STILL ON PATROL

U.S. Needs To Get Ahead of Terrorism

 We nearly had another airline terrorism tragedy on Christmas Day.  A Northwest Airlines flight from Lagos, Nigeria, to Amsterdam, to Detroit, was attacked by a bomb-carrying Al Qaeda terrorist, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, while in the air over the U.S.  Only incompetence, either by the bomb-maker or the bomb-carrier, saved the lives of as many as 300 passengers and crew on Flight  253, when the bomb caught fire but did not detonate.

In one of the most idiotic statements yet to come from the Obama Administration, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said, "One thing I want to point out is that the system worked. Everybody played an important role here. The passengers and crew of the flight took appropriate action."   Really?  How is it, then, that this terrorist was not on a "no-fly" list, and the passenger manifest was approved by U.S. officials, when even Abdulmutallab's father had warned that his son was being directed by Islamic religious extremists?

And how is it that this questionable passenger was not sufficiently searched either in Nigeria or Holland to discover the presence of explosives on his person?  It is standard procedure to pay particular attention to passengers to Europe from Nigeria because of widespread smuggling, but Abdulmutallab was subjected only to "standard procedures."   A preliminary FBI analysis indicates the device contained PETN, also known as Pentaerythritol Tetranitrate, a highly explosive chemical. Experts say this would have been picked up using a swab commonly used in secondary screening. A body scan, particularly the new 3D imaging scanners at some airports, would also have spotted something strapped to his body, even in the crotch area.   Yet such a high-traffic airport as Amsterdam, with a passenger that had at least two reasons for a closer look, allowed Abdulmutallab to pass on through.

Al Qaeda is crowing that, even though the bombing was unsuccessful, this event proves they have developed new explosives that cannot be detected.  It seems apparent that they intend to try again.  What concerns me even more are the myriad other terrorism tactics Al Qaeda might employ in the U.S., with our very open and unsecured society.  Power plants, water treatment facilities, railroads, and heavy trucks are all potential targets, and would raise the fear level to unprecedented heights if terrorism were to strike in the American heartland.

Yet it seems that we remain behind the terrorists in rooting out these plots.  Certainly, our anti-terrorism people have broken up far more plots and terrorist cells than we probably know about.  But are we doing all we can to anticipate new threats and new technology?  Al Qaeda and other similar terrorist organizations have demonstrated their resilience and their dedication to attacking the U.S.  The U.S. must be similarly diligent and ruthless in eliminating these threats.  We must spend more time and energy rooting out terrorists, wherever they may be, and worry less about their "rights."  Does anyone out there think a terrorists such as Abdulmutallab gives a single damn about the rights of the other 300 people on Northwest Flight 253?

Terrorism is nothing less than a sporadic war on the U.S.  It is not the kind of war we read about in the history books, where the enemy was clearly-defined and "over there" in opposition to our lines.  The enemy is clearly among us, and is unquestionably a clear and present danger to every American as we live out our daily lives.  We need to treat terrorism as an open war, where civil liberties should take a back seat to assuring the safety of Americans, at home and abroad.  Otherwise, next time we may not be so lucky as we were with Flight 253.

Congress and College Football

Once again, Congress is trying to step well outside its Constitutional bounds, not to mention any decent interpretation of the scope of that to which they should be paying attention.

Recently, a House Subcommittee approved a bill that would require NCAA football to implement a playoff system and junk the current poll-and-computer based BCS bowl system.  Several immediate questions come to mind:  first, where in the Constitution does the Congress find its authority to legislate over intercollegiate football?  They would probably argue that college football, as a multi-billion dollar industry, falls under interstate commerce.  this, of course, would be simply the latest in a long and shameful string of abuses of that particular Constitutional power.

Second, with cap-and-trade and health care "reform" posing substantial threats, financial and otherwise, to all Americans, why exactly are these Congressmen spending time on college football playoff systems?  As BCS executive director Bill Hancock said, “With all the serious matters facing our country, surely Congress has more important issues than spending taxpayer money to dictate how college football is played.”  Congressman (and Democrat) Bobby Rush responded, “We can walk across the street and chew gum at the same time. We can do a number of things at the same time.”  Really, Bobby?  Couldn't prove it by me or any recent actions of this Congress.

