American Daughter - Multimedia journalism with articles,pictures and graphics, podcast audio and video,slide presentations, live-blogging of events, and webcasting
California Chronicle - Published daily The California Chronicle brings you the top news and commentary of the day throughout the Central Coast, the State and the Nation.
Real Clear Politics - One of America’s premier independent political web sites. Updated every morning and throughout the day, RCP culls and publishes the best commentary, news, polling data, and links to important resources from all points of the political compass and coveri
TownHall - Townhall.com is designed to amplify conservative voices in America’s political debates just as the 2006 and 2008 election cycles begin to heat up.
Working Senior - The National Association of Working Seniors
Forgive me if I appear to be skeptical, but after his first year in office, I am just not able to take anything our president says at face value.
The annual state of the union message that he presented to Congress on January 27 is required by the Constitution, albeit not necessarily in the manner and form that are employed today. Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution says: “He (the president) shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”
In 1913 Woodrow Wilson initiated the practice of delivering the State of the Union message in person. Prior to that time, it was a written report that was sent to Congress to be read by a clerk.
I had a number of reactions to Obama’s January 27 State of The Union address: It was more of a campaign speech than a message to Congress on the status of the nation. It was also overly long and boring, and Obama was combative much of the time, rather than unifying, the prime examples being a direct insult to the Supreme Court about their recent decision on campaign finance and his frequent references to the fact that he had inherited most if not all of the nation’s current problems from the Bush administration.
The speech was riddled with self-serving “facts,” many of which were either distortions or downright lies, but perhaps most of all, typical of the president’s style, it was not so much a speech as a lecture, which I found insulting.
A Fox News fact check noted seven instances where Obama’s statements did not square with the facts, including the following:
OBAMA: “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…” FACT: Obama failed to point out that this amounts to less than one percent of the deficit.
Regarding his health care initiative, OBAMA said: “Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan.” FACT: There is no way to guarantee this and it most certainly cannot be the case with the type of single-payer plan he envisions.
The president also took his “share of the blame” for “not explaining” health care better, but he failed to acknowledge “that 61% of voters nationwide want Congress to drop the health care plan.” (Rasmussen Reports). Translation: He intends to stuff it down the throats of those who disagree, like it or not.
OBAMA: called for action by the White House and Congress “to do our work openly, and to give our people the government they deserve.” FACT: This is an astounding claim, considering that the entire process related to the health care proposal has been done behind closed doors, without including any Republicans, who were literally locked out.
OBAMA: “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 for in savings for next year.” FACT: Pay attention to Obama’s words. He may have identified savings but that doesn’t mean any have been or will be realized.
OBAMA: “The United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades.” FACT: The U.S. and Russia have not reached any agreement, yet the president unilaterally abandoned the anti-missile system that was intended to protect Poland and the Czech Republic without getting anything from the Russians in return.
OBAMA said that lobbyists have “outsized influence” over the government, claiming that his administration has “excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs” and that they should be required “to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my administration or Congress” and “to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office.” FACT: The White House obtained seven waivers from the ban against lobbyists, including Eric Holder (Attorney General), Tom Vilsak (Secretary of Agriculture), William Lynn (Deputy Defense Secretary), Will Corr (Deputy Health and Human Service Secretary), David Hayes (Deputy Interior Secretary), Mark Patterson (Chief of Staff to Treasury Secretary), Ron Klain, (Chief of Staff to Vice President Joe Biden), Mona Sutphen (Deputy White House Chief of Staff), and Melody Barnes (Domestic Policy Council Director).
There’s more, much more, that could be said about Obama’s State of The Union speech, however, suffice it to say that more of the same probably won’t change anyone’s opinion about him. The bottom line is that I don’t like the man, don’t trust him, and believe his policies are bad for the country. I found his speech more of the usual self-aggrandizing, self-righteous posturing we have come to expect of him.
Those on the other side of the political divide obviously disagree. So be it.
Jack Dean distributes daily alerts and newspaper headlines from around the country - about retirement plans, how much pension trusts have declined in value, and how various cities, counties and states are responding. The sheer volume of these articles can be overwhelming, and just glancing through them can give you serious heartburn. Not only because of the loss of value of the various pension portfolios, but also because of the expectations of government employees and the actions of politicians in response.
