended solutions for that was a freight line along I-81, completing rail to Dulles and a high speed rail line from Northern Virginia to Richmond to Hampton Roads. Few Virginia families will be traveling home to dinner on the I-81 freight line, or from Richmond to Hampton Roads. His suggestion that his solutions are related to his goals exemplify his illogical and contradictory thinking. If he moves Virginia families back to the farm and eliminates industrial production the issue of transportation is likely to solve itself. Perhaps those who have adopted Moran's views can raise their hands now so we can judge their intellect appropriately.

Virginian-Pilot: Ready, Willing and Clueless on McDonnell

2009-05-20T06:25:00.001-04:00

In an editorial for Wednesday's print edition the Virginian-Pilot again takes Bob McDonnell to task for opposing the forced extension of unemployment benefits in Virginia by the Obama administration. The editorial begins: "Every time Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell is criticized for his position on jobless benefits, members of his campaign seem to retort with two words: "card check!"" That 'seem to retort' part is nice sounding Pilot rhetoric but it misses entirely the candidate's official position set out in his letter the congress on the subject and easily found online here.

As a matter of federalism each state has its own approach to unemployment insurance which is funded by an experienced adjusted tax on payrolls. Virginia has maintained a position of focusing unemployment payments on those ready, willing, and able to accept a full time job. That policy does not permit workers to continue to receive benefits while they are unwilling to work. The Obama administration tied additional funding for two years for unemployment payments to a requirement that Virginia permanently change the state law to comply with the Presidents expanded view of unemployment insurance. Mr. Obama's view is to tax employers to provide jobless benefits to those who are not ready or willing to accept a job. It was not the view of Virginia's legislature, and not that of Mr. McDonnell. The concept that our elected officials would put the long term benefit ahead of a short term gain may be foreign to the Pilot and the troika of Democratic gubernatorial candidates, but thankfully it is not foreign to Mr. McDonnell. (Accompanying Bob Brown, Richmond Times-Dispatch photo of Bob McDonnell)

(In)Justice to refer Bush Lawyers to Bar

2009-05-19T07:23:00.001-04:00

In our May 5th post (Justice to refer Bush Lawyers to Bar),we reported that the Justice Department was considering referring three Bush Administration attorney's to their respective state bar for providing legal counsel to the government related to the interrogation techniques the government could employ.

The Blog of the Legal Times reported Monday that "A collection of organizations, most of them left-leaning, filed complaints today with five state bar associations, accusing former attorneys general John Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzales, Michael Mukasey and nine other former Bush administration lawyers of violating professional standards by sanctioning the use of torture on terrorism suspects." "The others named in the complaints include former Office of Legal Counsel lawyers John Yoo, Jay Bybee, and Stephen Bradbury; Michael Chertoff, former secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and head of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division; Alice Fisher, also a former head of the Criminal Division; former Defense Department lawyers William Haynes II and Douglas Feith; former deputy White House counsel Timothy Flanigan; and David Addington, former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney."

As we noted in our post, and as noted in the Washington Post, the road to disbarment has a very steep grade. The cost however in expenses to defend their law licenses will fall on the named attorneys. Perhaps when vindicated they can place the expense back on their accusers.

H.R. 45 Firearm Owner Registration Bill

2009-05-18T20:33:00.004-04:00

On January 6, 2009 Representative Bobby Rush (D-IL)(shown in the accompanying AP photo staining the Illinois state seal with other Illinois luminaries, former Governor and indictee Rob Blagojevich (D) and Senator Roland Burriss (D-IL)) introduced H.R. 45 the Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, a bill to provide for the implementation of a system of licensing for purchasers of certain firearms. The bill does not have any co-sponsors and has been sent to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.