Add to this mix the Congress's role in funding the proposed troop surge into Afghanistan, as well as finding ways to build jobs for the thousands of unemployed Americans, gee, Congressman Rush, I just cannot think of a reason why you shouldn't be spending your time on college football playoffs.

Aside from Congress's misplaced priorities, I have very mixed feelings about the BCS.  The "system" has resulted in a legitimate championship game this year with Texas v. Alabama, but in many years it has not resulted in the best two teams in the final.  It is heavily biased against non-BCS schools such as TCU and Boise State, which in past years had some merit, but in this year may have shut at least one better team out.

On the other hand, a playoff system always creates its own controversy in deciding who is in and who is out.  Even at 65 teams, the NCAA basketball tournament annually results in a few teams staying home who may well be better than some of the automatic bid teams who get in.  But, on balance, I tend to lean in the direction of either an 8-team or 16-team playoff system built within the existing bowls.  Sixteen teams could compete in a total of fifteen games over the space of four weeks, beginning two weeks after the regular season ends, and wrap the thing up in the same time frame the bowls cover now.  What are now seen as ho-hum, meaningless games could then be much more interesting by resolving the title quest on the field.

Regardless of wht is the best system, however, Congress has no business butting into what should be a completely private affair decided among the 200 or so NCAA Division I (or Bowl Championship Subdivision) schools.  This overriding desire of Congress, particularly in its Democrat majority, to control every aspect of American life, must be put to an end if we are ever going to restore our Constitutional Republic to what it was meant to be.

TIGER WOODS AND THE PUBLIC’S “RIGHT TO KNOW”

You have probably heard by now – Tiger Woods had a minor motor vehicle accident around 2:30 a.m. Friday morning.  He drove out of his driveway and promptly hit a fire hydrant and tree.  His air bags did not deploy.  His wife, Elin, used a golf club and broke out on or more back windows to get him out.  He was taken to a hospital, reportedly with facial lacerations and bruises.   There are inconsistencies in the story, no doubt.

 

And, as of Monday when I am writing this, he has refused to be interviewed by the Florida Highway Patrol, which he has every legal right to do.  He has provided his license, registration, and proof of insurance.  He has issued a statement saying that the accident was his fault, was embarrassing, and that he would say no more.  He also says all of the “scurrilous rumors” are “false.”

 

This morning we are hearing reports that the FHP is seeking warrants for his medical records to “verify whether his injuries were consistent with the motor vehicle accident”, or a “possible domestic abuse” situation.  Added into the mix is a recent National Enquirer report that Woods was having an affair with a woman from New York, and that the woman has hired Gloria Allred, an attorney from Los Angeles. 

 

The big debate is now whether Tiger should publicly ‘fess up and tell the whole story of what happened.  Those who claim he should cite to the ubiquitous, and largely non-existent, “public’s right to know.”  Curiosity about the private lives of celebrities, does not, my friends, equate to any “right to know.”

 

As a starting point, there is no such thing as a “public’s right to know” in the Constitution, nor is there such a broad concept embodied in any statutory law.  There are certain specific statutory rights to obtain information from governmental bodies, such as the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for Federal matters, and Open Records laws for state and local entities in Kentucky. 

On the other hand, the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently ruled that there is a “right to privacy” inherent in the Ninth Amendment, which states:  “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”  The Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments have also been cited as part of an overall right to privacy.

Where we are talking about elected officials entrusted with public funds, there should clearly be a “public’s right to know” how our money is being used and our public matters are being conducted.  This extends to personal matters when those matters involve use of public funds, dishonesty, or interfere with the ability of public officials to do their duties.  South Carolina’s Gov. Mark Sanford and his affair with a Brazilian woman comes to mind as an example.  Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky are another. Yet, at some point, even elected officials retain a right to their own privacy.