Here are two examples that illustrate the point:
The Star-Ledger reported, “At the monthly meeting of the New Jersey State Investment Council it was reported that the value of assets in the state pension fund declined to $59.2 billion (from $63.9 billion the previous month)”
Liberty Magazine noted, “The influence of public-sector unions … in California and New Jersey leads to unsustainably generous benefit and pension packages…”
Among the states, the question is no longer, which are the most likely to succeed? It’s which are most likely to default? However, it’s not just government employees who should be worried. Employees in private industry also have reason to be concerned.
General Motors has become the poster child for the consequences of catering to the demands of the unions over the years – to satisfy unrealistic demands for pension and health care benefits for their members. Unable to continue meeting these demands, the company was on the verge of going under before it was taken over by the U.S. government.
Although Congress established a special pension liability fund for that purpose, the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC). Its website notes that PCBG “is a federal corporation…It currently protects the pensions of nearly 44 million American workers and retirees in more than 29,000 private single-employer and multiemployer defined benefit pension plans. PBGC receives no funds from general tax revenues. Operations are financed by insurance premiums set by Congress and paid by sponsors of defined benefit plans, investment income, assets from pension plans trusteed by PBGC, and recoveries from the companies formerly responsible for the plans.”
The problem is that the PBGC doesn’t have nearly enough money to cover the potential losses of all the pension plans in the U.S., which add up to many the trillions of dollars.
So, where will they turn when the PBGC runs out of money? Obviously to the federal government, and our ever-accommodating political leaders will be only too willing to turn on the spigot of free money to solve the problem. The response of choice has become to either borrow the money or print it, and I have little doubt they will do so again.
In the meantime, government employees keep turning to the cities, counties, states and the feds, expecting them to guarantee their losses. However, to do that they must either raise taxes or cut services, or both.
Many government employees seem to think the public should beggar themselves to support their retirement benefits. Not that they haven’t earned them. They have. But taxpayers are rapidly reaching the limit of their willingness and ability to continue underwriting the funding of employee pension trusts when they decline in value. Especially, since most people who work in the private sector don’t have anything close to the benefits of government employee pension plans.
There was a time when the compensation of government employees was much less than that of workers in private industry. The tradeoff was to exchange higher pay for security and benefits. However, that situation has changed. Today, those who work for government have better benefits and pensions than most people in the private sector. Yet, the general public is invariably expected to pick up the tab when the pension trusts of government employees experience losses.
This can’t go on much longer before many jurisdictions at every level, state, county and municipal, are forced to either repudiate their commitments to guarantee employee retirement benefits or to seek the protection of the bankruptcy courts to re-write the pension agreements with their employees.
Will Brooks Firestone step into the breach and run for public office one more time? Can he or should he?
Lois Capps represents a Congressional district that was gerrymandered specifically to favor her election. In my opinion, she has not served the community at large well, instead concentrating her efforts on behalf of an entrenched liberal constituency that has managed to keep her in office, notwithstanding breaking her promise to serve no more than three terms.
But, enough about Lois Capps. This is really about Brooks Firestone.
My initial reaction to the news that he may be thinking about running against Mrs. Capps is that I wish he would. My reasons are purely selfish – in the sense that I believe he would be a far more even handed and productive representative of the people in California’s 23rd Congressional district.
After two terms in the California legislature and one as Santa Barbara County’s third district Supervisor, he has nothing to prove. His record clearly demonstrates that his reasons for holding public office have never been about personal gain or advantage. Brooks is one of the few people who truly believe in public service. Contrary to many of the politicians who hold office today, he has never sought to take advantage of his position for his personal benefit.
During his time as a member of the California Assembly, Brooks accomplished something that was badly needed and long overdue at the time when he introduced House Resolution No. 13, which required the Assembly Rules Committee to contract with a recognized private accounting firm to conduct a performance audit of the Legislature’s lower house. The measure was adopted by the Assembly on a 61-5 vote.