The bill would require every person to apply for and obtain a federal firearms registration card to legally possess a handgun. The bill at least is openly honest in its objectives although Mr. Rush, who appears to be an entire entree short of a happy meal, probably did not see the humor embedded in his bill. An oft repeated mantra of 2nd amendment supporters is that if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. Mr. Rush has carried this to its logical conclusion. His described purpose in the bill is to limit gun possession to those who are criminals and to trace firearms to federal officers and state law enforcement agencies who use firearms for criminal purposes. Here are Section 2 paragraphs c (3) and c (4):

(3) to restrict the availability of qualifying firearms to criminals, youth, and other persons prohibited by Federal law from receiving firearms;

(4) to facilitate the tracing of qualifying firearms used in crime by Federal and State law enforcement agencies.

The implementable and objectionable portion of the bill occurs in section 101 which would make it unlawful for any person to possess a handgun unless that person has been issued a fiream license by the attorney general, and requires among other things that an applicant provide the Attorney-General a release to review any mental health records pertaining to the applicant.

While it does not appear that Mr. Rush's bill is going anywhere, it would not hurt to drop your Representative a note suggesting that the bill should never see the light of day.

Senator Jim Webb: Torturer?

2009-05-17T20:38:00.007-04:00

UPDATE: The U.S. Senate Sergeant-at-Arms is conducting a google search on the words Webb Torture. This post was searched at 11:23 this morning. Is the SSAA gathering evidence against Senator Webb? Is the Senate SSAA collecting evidence of right wing extremism on behalf of Senator Webb? Is there authorizing legislation for this or is it an unauthorized fishing expedition?
---------------------------------------------------------
Jim Hoeft at Bearing Drift was up early with a post on Senator Jim Webb's (D-VA)appearance on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos. Jim notes:

Of course, I was mildly amused by Webb’s thoughts on interrogation. He said that as a Marine in Vietnam, he interrogated hundreds of detainees and that “torture doesn’t work.”

So, how would he know?

Let's look at the transcript. George Stephanopoulos, is referring to the Pelosi/CIA controversy:

STEPHANOPOULOS: So does it need to be investigated?

KYL: I am less interested in investigating whether her memory or correct or she lied about it than I am in the policies that flow from the debate that we're having. I am not one who thinks we ought to have truth commissions and all of the rest of it and keep looking backward. I agree with the president. We've got enough on our plate, we need to look forward.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That's the irony here, Senator Webb, as Speaker Gingrich says, investigate. He wants a separate House investigation. Speaker Pelosi says, fine, let's have a truth commission, the one that Senator Kyl doesn't want. Where do you stand on this? WEBB: I just don't think it's that big a deal. I mean, I think we have selective memories...

(CROSSTALK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: ... is not a big deal?

WEBB: Well, I mean, they're going to have a fight. But in terms of where the country is right now, where we need to go, there are a lot of issues of accountability in terms of looking back as to the conduct of the past administration in a number of areas.

But really, in terms of what we need to be focusing on, let's accept that torture is inappropriate behavior. And I've interrogated hundreds of detainees and enemy combatants when I was a Marine in Vietnam, torture doesn't work.

Let's all accept that, separate it from these other issues that we're talking about in terms of having to resolve issues, like Guantanamo, and move forward.

The torture Senator Webb is referring to is not the 'enhanced interrogation techniques' of the CIA and Guantanamo. Senator Webb is referring to actual torture, the kind that leaves permanent wounds and harm, the kind that involves actual rather than imagined pain and suffering. Senator Webb self-reports that he interrogated hundreds. Senator Webb self-reports that torture presumably used in those interrogations did not work. To state that torture did not work requires the existence of torture that did not work. Torture used by Senator Webb in interrogations of combatants and others he describes as detainees. In order for Senator Webb's statements to be true he must have used torture in the interrogations he conducted. It appears that Senator Webb, (like Senator Kerry before him) participated in the torture of combatants and others. Perhaps this awareness of his own guilt leads Senator Webb to describe torture as 'inappropriate' not illegal. When will Senator Webb release the his torture photos? When will Senator Webb be indicted?

Pontius Obama

2009-05-13T21:25:00.003-04:00

President Obama, speaking at the White House, said today that he would seek to block the release of dozens of photographs depicting alleged abuse of detainees by U.S. soldiers, arguing that the disclosures would "further inflame anti-American opinion" and "put our troops in greater danger."
As the BBC asks tonight, When a politician is caught red-handed doing a U-turn, the first question to ask is why?