 

There is simply no “public’s right to know” when it comes to matters such as this car wreck, or why it happened, with Tiger Woods.  Even if there turns out to be something beyond a simple car wreck, it should be handled within the bounds of the applicable legal system, not on the front pages of tabloids or on television talk shows.  In my opinion, the FHP with its press releases has gone over the line into publicity-land.

 

Some have suggested that because Woods is a public figure, or that he has used his “image” to gain endorsement deals, the public is somehow entitled to invade his life.  This is simply not so.  His endorsements, and his public appeal as a nonpareil golfer, may well be harmed by his silence, but that is his choice.  Endorsement contracts, just like the purchase of tickets to an event, or tuning in the television, are all business relationships at their heart, and we all have the “right” to disengage if we disapprove.

 

Barring some new, factual and legal developments in this story, Tiger Woods has every right to maintain his privacy as he sees fit.  Simply because our culture is polluted by paparazzi and entertainment media who try to invade the lives of anyone who may be enjoying their fifteen minutes of fame, does not give to the public any “right to know.” 

Patrick Kennedy vs. The Roman Catholic Church

For those of us old enough to remember, the Kennedy family has long been identified with the Roman Catholic Church, dating even beyond the 1960 Presidential election in which his Catholicism was a major obstacle in JFK's bid for office against Richard M. Nixon.

Now, though, there has been a rather public falling-out between Roman Catholic Bishop Thomas J. Tobin of Providence, RI, and 8-term Rhode Island Congressman Patrick Kennedy, son of the Late Edward Kennedy.  This falling out is not over Kennedy's 2006 DUI conviction or his rehabilitation stint at the Mayo Clinic for drug addiction.  Rather, Bishop Tobin has become exasperated over Kennedy's public position on abortion rights and the current health-care debate.

Apparently, in a February 2007 letter to Kennedy, Bishop Tobin said, “In light of the church’s clear teaching, and your consistent actions, I believe it is inappropriate for you to be receiving holy communion and I now ask respectfully that you refrain from doing so.”  Kennedy's revelation of his being banned from receiving Communion included an accusation that the Bishop had instructed all clergy under his supervision to deny Communion to Kennedy, which the Bishop denies doing.

The allegation by Rep. Kennedy, is the most recent escalation in the dispute between the men that began after Kennedy criticized the nation’s Catholic bishops for threatening to oppose health care "reform" unless it tightened restrictions on publicly financed abortion.

The New York Times reports: "In an interview with Cybercast News Service on Oct. 21, Mr. Kennedy said he could not understand “how the Catholic Church could be against the biggest social justice issue of our time,” a reference to expanding health insurance, adding that its stance was fanning “flames of dissent and discord.”   Bishop Tobin, in response, said Kennedy's claim to be a Catholic was "false advertising", and made this comment directed to Rep. Kennedy:  ”If you freely choose to be a Catholic, it means you believe certain things, you do certain things.  If you cannot do all that in conscience, then you should perhaps feel free to go somewhere else.”

Does this mean Kennedy will break with family tradition and perhaps become an Episcopalian?  In light of the Pope's recent invitation to Anglicans to join the Roman Catholic Church, one would have to believe that TEO is salivating at the prospect to pick off such a high-profile member of a traditionally Catholic family.  If this does happen, that noise you will hear from New England is two generations of Kennedys spinning in their graves.

The broader point from all this is that Kennedy is but another example of liberal politicians in this country, not to mention liberal clergy, having a belief that they can have it any way they like when it comes to having principles.  The Kennedys' Catholicism has become a political talisman that has endeared them to generations of Catholic New Englanders, who keep sending them to Congress and other elected positions.  Yet, for reasons that are inexplicable, they feel no need to follow Catholic teachings in their political positions.  As Bishop Tobin said, this is "false advertising."

TEO likewise does not see its own inconsistency.  It sees no wrong in unilaterally rejecting the teachings of 2000 years of Biblical Christianity, much less the officially-stated position of the Anglican Communion, while at the same time clinging to calling itself both a Christian and an Anglican church.  Much of the debate, and litigation, ongoing within the North American version of Anglicanism is not so much theological as it is in who may claim possession of the label "Anglican."  The question of why the liberal revisionists won't just go their unitarian universalist way and be honest about it has never been answered.

