Tuesday, March 31, 2009

That sucking sound you hear is coming from the White House

And the world’s greatest nation slides further into the crapper…
The Obama White House Circus, hereafter known as “The Obamanation” has nominated a man to be the main legal advisor at the State Department who will lead this country to yet undiscovered depths of self-hating crapulence.

He has all the criteria to be a part of the current “cabal of idiocy”:
1. Elitist Left Wing-East Coast education (Hopkins Prep School, Harvard, Oxford (just like ‘ol Bubba Clinton) and Harvard Law)
2. Leftist friends and mentors (clerked for Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun, who authored Roe Vs. Wade and who regularly french kissed radical lawyer William Kunstler)
3. Previous service in the most corrupt, shameful Administration since Grant was President, The Clinton Administration.
4. Hatred of America and the principles of our Founding Fathers.
Was that last one too harsh? Well, let’s look at the facts of the case.

Koh also advocates a "transnational legal process" and has criticized the U.S. for its failure to "obey global norms."
What does that mean? Well, Mr. Koh thinks we would be better off following the same laws as countries like England (no firearms), Germany (no freedom of speech), or maybe even Sharia law where you can kill your wife for cheating on you, or stone your daughter to death for kissing a boy. That, my friends, is what “transnational legal process” means.

In an article published in the Berkeley Journal of International Law in 2004, Koh wrote, "What role can transnational legal process play in affecting the behavior of several nations whose disobedience with international law has attracted global attention after September 11th -- most prominently, North Korea, Iraq and our own country, the United States of America? For shorthand purposes, I will call these countries 'the axis of disobedience.'"

This liberal buttlick just compared our country to North Korea and Iraq. I hope to meet Harold Koh someday, just to remind him of the brave men and women who gave their lives up so he could grow up with overindulgent parents and their liberal hippie friends in Boston and bad mouth the very country that made it possible for him to climb so far, so fast.

And in a Stanford Law Review article published in May 2003, Koh wrote that supporters of the International Criminal Court should bring pressure to bear on U.S. opinion "with an eye toward persuading U.S. officials that the ICC actually serves U.S. interests."

Do you know anything about the International Criminal Court? Probably not since the US of A told it to eat the corn out of our star-spangled crap back in 2002. Well, here is the crux of the problem from the last source of intellegent news in America, Wikipedia:

Article 5 of the Rome Statute grants the court jurisdiction over four groups of crimes, which it refers to as the “most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole”: the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. The statute defines each of these crimes except for aggression: it provides that the court will not exercise its jurisdiction over the crime of aggression until such time as the states parties agree on a definition of the crime and set out the conditions under which it may be prosecuted.
Many states wanted to add terrorism and drug trafficking to the list of crimes covered by the Rome Statute; however, the states were unable to agree on a definition for terrorism and it was decided not to include drug trafficking as this might overwhelm the court's limited resources.
[3] India lobbied to have the use of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction included as war crimes but this move was also defeated.[31] India has expressed concern that “the Statute of the ICC lays down, by clear implication, that the use of weapons of mass destruction is not a war crime. This is an extraordinary message to send to the international community.”
Some commentators have argued that the Rome Statute defines crimes too broadly or too vaguely. For example, China has argued that the definition of ‘war crimes’ goes beyond that accepted under customary international law.

So, the ICC is basically a bunch of suck-ass European countries like France, Serbia and Switzerland, tin-pot African mudholes such as Burkina Faso and Liberia, bass-ackward South and Central American countries like Mexico and Venezuala and of course Mongolia and Australia. And we, the greatest country on earth, the country that everyone loves to hate, will have to let these 3rd rate suck-tatorships judge American citizens for whatever they decide is a crime. Oh yea, except for terrorism and drug trafficking. Those aren’t big deals, right? This is the one court of law in the world that would not be able to convict Osama Bin Laden, yet we are supposed to cuddle up and suck at the teat of “Globalism”.

A March 21, 2007, blog posting on National Review's Web site shows a letter written by New York attorney Steven J. Stein to Koh, challenging Koh for supposedly saying during a speech to the Yale Club of Greenwich that year that Islamic law could apply to disputes in U.S. courts.