The BBC answer is that a) the release of the photos would inflame the Muslim world (just in advance of the president's reported speech) and b) General Odierno and General McKiernan told their commander-in-chief that the photo publication would endanger U.S. troops on the battlefield.

I would like to suggest an alternative line of reasoning. Let us consider that a) Mr. Obama want's the photos released as indicated by his original position, b) for political purposes he doesn't mind looking like he is opposing the ACLU, c) he doesn't want to be blamed for any likely resulting casualties and d) he fully expects that the courts will order the release anyway, especially if his Solicitor General (on the short list for supreme court nomination) puts up a strong but ineffective defense, e) depending on the courts will delay the photo release until after his Muslim world speech.

May I introduce the Notre Dame commencement speaker, Pontius Pilate Obama?

FCC Copp's Fool's Errand

2009-05-12T21:23:00.004-04:00

Addressing the 'Diversity Advisory Committee' of the Federal Communications Commission, acting FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps urged the panel to quickly “make a real and lasting difference” in boosting minority and female ownership of the media. “The window of reform has been pried open, but history teaches us that it is impossible to know how long we will have before it closes again.”
In support of his request Mr. Copps deplored the

“shameful state of affairs in which we find ourselves.”

“In a country that is now more than one-third minority, people of color own just over 3 percent of full power commercial TV stations,” he told the diversity panel. “Is it any wonder that issues of interest to the minority community so often don’t get the attention they deserve? Is it any wonder that minorities are so often stereotyped and caricatured and that the positive contributions of the minority community are so often overlooked?” he asked.

Copps said female ownership of TV and radio stations also is “dismal.” Although women are 51 percent of the U.S. population, he noted, they own 5.8 percent of TV stations and 6 percent of radio stations. It’s not acceptable, he said.

Mr. Copps apparently misunderstands the nature of corporate ownership. How is it possible for a broadcaster to know the diversity qualifications of the stockholders of their corporations. Most stock is held anonymously by fiscal intermediaries on behalf of the actual shareholders. The shareholders may be pension funds and insurance companies which own stock in trust for the pension and insurance beneficiaries. There is absolutely no way to determine the demographic makeup of a public companies shareholders, and they change from day to day.

As an example Clear Channel Communications, Inc. owns and operates more than 1200 radio stations in the U.S. Clear Channel is owned by CC Media Holdings, Inc. which is in turn owned by private-equity firms Bain Capital LLC and Thomas H. Lee Partners LP. How would the FCC determine the array of demographic categories pertaining to the beneficial owners of this corporation.

Even if it were possible to know the demographic makeup of all the owners of all media outlets, and the FCC could award or reassign broadcast licenses according to some diversity scheme developed by the 'Diversity Advisory Committee', to insure that small boys, lesbian transgendered females over 55 and men with ED had appropriate ownership segments, what would keep the newly assigned owners from retaining the current mix of broadcast options?

One must assume that what is on the air now maximizes the income of the current owners. If Wanda Sykes became a hotter commodity than Rush Limbaugh attracting audiences and the advertisers that pay for those audiences, is there any doubt Ms. Sykes would be heard on 800 stations nationwide? That she is not is testament to the marketing strategy of station owners who keep Mr. Limbaugh on those same stations. He stays because he attracts audiences who in turn attract advertisers putting profits in the pockets of the owners. It is that simple. For Mr. Copps to believe a change in owners would result in a change in broadcast content, he must believe the new owners would act directly contrary to their own financial self interest. Mr. Copps is either delusional or a fool on a fool's errand. You decide.

Bernanke Between the Lines

2009-05-11T21:17:00.003-04:00

UPDATE: The chart in the upper left was suggested by a commenter. The chart shows the growth in the U.S. money supply. Look carefully at the far right side of the graph. This is the problem Mr. Bernanke so casually addresses.
-----------------------

"Because the U.S. economy is strong," the dollar will stay strong according to U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke (shown in the accompanying Mises.org illustration) in a report filed by Dow Jones Newswires. Perhaps we can call off the porkulus and the tarp and the rest of the 'stimulus' if the Fed chief is correct. Mr. Bernanke also reassured the public that

"For the foreseeable future, the dollar will remain the leading currency both for reserves and transactions. The issue at hand is whether or not the dollar will retain its value, and I think it will. I think it will be strong."