Patrick Kennedy would make a good Episcopalian.

Textbook Changes Are Imperiling Education

There have been several stories in the news lately about textbook changes that are being debated around the United States, most particularly in the State of Texas.  Why should we care about Texas if we do not live there?  Textbook publishers will tell you that they are usually compelled to go along with changes proposed by the larger states - Texas, California, New York - because they sell so many books there.  In other words, if the big states make a change, it is likely to show up in Kentucky, or your state, at the same time.

The proposed Texas changes reflect the growth of political correctness and multiculturalism as a driving force in the re-writing of history, civics, and many other courses.  For example, in proposed social studies textbooks, Franklin Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower have been deleted from lists of significant persons in the development of America, and have been replaced by Oprah Winfrey and Bill Gates.  While no one can debate that the latter two have had some significant impact, adding them at the expense of two men who led this country through a World War, and who were both President of the U.S. is, well, idiotic.

Another proposed change equates Cesar Chavez with Benjamin Franklin as significant political figures.  I will grant that Mr. Chavez is responsible for many significant changes in the treatment of agricultural workers. But, there is no way possible to compare his accomplishments to those of Benjamin Franklin, who was a central, instrumental figure in our obtaining freedom from England, as well as in forming this country and creating our poor, forsaken Constitution.

Some other proposed changes include no longer referring to the "Founding Fathers" (too sexist) and instead calling them "The Framers," which sounds more like a carpentry crew for a production home builder.  References to Mt. Rushmore are being deleted because it is deemed offensive to some Native American groups.  "Senior citizens" (itself once a politically-correct term) are now simply referred to as "older persons".  Why not "age-challenged Americans"?  Geography textbooks no longer use the term "jungle" - they're now "rain forests."  Home economics textbooks have deleted references to any foods that are deemed "unhealthy", so that, as we do in so many contexts, we simply sweep anything thought of as "bad" under the rug, as if it will go away.

My pet peeve is by now old news.  We are long past the time when references to the American Civil War have been dumbed down to the single statement "Lincoln freed the slaves."  Never mind that in doing so we therefore ignore the entire panoply of economic, political, and social issues that not only triggered that War, but have everything to do with understanding our country today, including how the Federal government has strayed so totally from the "Framers" intent when they wrote the Constitution.  Thanks to Mr. Lincoln compelling the South to remain in the Union by force of arms, the power of the Federal government has since then morphed into the all-powerful, over-reaching entity it is today.

George Santayana said, "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."  In this politically-correct, multicultural day and age, we cannot "learn from" history because by and large we do not even learn it at all.  Rather, as Gustave Flaubert said, "Our ignorance of history causes us to slander our own times."

Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World, described the phenomenon of how history is treated thusly:  "the charm of history and its enigmatic lesson consists in the fact that, from age to age, nothing changes and yet everything is completely different."  Mr. Huxley correctly understood that the tendency of man is to re-write our history to suit our own times, not the eras which preceded us and in which history was made. 

This phenomenon, of course, has been spread to all academic disciplines, not just in social studies or history.  The sciences, geography, home economics, everything, have felt the eraser of political correctness and multiculturalism, placing the documents by which teachers are supposed to educate our children solidly in the realm of bland, edited, revised nonsense, or, if you will, dishonesty, in the sense of failing to teach our children the truth from which they can make their own judgments as they grow, and substituting for it the "brave new world" of bland pablum.

The source of this problem is in two parts.  One, there are too many groups from various ends of the political spectrum who are too willing to take offense at nothing, and thus demand that their own politics, philosophies, and value systems be reflectes in textbooks.  Two, there are too many politicians and weak-willed political appointees running school systems, who lack the spine to tell the special interest groups to butt out.  The losers?  Our children, who receive less and less honest, useful education year by year.  We wonder why we continue to fall behind other countries in educational achievement, and I offer you this as one very significant component of the problem.