And, Mr. Koh thinks Sahria Law is ok. Not familiar with Sharia Law? Well, let me intelligenate you. Sharia is a complex set of laws, drawn from the Koran. Now, do we as Americans draw our law from the bible? No, although the bible touches on many of the same principles as American Law, such as not stealing, not killing, etc, our laws are not drawn from it. Neither are the drawn from the Book of Mormon, the Bhagavad Gita, The Satanic Bible or the entertaining writings of J.K. Rowling. However, if Mr. Koh has his way, we will have to submit IN COURT to the belief system of a religious group. Here, as an example, are the Sharia laws governing marriage:

Requirements for Islamic Marriages:
These are guidelines; Islamic law on divorce is different depending on the school of thought.
The man who is not currently a
fornicator can only marry a woman who is not currently a fornicatress or a chaste woman from the people of the Book.
The woman who is not currently a fornicatress can only marry a man who is not currently a fornicator.
The fornicator can only marry a fornicatress – and vice versa.
The Muslim woman can only marry a Muslim man.
The guardian may choose a suitable partner for a virgin girl, but the girl is free to contest and has the right to say 'no'.
The guardian cannot marry the divorced woman or the widow if she didn't ask to be married.
It is obligatory for a man to give
bride wealth (gifts) to the woman he marries – "Do not marry unless you give your wife something that is her right."[119]
A woman who wishes to be divorced usually needs the consent of her husband. However, most schools allow her to obtain a divorce without her husband's consent if she can show the judge that her husband is impotent. If the husband consents she does not have to pay back the dower.[
citation needed]
Men have the right of unilateral divorce. A divorce is effective when the man tells his wife that he is divorcing her. At this point the husband must pay the wife the "delayed" component of the dower.
A divorced woman of reproductive age must wait four months and ten days before marrying again to ensure that she is not pregnant. Her ex-husband should support her financially during this period.[
citation needed]
If a man divorces his wife three times, he can no longer marry her again unless she marries another man, and if they got divorced (only in a way that this divorce is not intended for the woman to re-marry her first husband) the woman could re-marry her first husband.[
citation needed]

I won’t even start about what you can and can’t eat. Let’s just say this; bacon is a crime!

So, President Obama and the rest of “The Obamanation” have found the missing tool in their toolbox. And Harold Koh will play his part. Geithner will move us towards a shared currency with the other failed economic systems in the world, Hillary will make us weak in the eyes of our enemies, Holder will disarm us so resistance is futile and Koh will make sure we no longer have to protection of the greatest legal system in the world.

America has never faced darker days.