It is that foreseeable future part that does not reassure me. Foreseeable future is undefined in both time and seeability. Mr. Bernanke did not forsee the housing crisis until banks began failing. He did not foresee the financial system crisis until the banking system fell apart.

Mr. Bernanke reports that "the Federal Reserve is committed to making sure we have price stability in this country." Price stability mean adding and subtracting from the money supply and manipulating interest rates to maintain prices. The CPI is 4% below a year ago. That's the down slide of a steep roller-coaster. The concern that prices would drop led to a massive injection of money created out of thin air. The concern that prices will rise will lead to a massive contraction in the money supply along with sky-rocketing interest rates followed by renewed recession. How well will 9% or 10% unemployment mix with rising energy and foods prices and steeply increased interest rates? The up side of the roller-coaster. It will be a very bumpy ride, acceleration and brakes applied with stupendous force, with imperfect knowledge, and no principles. It will be a very rough ride.

No Individual Right to Own a Gun?

2009-05-08T22:14:00.003-04:00

Examiner.com is an online portal that combines news stories, local resources and other information with blogger posts. The bloggers, dubbed examiner's on this site, provide the same kind of good and less well thought out opinion as found in general elsewhere on the web. One of my twitter correspondents cat_1012000 pointed me to a particularly egregious examiner blog post entitled: "There is no 2nd amendment right to own a gun and there never was," She asked for assistance in pointing out the fallacies and logical errors made by the blog post's author Marc Rubin. Mr Rubin claims the title of 'NY Obama Administration Examiner' and provides the following credentials in his bio: advertising art director, writer, television script writer, etc. Mr. Rubin reports that he lives in New York City.

Mr. Rubin is not your premise, premise, conclusion logic follower, at least in this article. In his introduction he treats us to the following:

And just the other day the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a case involving Alameda County in California that the 2nd amendment applies to individuals.They were wrong.

Mr. Rubin fails to elucidate for us the manner in which the honorable jurists of the Court of Appeals have erred, but jumps directly to the conclusion: They were wrong.

A little further along we are treated to this malformed thought:

That and the fact that most of them are afraid of getting a lot of angry letters from people who don't want to hear that truth or politicians who are afraid that speaking the truth will cost them votes and typically politicians and journalists always take the cowards' way out.

During Mr. Rubin's constitutional studies he may have taken some instruction in logic. His premise "typically politicians and journalists always take the cowards' way out" will be false if there are even a few politicians and journalist who show courage in any sense.

His next premise is:

But the plain truth is, once and for all, the 2nd amendment has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with an individual's right to own a gun. And never did. There is no Constitutional right to own a gun.And there never was.

His 'once and for all phrase' of course is either made from an precient point of view or is false. The Supreme Court being what it is, and because it is capable of changing its mind, can only be looked to for what the law is now and not what it might be in future. Immediately thereafter Mr. Rubin makes another assertion: the 2nd amendment has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with an individual's right to own a gun. There are many opinions on this subject, but there is but one authoritative one, the Supreme Court of the United States.

The premise he provides for his interpretation is given as follows:

The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Read the whole sentence not just part of it and go back to your fourth grade English class and how to conjugate a sentence.The subject of that sentence, and therefore the amendment, is " a well regulated militia" not "the right to bear arms". The subject is the militia and the modifier is "necessary to the security of a free state" which is the purpose of the amendment.