When he left the state legislature in 1998, Brooks said, “When I first ran for the Assembly in 1994, I set two very simple goals: to begin to make government run like a business and to start reforming education…In three years, California has made great progress in both areas and I have played a material role in that progress. I feel I have done what I set out to do; now it’s time to give others a chance.”
Now, once again the Siren Call of public service is beckoning Brooks, and I can understand why, at this stage of his life, he might prefer not to respond. For one thing, the sheer demands on the time of office holders can be overwhelming. Everyone wants to get to them for something, seeking favors or special privileges, making public appearances, raising money, often foregoing one’s personal needs to meet the needs of constituents. It requires enormous effort and focus.
There’s also the matter of cost. At the time Brooks ran for the Board of Supervisors, as with all candidates, he asked for contributions from his supporters. Unfortunately, as I recall, the financial support he received fell far short of the cost and he was forced to spend around $250,000 of his own money on his campaign. I suspect that has to be on his mind at this point as he thinks about possibly mounting a new campaign that is bound to cost a great deal more than running for County Supervisor, especially against an incumbent who already has over $473,000 in her campaign account.
Another consideration I think Brooks will certainly weigh, in addition to his age and being at a point in his life when he probably thought he would be free of significant responsibility, is the stress of serving 3,000 miles away and having to travel back and forth to his district. As a County Supervisor, he could be home most nights and weekends. In D.C., he will be away from our Valley and the district most of the time for two years.
Finally, having had a pacemaker implanted in 2008, I’m sure the question of Brooks’ health is bound to be an important consideration in evaluating his options.
On the other side of the equation is Brooks’ drive to serve his community. He is clearly qualified, not just politically speaking but also because of his extensive and successful business background. He is thoughtful, even-handed and knowledgeable.
Brooks does his homework, works well with others who have a different point of view, and believes in limiting government.
The Republicans couldn’t ask for a better candidate.
Finally, as one who has also held positions of responsibility and reached retirement age, I can understand the appeal of getting back into the action one last time.
If Scott Brown can win a Senate seat in Massachusetts, which is an overwhelmingly liberal state, surely Brooks Firestone can win in California’s 23rd district.
Is the health care reform constitutional? How about taking over General Motors and Chrysler, insurance giant A.I.G., the banks, or any of the other myriad actions taken by Obama and his administration and Congress since he became president?
The number of lawyers in Congress varies over time, but in general, it is a high percentage of the membership, ranging from 55 to 80 percent of the House of Representatives and approximately 60 percent of U.S. Senators. That translates into 60 Senators and 250 plus Congresspersons, a total of something over 300.
With all the lawyers in Congress, one wonders how it is that they manage to pass legislation that violates the U.S. Constitution. Or, could that possibly be the reason? That is, because they are attorneys, they believe they can ignore the Constitution with impunity.
Senator Orrin Hatch, former Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, and Kenneth A. Klukowsi, a fellow and senior legal analyst with the American Civil Rights Union, made the case in a Wall Street Journal editorial that the health-care bills currently working their way through Congress are unconstitutional for the following reasons:
“First, the Constitution does not give Congress the power to require that Americans purchase health insurance. Congress must be able to point to at least one of its powers listed in the Constitution as the basis of any legislation it passes. None of those powers justifies the individual insurance mandate.”
“A second constitutional defect of the Reid bill passed in the Senate involves the deals he cut to secure the votes of individual senators.”
“A third constitutional defect in this ObamaCare legislation is its command that states establish such things as benefit exchanges, which will require state legislation and regulations.”
According to the Congressional Budget Office: “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”
Steve Elliott, President, Grassfire.org Alliance, noted: “Never before in U.S. History has such a federal mandate been imposed on the people of the United States! Why? Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional.”
Michael Connelly, a retired Constitutional Attorney, observed: “The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants…”
Mr. Connelly also stated: “If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed. The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government…This legislation also provides for access, by the appointees of the Obama administration, of all of your personal healthcare information (a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution), your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital…The 4th is supposed to be a protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.”