From Fox News- President Obama's nominee to be the State Department's legal adviser has ignited a fury among conservative critics who say his views are a threat to American democracy -- an accusation the White House on Tuesday called "outrageous" and "completely baseless."
Former Clinton administration official Harold Koh, who has been dean of the Yale Law School since 2004, once wrote that the U.S. was part of an "axis of disobedience" with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Koh also has long held that the U.S. should accept international law when deliberating cases at home.
Obama nominated Koh on March 23 to become the State Department's legal adviser -- an appointment that, if confirmed by the Senate, will give Koh far-reaching influence over the extent to which international norms affect U.S. law.
"This is not a desk job. This guy will be the face of American international law around the world," said Steven Gross, legal expert and fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation.
"The top legal adviser at State travels extensively and is involved in international legal negotiations, treaties and in major United Nations conferences.
"The president should have the right to choose the most conservative or liberal legal advisers to give them advice, but this is much more than that. The concern is that he cares as much about -- if not more about -- international law and integrating that into the American judicial system than he does about protecting American prerogatives and American sovereignty," Gross said.
The White House vehemently defended Koh's nomination on Tuesday, telling FOXNews.com that he is "one of the most respected members of the legal community."
Koh "earned wide bipartisan praise as assistant secretary of state and he's universally respected by legal scholars," White House spokesman Reid Cherlin told FOXNews.com. "The president looks forward to working with him at the State Department. He's a strong believer in the Constitution, and the president nominated him because of his firm defense of the Constitution."
State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid also offered praise for Obama's nominee.
"Dean Koh is universally respected for his legal scholarship and previously served as an assistant secretary of state -- and was praised for his work by Republicans and Democrats alike," Duguid said. "President Obama and Secretary Clinton strongly believe he's the right person for the job."
Koh, like Obama, is a strong opponent of the Iraq war and the use of harsh interrogation techniques that some consider torture. He has fiercely criticized former President George W. Bush for invading Iraq in 2003 and has accused the Bush administration of trying to "block public release of more Abu Ghraib type pictures."
"We should resist the claim that a War on Terror permits the commander in chief's power to be expanded into a wanton power to act as torturer in chief," Koh wrote in an article published in May 2006 in the Indiana Law Journal.
Koh also advocates a "transnational legal process" and has criticized the U.S. for its failure to "obey global norms."
In an article published in the Berkeley Journal of International Law in 2004, Koh wrote, "What role can transnational legal process play in affecting the behavior of several nations whose disobedience with international law has attracted global attention after September 11th -- most prominently, North Korea, Iraq and our own country, the United States of America? For shorthand purposes, I will call these countries 'the axis of disobedience.'"
And in a Stanford Law Review article published in May 2003, Koh wrote that supporters of the International Criminal Court should bring pressure to bear on U.S. opinion "with an eye toward persuading U.S. officials that the ICC actually serves U.S. interests."
A March 21, 2007, blog posting on National Review's Web site shows a letter written by New York attorney Steven J. Stein to Koh, challenging Koh for supposedly saying during a speech to the Yale Club of Greenwich that year that Islamic law could apply to disputes in U.S. courts.
"In your discussion of 'global law' I recall at least one favorable reference to 'Sharia,' among other foreign laws that could, in an appropriate instance (according to you) govern a controversy in a federal or state court in the U.S.," Stein wrote in his letter addressed to Koh.
Cherlin said Stein's version of events is "not accurate," and that the host of the event in question disputed the account. Stein could not be reached for comment.
Koh's critics insist his legal views undermine the U.S. Constitution and American sovereignty.
John Fonte, senior fellow and director of the Center for American Common Culture at the Hudson Institute, told FOXNews.com that Koh's views have "a very big practical effect on American foreign policy and on American democracy.
"This is international imperialism. Under Koh's plan, the Constitution would become secondary and international law would take precedence regardless of what Americans said about the matter."
Supporters tout Koh as a leading expert on public and private international law, national security law and human rights.
He served as assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor from 1998 to 2001, and previously had served on the secretary of state's Advisory Committee on Public International Law. He has argued before the U.S. Supreme Court and testified before Congress dozens of times, and he's received more than 30 awards for his human rights work, according to Yale's Web site.
Cherlin described Koh as "an American success story." (His brother, Howard Koh, was tapped by the president two days later for a position in the Health and Human Services Department.)
"He's the son of immigrants. He's a dedicated teacher and professor, and does great work. We don't have any question whatsoever about any of these issues raised by critics who are sworn opponents of the administration," said Cherlin, who said the conservative critics' opposition was "ideologically driven."

Thursday, March 26, 2009

What is this guy thinking?

So, our Dear Leader has recovered from his attack of complete dumb-assness and reversed his earlier decision to have veterans pay for their injuries with their own private insurance. Does the current administration have no one in charge of discussing plans with the President? Am I to believe that a well-oiled political juggernaut like the Democratic Party is letting a junior Senator from Illinois make decisions about policy on his own? This is the blind driving the retarded to school, while taking directions from a deaf guy whose parents were cousins. President Obama continues to shock and surprise America with his complete lack of understanding that his actions have ramifications on the national scene. He operates as if he is deciding what to put in his kid’s lunches, instead of taking away health benefits from American Veterans. In a time of dire need, he is trying on policies like khakis at The Gap, looking for something that will make his ass look good, or solve our myriad social, political, ethical and economic problems. Priceless, simply priceless. This is what you wanted America. I remind you that you chose to drink the Kool-Aid.

From Fox News- President Obama, after an uproar by veterans groups, has scrapped a plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs for the treatment of troops injured in service.

“In considering the third-party billing issue, the administration was seeking to maximize the resources available for veterans," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Wednesday in a written statement. "However, the president listened to concerns raised by the [veteran service organizations] that this might, under certain circumstances, affect veterans' and their families' ability to access health care.

“Therefore, the president has instructed that its consideration be dropped," Gibbs said.

Obama met with 11 veterans service organizations on Monday and explained his plan to increase funding for Veterans Affairs by $25 billion over five years and bring more than 500,000 eligible veterans of modest income into the VA health care system by 2013.

But the American Legion, the nation's largest veterans group, said the president's plan would have increased premiums, made insurance unaffordable for veterans and imposed a massive hardship on military families. It could have also prevented small businesses from hiring veterans who have large health care needs, the group said.