Unfortunately for his interpretation, the part of the amendment beginning with A and ending with state is a prefatory clause. The independent clause in this sentence is: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That very question was posed to the Supreme Court in a case between the District of Columbia and Mr. Dick Heller. under the case name District of Columbia v. Heller. The Supreme Court in its opinion gave considerable attention to this construction, and the courts conclusion was to state: The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

If one accepts the premise that the meaning of the Constitution and the Second amendment are within the authority of the Supreme Court, and that it's opinions may be relied upon as to the state of the law in the United States at present, then reading its opinion which states unequivocally that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm, one must conclude that the opinion of the court does not seem to be congruent with Mr. Rubin's premise or his conclusion.
The decision of the court can be found here and the finding of the court is quoted below.

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Anti-federalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c)
The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d)
The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e)
Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f)
None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation.
Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
2.
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
3.
The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

Kaine Seeks Unicorn, Holy Grail, End of Poverty

2009-05-07T20:52:00.004-04:00

Virginia's lame duck Governor and chair of the Democratic National Committee, Tim Kaine, announced the establishment of a poverty reduction task force at a gathering in Richmond today entitled "Rethinking Poverty: Exploring Economic Opportunity for All Virginians," according to a story in the Richmond Times Dispatch.

In the United States poverty is measured as those families with cash incomes which rank in the bottom fifth of all families. As a result, no matter how wealthy that one-fifth of the nations households may be, by definition they are living in poverty. The federal poverty line for a family of four in 2009, not counting as income any government assistance such as reduced cost housing, health insurance, food stamps, reduced price lunches, earned income credit, child care credits and others, is $20,650 per year in 2009. The article notes that less than 10% of Virginians are in the lowest 20% of U.S. income earners, and even in the regions where incomes are lowest, in Southwest and Southside Virginia, less than 20 percent live below the poverty line.

The article reports that Kaine urged members of the task force to set aggressive goals to reduce poverty during tough economic times. It appears from his statement that poverty is welcome during periods of greater prosperity. The outgoing governor also "said there is a need to more accurately measure poverty in Virginia and elsewhere, calling the current federal guidelines that set the poverty line at $20,650 for a family of four "outdated." The poverty line is set annually. A revision of the federal guidelines to include federal, state, and local government aid provided to individuals and families as income would reorder where families fall on the income scale and move many of those families currently classified as poor above the poverty line. A reduction in state income and sales taxes would have a beneficial effect on the purchasing power of current income, while at the same time encourage economic development and job creation.

While eliminating barriers Virginians face while trying to improve their economic circumstances is a worthy goal, expecting to eliminate poverty which is defined as those earning the bottom fifth of incomes is a quixotic task, there will always be a lower one fifth. The most immediate measure the federal government could take would be to redefine the poverty level as the bottom tenth of income earners instead of the bottom fifth. By fiat 10% of families would no longer be poor. Perhaps while the task force is pursuing the elimination of poverty they can also discover the unicorn and the holy grail.

Virginia Health Care Records Hijacked

2009-05-06T23:21:00.002-04:00

Fox News is reporting that a data hijacker is demanding a $10 million ransom for 8.3 million patient records and 35 million prescription records claimed stolen from the Virginia Prescription Monitoring Program website. According to the report, Sandra Whitley Ryals, director of the Virginia Department of Health Professionals confirmed that a criminal investigation is underway into the security breach. The breach potentially exposes the personal identity information of 8.3 million people. The report also relates a confirmation that the FBI is investigating the data loss.

In an interesting juxtaposition, U.S. Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) has announced a health care IT conference for Monday May 18 in Richmond. It appears to be related to promoting the Obama administration's position that health care can be improved through electronic health records. The conference agenda includes the topic: "Setting the stage for why Virginia is poised to lead the nation in HIT adoption. " Perhaps data security will also be added to the discussion. Until then turning over health care data to a government data base may not seem like a good idea to to those who place some value on their identity and privacy.

Justice to refer Bush Lawyers to Bar?

2009-05-05T22:30:00.004-04:00

The Associated Press reports this evening that three Bush administration attorney's may be referred for professional sanction for their role in rendering opinions about terror suspect interrogation techniques. The AP story cites as its source " a person familiar with the inquiry (possibly Attorney-General Holder himself)" who violated the person's authority in releasing the information, being unauthorized to discuss it.