As the health care legislation is currently proposed, Mr. Connelly further notes: “If you decide not to have healthcare insurance, or if you have private insurance that is not deemed acceptable to the Health Choices Administrator appointed by Obama, there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a tax instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn’t work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the due process of law.”
Finally, led by South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster, the Attorneys General of at least 10 states are already lining up to contest the health care bill on constitutional grounds. Questioning the permanent exemption granted to the state of Nebraska to pay for an expansion of Medicaid, Mr. McMaster asks, “Why is it that Nebraska pays no taxes, pays no money as a state while the other 49 states do?”
So, with such a high percentage of attorneys in the Congress, how is it that they can create and adopt legislation that is so clearly unconstitutional? Do they actually believe that no one will challenge the health care bill in federal court? Or, is the legislation as it is currently proposed merely a tactical maneuver in a larger strategic plan to get health care passed in any form, lock it in, then continue to modify it over future years – ala Social Security and Medicare?
Who asked Barack Obama to run around the world apologizing for America, and by implication, all Americans? Certainly not the American people. Nor have we seen any polls or news stories reporting that Americans asked the President to apologize on their behalf. If anything, it’s just the opposite.
I, for one, am deeply offended by our President traveling outside the U.S. and using the trips as the occasion to apologize for our policies, actions and past transgressions, as he may see them. Bill Clinton did this on a trip to Africa in1998, when he said, “going back to the time before we were a nation, European-Americans received the fruits of the slave trade. And we were wrong in that.”
What is it about the mindset of people like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama that makes them think apologies can change the attitudes of people who hate America and Americans and want to destroy us? Does anyone really believe this will make people in other nations our friends or supporters?
For generations, we have bowed and scraped to the heads of Arab states to keep their oil flowing in our direction – and continue to do so. On one trip, Obama visited Saudi Arabia on his way to Egypt, where he delivered a major speech to the Muslim world, and while in Saudi Arabia, Obama and his State Department agreed to the following set of conditions for the reporters who travelled with him to report to the American people: That they all be confined to the hotel where they stayed, that they were not allowed to independently report on Obama’s meetings with the Saudi King, that they would only be allowed to use the official press releases of the Saudi government and finally that they not interview any Saudi citizens or authorities, under penalty of imprisonment.
We may need Saudi oil, but they are ingrates. We have provided them with military cover when they were threatened by their own neighbor, Saddam Hussein, whose aggression extended to his invasion of Kuwait, which led us into the Gulf War to expel the Iraqis. On his way out of Kuwait, Saddam set their oil fields ablaze and destroyed as much of their property as he possibly could, killing and torturing many Kuwaitis as his troops were being driven out. Should we also be apologizing for rescuing their country and restoring their monarchy? Or, how about apologizing to the Saudis for sending our troops and planes to their country to shield them from the same fate? Should we apologize to them for that as well?
In the June 3, 2009 issue of The Morning Bell, “President Obama’s Top Ten Apologies,” the Heritage Foundation noted that the President apologized for Guantanamo (in France and D.C.), the mistakes of the CIA, America’s policy toward the Americas, for slavery and segregation (before the Turkish Parliament), the War on Terror (as if we started it), for attempting to dictate the terms of our relationship with other nations (at the Summit of the Americas), to the Muslim world in general, saying “We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect,” and to France and Europe for the “times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.”
However, as he traveled around the world apologizing to just about anyone who would listen, Obama failed to also note that we have saved many of the same countries to which he apologized, that they owe their very existence to the United States. Most of Europe would have been enslaved by Germany or the Soviet Union if it were not for the United States in World War II, South Korea from the North Koreans in the 50s and some 50 million people by Saddam Hussein, al Qaida and the Taliban in Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11.
The oft quoted adage, “Be careful what you wish for, you may get it,” applies to America haters everywhere. If they believe we are so terrible, they might think about the kind of world they would be living in if we were no longer available or able to protect them.
Is Obama also prepared to apologize to the American people when his policies prove to be the cause of the widely predicted financial disaster that his policies initiated in 2009, with a dramatic increase in spending?
It’s time we stopped apologizing for our way of life, for helping to free other people from tyranny and for the economic success that has made us the object of envy and hate in many parts of the world.