The American Legion applauded Obama's decision to drop the plan on Wednesday.

“We are glad that President Obama listened to the strong objections raised by The American Legion and veterans everywhere about this unfair plan," Cmdr. David K. Rehbein of the American Legion said. "We thank the administration for its proposed increase in the VA budget and we are always available to assist by providing guidance to ensure a veterans health are system that is worthy of the heroes that use it."

The American Legion wants the existing system to remain in place. Service-related injuries currently are treated and paid for by the government. The American Legion has proposed that Medicare reimburse the VA for the treatment of veterans.

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Obama plays 3 card monte with our future

It just hit me today what is going on. This was a huge realization on my part, but it clearly explains the actions of the current administration. President Obama and the Democrats understand that their time in power is going to be finite. America has already begun to sour to the shenanigans of the bunch of amateurs we have in power currently. They understand that in 2 years, the Democrats will probably lost their majority in Congress and in 4 years, their White House visit will be over. Knowing this, the current administration is attempting to put as many of their "social experiments" in place as they can. The Presidents new multi-trillion dollar budget (which is sure to break America financially) is full of Liberal pet projects including reckless items such as Universal Health Care, money pits like "renewable" energy sources that America is nowhere near to achieving technologically and money for public schools that is tied to accepting liberal ideology and making it educational policy. This is his legacy. To tie America monetarily to left wing, socialist causes. Of course, the next President in line (most likely Republican) will be vilified by the left for trying to rein in the out of control spending on these programs. Using this as leverage, the Democrats will make their stand and force any new administration to keep these on as "sacred cows". President Obama has no plan to fix our economy. This is evidenced by the fact that only 11% (35 billion dollars) of the Stimulus package will be spent in 2009 (when it is actually needed). In 2010 the economy will begin it's gradual upturn, and Democrats will claim they saved America. And the cost for this "save"? Private banks owned by the Federal Government, more Federal Regulation in place on private finance, and businesses who took stimulus money will have to ask permission of Washington regarding their investments. Banks will be less willing to take risks and the economy will shrink. People will be less open to spending and investing their money and capitol investment will slow down. All of the actions taken by the Obama administration are a placebo, to make us forget the current crisis and buy them more time to implement socialism as policy.

From Fox News- President Obama went on the defensive Tuesday night over his $3.6 trillion budget proposal, dismissing criticism of the plan and insisting that historic investments be made in education, health care and energy in order to ensure an economic recovery. The president, in his second prime-time press conference, faced tough questions about recent projections that his budget would create trillions of dollars in deficits over the next decade and potentially double the national debt. But Obama argued that his budget proposal is a critical peg in a comprehensive plan to attack the economic crisis "on all fronts," and prevent another comparable crisis one or two decades from now.
"Let's make the investments that ... put us on a pathway to growth as opposed to a situation in which we're not making those investments and we still have trillion-dollar deficits," he said. Obama said the biggest cause of long-term deficits is "huge health care costs," which his budget seeks to address.
And he said his budget, even by the most conservative estimates, would still cut the annual deficit in half in five years. Despite growing concern that the proposed $3.6 trillion in spending is a recipe for financial instability, Obama took to the airwaves Tuesday to try to convince the public that his budget is an engine, not a hindrance, for economic growth. He also used the appearance to try to settle public outrage over the millions of dollars in bonuses paid out to employees at bailed-out American International Group. That controversy distracted Washington for more than a week from the president's budget push.
Obama, though, got back to the business of selling his budget proposal Tuesday night.
"This budget is inseparable from this recovery because it is what lays the foundation for a secure and lasting prosperity," Obama said.
Senate Democrats have reportedly already begun paring down the budget, by cutting domestic spending and allowing tax cuts to expire after 2010. But the president signaled Tuesday he was not concerned that his proposed investments in health care, education and energy could be threatened. "We never expected when we printed out our budget that they would simply Xerox it and vote on it. We assume that it has to go through the legislative process," Obama said. "I am confident that the budget we put forward will have those principles in place."
The president, continuing to put a positive spin on the economic outlook, urged the public to have faith in an eventual turnaround. "We will recover from this recession," Obama said. "But it will take time, it will take patience, and it will take an understanding that when we all work together; when each of us looks beyond our own short-term interests to the wider set of obligations we have to each other -- that's when we succeed."
The president said his economic agenda is already yielding "signs of progress," creating jobs and boosting sales. He also accused his detractors of slamming his proposals without putting any alternatives of their own on the table. Republicans have been especially critical of Obama's budget plan over the last few days, after a fresh estimate over the weekend found the plan would produce $9.3 trillion in deficits over the next decade -- or $2.3 trillion more than the administration anticipated. "They are taking the United States down the road of destruction with the debt and the interest on the debt that our children and our grandchildren are going to have to pay," Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., said Tuesday.
The administration's political capital was also threatened in recent days as public outrage, as well as partisan finger-pointing, grew following revelations that AIG paid out $165 million in bonuses. Obama said Tuesday that he shares the outrage at AIG but that the public should not, going forward, "demonize" investors trying to make a profit. He used the controversy over AIG, though, to push for new authority for the administration to seize struggling non-bank firms that could pose a threat to the rest of the economy.
Obama said such authority could have lessened the problems at AIG and that he anticipates "strong support" from the public and Congress for the new regulatory powers. Asked why he was initially slow to respond to the AIG bonus controversy, Obama quickly answered: "It took us a couple days because I like to know what I'm talking about before I speak." Obama, whose press conference was part of an intense public campaign to build support for his budget, has also planned an online town hall meeting for Thursday. And the president plans to meet with top bank CEO's Friday morning to discuss his economic recovery proposals.