One of the three attorney's mentioned, Jay Bybee, is currently a sitting judge of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and is a Utah attorney. A quick review of the Utah Supreme Court Rules of Professional Practice reveals that those rules describe misconduct as:

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;

(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;

(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;

(e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official or to achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law; or

(f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law.

It is difficult to grasp just which of the six items listed above could be violated by the rendering of a professional opinion in the course of work as counsel to the President in this case. We can rule out (f) as irrelevant, there was no judge or judicial officer to assist as well as (e) as there is nothing to suggest this kind of conduct. Sections (c) and (d) also appear to be inapplicable as they apply to conduct, not opinion writing. Section (b) requires a conviction in order to have been found to have committed a criminal act. The remaining section (a) includes the comment that it "does not prohibit a lawyer from advising a client concerning action the client is legally entitled to take."

All told it would seem that no matter what advisory opinion Justice Bybee rendered to the President, it could not be a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Perhaps the Justice Department official who had no authorization to release the contents of the report and the Attorney-General would better serve the nation by tendering their own resignations instead of making referrals to the state bar for conduct which cannot be a violation of the rules for professional conduct. In addition the Attorney-General should be called under oath to confirm or deny whether he was the source of this leak.

Tax Reform Obama Style

2009-05-04T22:12:00.003-04:00

Standing with admitted tax cheat Tim Geithner, (photo from Voice of America) President Obama announced proposals to increase U.S. tax revenues from the foreign operations of multilateral corporations Forbes reports.

President Obama began his statement on taxes today with a dubious premise.

"Nobody likes paying taxes, particularly in times of economic stress. But most Americans meet their responsibilities because they understand that it's an obligation of citizenship, necessary to pay the costs of our common defense and our mutual well-being."

While President Obama may believe "most Americans meet their responsibilities because they understand that it's an obligation of citizenship" his premise may be wrong. Most Americans meet their responsibilities because they understand the government will use any means necessary including seizing their wages and assets or placing them in jail to extract the taxes from them. While Mr. Obama refers to most Americans meeting their responsibility he must have had some qualms with Mr. Giethner standing next to him, that other Americans among his Department Heads and appointees will only pay their taxes if caught.

A further bad premise is that taxes are paid only by Americans in the U.S. Others who do not have the obligations of citizenship must pay taxes on all income earned in the United States regardless of citizenship or residence.

Another bad premise is that Americans believe that the cost of government paid from taxes contributes to mutual well being instead of detracting from it. One would be hard pressed to argue that the cost of sending Air Force One on a New York photo op contributed in any way to mutual well being.

President Obama then when on to state:

And yet, even as most American citizens and businesses meet these responsibilities, there are others who are shirking theirs. And many are aided and abetted by a broken tax system, written by well-connected lobbyists on behalf of well-heeled interests and individuals. It's a tax code full of corporate loopholes that makes it perfectly legal for companies to avoid paying their fair share.

What is the fair share of taxes to be paid by anyone. It can only be the amount required by law. There is no other way to determine fair share. As a result, all those who are paying taxes as prescribed are prima facie paying their fair share. There is no possible way for it to be perfectly legal for companies to avoid paying their fair share.

Let us consider an actual tax loophole Mr. Obama apparently is describing. Let's assume I have a factory in Peoria making motor coaches, employing people in that city to do the work. I determine that their may be a market in the European Union for these coaches. I open a factory and subsidiary in Ireland within the E.U. to modify the coaches manufactured in Peoria to meet the European standards. (I choose Ireland in a part because any profits in Ireland are taxed at a lower rate than elsewhere in Europe) Each coach I sell in Europe expands the production work in Peoria. I make some profit on the sales made in Ireland. I plow that back into my European sales efforts, creating more jobs in Peoria. Under current law I may defer bringing the profits back to America and avoid taxes on the deferred profits until I bring them home. Mr. Obama proposes that I should now pay taxes in American at the American tax rate on my profits in Europe, decrease the amount of profits I have left over to expand sales their and employment in Peoria. I don't suppose the worker's in Peoria I cannot now employ will feel the fairness.