The one thing we absolutely do not need is an official Apologist-in-Chief as our head of state.
Notwithstanding our laws against entering the U.S. illegally, far too many of America’s leaders continue to tolerate the millions of people crossing our borders who are labeled “undocumented workers,” in an obvious effort to confuse their true status. For reasons that appear to be purely political, enforcement of our immigration laws is consistently ignored by just about everyone in authority, while at the same time they complain about the cost of government services that are provided to illegal immigrants, most notably health care, welfare and education.
Voting may be an absolute right of citizenship, but some people object to the idea that voters should be required to provide proper identification at the polls, which they claim is evidence of bias and prejudice against minorities. So, while we may have the right to vote, we shouldn’t have to prove that we are entitled to do so.
California universities require out of state students to pay higher tuition fees than residents, but accord those who are illegal immigrants the same status as residents. So, if a student from another state, say Colorado, Arizona, New York, etc., wishes to attend a California state financed university, their tuition fees will be substantially higher than the fees of those who are in the state illegally.
Tobacco is a legal product that is heavily taxed by the same government that historically subsidized tobacco farmers. Both the Federal and state governments tax cigarettes, ostensibly to offset health care costs incurred by smokers or to establish programs designed to discourage people from smoking. They then use the money for other purposes, often completely unrelated to tobacco use. If the product is so bad, why not just make it illegal? The obvious answer is that there is just too much money in it for the government and for our politicos. So, the product stays legal and is both heavily taxed and subsidized, health considerations aside, so long as it keeps feeding money into the tax coffers.
We put people in jail for ingesting something they like (as in drugs), while tolerating, even encouraging, the proliferation and aggressive marketing of prescription drugs throughout our culture, including the schools.
We tell our children that sex before marriage or at too early an age is a bad idea, while dispensing condoms to them at our schools.
The Supreme Court has held that abortion is a constitutional right; however, that right has produced a great deal of confusion in our society. While it is legal to abort a fetus at almost any stage of its development, including mere moments before the infant is born (“partial birth abortion”), it is homicide if the fetus is killed by, say, a gunshot or stab wound to the mother’s stomach. But, it is not murder for a mother to terminate her own pregnancy at the same stage of development for purely personal reasons. So, for some purposes, the law recognizes the fetus as a living person, for others it does not.
In many states, girls under the age of 18 must have their parents’ permission for a medical procedure, or to have their ears pierced, but they can get an abortion without parental consent or knowledge.
We try to teach young people that they should be good citizens and respect the law, while at the same time the airwaves are flooded with music, videos and TV programs that are vulgar, challenge authority, celebrate violence, preach hatred and generally pollutes their minds.
We are shocked by the steady stream of disclosures of the ethical and moral lapses of our business, political and religious leaders, while at the same time we tolerate hostile, anti-social and “in your face” behavior among our young people. Somehow, there is a disconnect between the “anything goes” mentality that pervades our society and the behavior of the adults who are supposed to be in charge. The old saying, “Monkey sees, monkey does,” seems to apply.
Americans treasure their right of privacy, yet for generations we have passed laws that intrude into the lives of people in a wide range of areas: limiting free speech, restricting the ownership of guns, intrusive tax regulation, making various consensual sexual acts illegal (even for married couples), and smoking, to name just a few.
Gambling is illegal or strictly regulated in various states, and while many people bemoan the fact that it can be addictive, many of those same governments operate and aggressively promote lotteries.
We constantly preach tolerance, but experience far too many shocking incidents of intolerance and prejudice, abuse, brutality and murder. “Do as I say, not as I do,” is not just some trite saying. It has become the accepted standard in our society.
Is it any wonder there are so many problems in America today when there is such contradictory, schizophrenic behavior in our society?
usa online gambling? Play Online Blackjack For Money Usa online casinos accepting mastercard usa e wallet express casinos 25.
online spades gambling Australia Gambling online blackjack in usa
play online casino!
usa online gambling? Roulette Software Usa online casinos accepting mastercard usa e wallet express casinos 25.
online spades gambling Gambling In Michigan online blackjack in usa
play online casino! Playtech Bingo