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Robert Gibbs is our Douchebag of the Month!

Bipartisanship at its best, once again. The Obama White House has taken time out of it's day to bash former Vice-President Dick Cheney for giving America economic advise. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, playing the part of President Obama's attack dog went after Cheney, referred to him as part of a "Republican Cabal". Why does Gibbs feel the need to bash anyone who takes a stance contrary to the current administration (see previous post on Gibbs' Robert Santelli bashing)? Well, there are a few reasons, in my humble opinion.
First, the guy is a tool. That is why he was chosen for this job.
Second, he works in an environment where arrogance, childishness, pettiness and rudeness are encouraged (i.e. The White House).
Third, since there is no way to truly defend the amoral, reckless and illegal policies that this administration has enacted, and will enact, the only way to deal with criticisms is with anger and accusations.

Just like the Wizard of Oz, we are pressured not to look behind the curtain. Why? Because the person behind it is juvenile, ineffective and totally out of his depth in his current job.

From Fox News- WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration issued a scathing response on Monday to criticism from former Vice President Dick Cheney, calling him part of a "Republican cabal" and saying his economic advice should be ignored.
The White House has already pegged Rush Limbaugh as the leader of the Republican Party, so who does that make No. 2 in the GOP? Why, Dick Cheney, of course.
That was the essence of the sarcastic remark President Obama's press secretary offered Monday when he was asked to respond to criticism from the former vice president.
Cheney, interviewed Sunday on CNN, said Obama was making the U.S. less safe by reversing Bush administration policies toward terror suspects.
"He is making some choices that, in my mind, will, in fact, raise the risk to the American people of another attack," Cheney, in Sunday's interview, said of Obama.
Gibbs defended Obama, saying he is keeping the nation safe while dealing with problems George W. Bush's administration did not.
"Well, I guess Rush Limbaugh was busy," Gibbs said to laughter during his daily briefing with reporters. "So they trotted out the next most popular member of the Republican cabal."
In response to Cheney's suggestion that the White House is trying to take advantage of the economic crisis to expand government, Gibbs said, "I think not taking economic advice from Dick Cheney would be maybe the best possible outcome of yesterday's interview."
Since becoming president, Obama has ordered the closing of the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and banned certain methods of interrogation for suspected terrorists.
"The president has made quite clear that keeping the American people safe and secure is the most serious job that he has each and every day," Gibbs said in defending Obama's decisions.
The press secretary said his sarcasm shouldn't mask the serious policy differences between Obama and the Bush-Cheney team.

Hey Pope, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over.

OK, I hate to bash the Pope, as he does occasionally do something good, but his comments seem to me to indicate that maybe he has no idea what a condom is, what it does, or how AIDS is transmitted. Sexual abstinence is a pipe dream, especially in 3rd World countries. If you don't have cable T.V., sex is your entertainment. I know the Catholic Church wants it's followers to refrain from using birth control. I understand that they feel the need to grow their "fellowship" and that since the Dark Ages, their method of doing this was to have poor people breed. However, I think it is time that the Catholic Church joined to rest of us in the 21st Century and acknowledged that people do have sex for reasons other than procreation, and that if sex can kill you, it is the basic right and responsibility of all human beings to use something that will keep you alive.