Any congressional action on Mr. Obama's tax suggestions will have to pass through the House Ways and Means Committee headed by tax cheat in chief Rep. Charles Rangel. Mr. Obama, wrong on taxes, wrong on fairness, and wrong on using tax cheats to improve the tax code.

Biden on Swine Flu - Gaffe or Truth

2009-05-01T21:48:00.004-04:00

Crystal Clear Conservative has a post up on Vice President Biden's recent swine flu remarks. The remarks suggest avoiding confined modes of transportation either to avoid catching swine flu, or as spun by the White House (TOTUS failed to update Biden's talking points?), to avoid transmitting swine flu if sick. Certainly if Biden's remarks were meant to say the latter, that might be good advice, but even if it was the former was it bad advice?

What is less clear is the period of contagion related to the swine flu virus. The White House in a statement by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs indicated the incubation period is 24-48 hours. This would indicate that during the two day period after infection and before the host feels sick, the swine flu virus can be spread by the host. Self-imposed limits against flight on airplanes or other confined public modes of transport by those who already feel sick does little to reduce the risk to the public during the incubation period.

On the other hand if his advice was meant as most understood it, to avoid being infected by avoiding confined public modes of transportation, Mr. Biden may well be giving prudent advice. Limiting contact with other people does limit the opportunity to be in contact with those infected. At the extreme, self-isolation until the epidemic passed might prove to be a very effective health safety measure. Unfortunately given the reportedly benign results of the infection in the United States, and the broadly negative affects on the national economy if many Americans locked themselves in their basements for the next few days, less safe might be better overall. Is Biden still taking that train home to Deleware?

On a more local note, one case of swine flu apparently has been identified on Virginia's Middle Peninsula. I am not crossing the York until all the swine there are eliminated.

The President has asked the Congress to appropriate even more money to combat the disease. Is the swine flu related to the porkulus?

Bipartisan Budget Achieved

2009-04-29T21:39:00.003-04:00

Harry Pelosi, House Majority Leader remarked during the last election campaign: "Elect us, hold us accountable, and make a judgment and then go from there. But I do tell you that if the Democrats win and have substantial majorities, Congress of the United States will be more bipartisan." Senate Speaker Nancy Reid also is quoted as saying: "Before this happened, it was critical the Democrats and the Republicans work together to deliver the change that the American people have demanded now," Reid said. "That's not any less critical today than it was yesterday. It's still as true as ever." Even President Obama has called for bipartisanship in his announcement of his candidacy for President.

Today the Senate agreed to the Conference Report for the FY 2010 budget bill, and budgetary levels for FY 2011 to 2014. The vote on the bill was 53 to 43. Democrats were split on the measure with Bayh, Byrd, and Nelson voting no along with all Republicans (It could be 4 but Specter, who also voted no, is still listed by the Secretary of the Senate as a Republican). The bill also passed in the House of Representatives. The vote in the House was 233 to 193. Democrats in the house were also split on the issue with 17 voting no along with all Republicans. By inspection it is clear that there was bipartisanship. However, it was not in favor of the budget bill where support was entirely partisan, but in the negative where opposition to the bill was indeed bipartisan. (Picture from HispanicBusiness.com)

Sebelius Confirmation, Swine Flu Cure

2009-04-28T21:55:00.005-04:00

Abortion promoter and self-admitted tax cheat Kathleen Sebelius was confirmed by the Senate to be Secretary of Health and Human Services late Tuesday afternoon on a 65 to 31 vote mostly along party lines. No Democrats voted against Sebelius (shown in AP/Susan Walsh file photo). The usual suspects (Snowe, Collins and Specter*) among Republicans (or to be former republicans) voted in favor of the confirmation. They were joined by Senator's Bond, Brownback, Lugar, Roberts, and Voinovich. Virginia's Senator Mark Warner expressed the view that Sebelius was needed immediately (like Secretary Geithner) to provide leadership to the department in this time of swine flu crisis. I hope she does not intend to encourage very late term abortions for swine flu victims as a means of containing the virus.

* Please no comments on listing Specter as R. That's the way the Senate tallied the vote.