From Fox News-
ABOARD THE PAPAL PLANE — Pope Benedict XVI said Tuesday that the distribution of condoms is not the answer in the fight against AIDS in Africa.
Benedict has never before spoken explicitly on condom use although he has stressed that the Roman Catholic Church is in the forefront of the battle against AIDS. The Vatican encourages sexual abstinence to fight the spread of the disease.
"You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms," the pope told reporters aboard the Alitalia plane headed to Yaounde, Cameroon. "On the contrary, it increases the problem."

White House forsakes our Veterans

The White House this week took the opportunity to slap Americas Veterans and Active Duty Serviceman and women in the face by promoting a program that would require them to use private insurance to pay for service related injuries. With this plan, an American Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine injured in combat would not be required to have thier private insurance carrier reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs for their treatment. Just a reminder, the VA was started with the purpose of providing care to wounded vets. Your tax dollars pay for it. These fine folks who have shed their blood when America called will now have to pay expensive insurance premiums to have their wounds tended. Wounds they received in battles that this country sent them to! This is the ultimate insult and a degrading cheapining of all their sacrifices. When veterans groups pushed back against the White House, they were told to "come up with something better themselves". Shame on our government. The least we can do is take care of those who have served this country.

From Fox News- President Obama's plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs for the treatment of troops injured in service has infuriated veterans groups who say the government is morally obligated to pay for service-related medical care.
Calling it a "desperate search for money at any cost," Craig Roberts, media relations manager for the American Legion, told FOXNews.com on Tuesday that the president will "wish away so much political capital on this issue" if he continues to insist on private coverage for service-related injuries.
Cmdr. David K. Rehbein of the American Legion, the nation's largest veterans group, called the president's plan to raise $540 million from private insurers unreasonable, unworkable and immoral.
"This reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate 'to care for him who shall have borne the battle,' given that the United States government sent members of the Armed Forces into harm's way, and not private insurance companies," Rehbein said late Monday after a meeting with the president and administration officials at the Veterans Affairs Department.
"I say again that The American Legion does not and will not support any plan that seeks to bill a veteran for treatment of a service-connected disability at the very agency that was created to treat the unique need of America's veterans," Rehbein said.
Roberts said that 11 veterans service organizations were told to come up with another plan if they didn't like this one. The groups met on Monday with Obama, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki and Office of Management and Budget defense spending chief Steven Kosiak.
"What we've been tasked with now is to raise this money through alternative means and we're supposed to have a conference call in two or three days ... with Rahm Emanuel. So the implication was ... you guys come up with a better idea or this is what's going to happen," Roberts said.
A call to the White House was not immediately returned. But a summary of the proposed budget says the president wants to increase funding for VA by $25 billion over five years, and bring more than 500,000 eligible veterans of modest income into the VA health care system by 2013.
"The president's avowed purpose in doing this is to, quote, 'make the insurance companies pay their fair share,'" Roberts said. But he said it will raise premiums, make insurance unaffordable for veterans and impose a massive hardship on military families. It could also prevent small businesses from hiring veterans who have large health care needs, he said.
"It's not the Blue Cross that puts soldiers in harm's way, it's the federal government," Roberts said, adding that the American Legion would like the existing system to remain in place. Service-related injuries currently are treated and paid for by the government. The American Legion has proposed that Medicare reimburse the VA for the treatment of veterans.
He said that the argument about the government's moral obligation to treat wounded soldiers, sailors and Marines fell on deaf ears during the meeting.
"The president deflected any discussion when it got into any moral issue here," he said. "Any attempt to direct the conversation (to the moral discussion) was immediately deflected."
Private insurance is separate for troops who need health care unrelated to their service. But Roberts noted that if a wounded warrior comes back and needs ongoing treatment, he or she could run up "to the max of the coverage in very short order," leaving his family with nothing
Roberts added that how the plan would raise $540 million "is a great mystery and it seems to be an arbitrary number. ... The commander said it seemed like this phantom number."
Monday's meeting was preceded by a letter of protest earlier this month signed by Rehbein and the heads of 10 service organizations. It read that "there is simply no logical explanation" for the plan to bill veterans' personal insurance "for care that the VA has a responsibility to provide."
The letter called it "unconscionable" to shift the burden of the country's "fiscal problems on the men and women who have already sacrificed a great deal for this country." Rehbein testified to both the House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees on those same points last week.

Monday, March 9, 2009

Happy Birthday, Chief!

There is no cooler kid on the planet, no better buddy around and no finer son that any man could wish for. You are one of a kind and you make us very proud. Hope you have a wonderful birthday.

Saturday, March 7, 2009

If you want my vote in 2012...

I am a Libertarian when it comes to politics. I believe that bigger government is not an answer to any scenario. I want to live in a country where economic conservatism is the rule. I want a country that is well defended, but does not seek to push its agenda in other countries through the use of its military. I think the Constitution and the Bill or Rights are documents written and signed in the blood of our forefathers, and the principles outlined in them should be the ultimate law when determining the course of our nation.
Yet in every election since 1992 I have voted Republican. Why? To me, it seemed to be the party most closely aligned with my beliefs that stood a chance of getting elected. In America, a vote for a 3rd party candidate has always seemed to be a futile gesture. But the events of 2008 have pushed me over the edge. The party I had aligned myself with spent 8 years chipping away at what makes our country good and strong, then frittered away any chance at keeping power by running a sub par candidate for President (as much as I admire John McCain for his dedication and service to America, he was simply not the man for the job). Their mismanagement of the office of President has brought about the most frightening thing I have seen in my lifetime. Socialism as national policy. I know I will never vote for a Democrat, but at this point, I cannot see myself ever voting Republican either. And I know I am not alone. I have decided to put forth my beliefs on what the Republicans MUST do to once again become the party of the people, and get my vote.

1. The Republican Party must officially recognize its mismanagement of this country and make amends. Although I admire President Bush’s boldness in his response to the attacks of 9/11, his subsequent actions are a shameful piece of American history. The erosion of our 4th Amendment rights under the Patriot Act is a direct attack on all our Civil Liberties. Our actions in being involved in a deadly, costly and unnecessary war in Iraq have resulted in the loss of American lives and countless trillions of dollars in waste. The lack of response to the current banking and housing crises, when the potential danger was very evident, is simply inexcusable. Republicans must admit that mistakes were made, and must show America that they have learned from those mistakes.

2. The Republican Party must officially recognize the Constitution and Bill of Rights as the penultimate rules and regulations for conducting business as this nations government. It must commit itself to never again allowing, or causing a protection guaranteed by one of these documents to be circumvented, ignored or taken away. This includes such important steps as recognizing that the Second Amendment extends to the individual citizens of this country, and recognizing that many previous administrations have violated the Tenth Amendment in not respecting the sovereignty of the individual States when making Federal Law. It also includes recognizing that religious dogma is best left up to individuals and has no place in crafting governmental policy, however, a clear moral compass is a requirement.

3. The Republican Party must once again assure that it is the party of fiscal conservatism. It should take an economic stand and adopt the proven assumption that economies flourish when the individual is not taxed excessively and is allowed to determine when and how his income will be spent or saved. It should adopt the policy that the function of the government is not to spend money, but to save it. It should adopt an Amendment to the Constitution that requires a balanced Federal budget, accomplished by spending cuts, not tax increases.

4. The Republican Party should commit itself to allowing a free market economy, and to keeping government out of business. The Republican Party should be committed to decreasing, then eliminating any Federal ownership of private banks and lending institutions, stop the current trend of corporate welfare and decrease business taxes as a tool to increase business investment in new jobs, expanded infrastructure and new technology.

5. The Republican Party should commit itself to be the party of reform when it comes to governmental projects and agencies. It should commit to reviewing each and every Federally owned or managed entity to ensure it is being run in an efficient and financially competent manner. It should further commit itself to limiting and the decreasing the size of all Federal Agencies and decreasing, then eliminating entitlement programs such as welfare and farm subsidies.

6. The Republican Party must recognize that the government works at the behest of the individual citizens of this country, and should organize itself, and any administrations it may get into office around this principle. The 2 most important questions an American government must ask itself when making decisions that affect its citizenry are; “Is this allowed by our Constitution?” and “Is this going to benefit the people that I serve?”

If the Republican Party can do this, I would consider supporting them. Until then, I will continue to throw my vote away on 3rd party candidates who, although they will not be elected, at least share my beliefs.