We are well past the time that politics, political correctness, and multiculturalism should be removed from educational decision-making, and relegated to be dissected in a Civics laboratory as so many dead frogs are in Biology.  Schools are not supposed to be political indoctrination camps.  The real purpose of education should be self-evident - EDUCATION.   It is not, and should not be, a political battleground upon which divergent ideologies seek to wrest control of our future.

Being PC Cannot Override Vigilance

As more details emerge about Nidal Malik Hasan, the Ft. Hood shooter, it is becoming increasingly clear that someone should have kept a much closer eye on his activities.  Rather, he was allowed to run free at Ft. Hood, carrying guns, because too many people were too politically correct to bring his situation to the proper level of attention, and stop him.

We hear now that some of his psychiatric colleagues at Walter Reed Army Hospital thought he might be "psychotic."  Yet the Army merely transferred him to Ft. Hood and planned to deploy him to the Middle East?  A "psychotic" by definition is someone who suffers from "psychosis", defined as:  a mental illness that markedly interferes with a person's capacity to meet life's everyday demands. In a specific sense, it refers to a thought disorder in which reality testing is grossly impaired.  Symptoms can include seeing, hearing, smelling, or tasting things that are not there; paranoia; and delusional thoughts.

Couple that observation with these facts now coming to light:

• Hasan was heard by many medical colleagues espousing militant Islamist views as far back as medical school, which by the way was paid for by the U.S. Army. 
• Shortly before 9/11, Hasan became a commited jihadist and developed an increasing hostility to America's missions abroad. 
• Hasan attended the controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia, in 2001 at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists.  The preacher at the time was Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Yemeni scholar who was banned from addressing a meeting in London by video link in August because he is accused of supporting attacks on British troops and backing terrorist organisations. 
• Hasan's eyes "lit up" when he mentioned his deep respect for al-Awlaki's teachings, according to a fellow Muslim officer at the Fort Hood base in Texas. 

Hasan frequented websites with radical Islamist themes, and exchanged e-mails with some of the sites' authors. 

Hasan was paid a salary of over $90,000 annually, but from all appearances lived a very ascetic lifestyle.  Investigators are following leads that may show that Hasan sent money to radical Islamist groups.

One of the pistols used by Hasan was purchased a few weeks before the shootings at Ft. Hood, and is an FN Five-Seven, which costs over $1,000, and is capable of holding magazines with 20 to 30 rounds of armor-piercing ammunition.  In other words, a gun much more lethal than one owned for personal protection.

We also now know that Hasan was rejected for a position as a Muslim lay leader at the Army base because "something just didn't seem right," a mosque official revealed. 

Osman Danquah, co-founder of the Islamic Community of Greater Killeen, said he was deeply troubled by two conversations with Hasan over the summer. Hasan seemed incoherent and obsessed with the question of what to tell soldiers about fighting fellow Muslims.

Many of these facts were known to either Army personnel, or the FBI, well prior to last week's shootings, yet we are also hearing that no action was taken to investigate Hasan further, or remove him from situations in which he might be a threat, for fear of being accused of acting in a discriminatory fashion against Hasan because of his Muslim faith.  "Profiling" has become such a negatively-perceived word in this country that we now go too far in the other direction and regularly and repeatedly have sacrificed vigilance on the PC altar of "what-if-we're-wrong-we-might-offend-someone." 

No one should be harassed, or denied employment, because of their particular religious faith.  But when that faith causes someone to espouse threatening ideologies, and associate with known enemies of this country, then more can and should be done.  In the weeks before the shootings, Hasan had obviously been readying himself for something by getting rid of his personal possessions, and by buying the FN 5-7 handgun.  Did this not ring any bells with anyone aware of his radical jihadist views?  Or was this another occasion where the right hand of our government did not know what the left hand knew?

The same government that is even now trying to micro-manage our lives with its cap-and-trade and health care "reform" legislation, and perpetrate such things as possible jail terms for failure to procure health insurance, at the same time cautions us to not "jump to conclusions" about the likes of Hasan.  How utterly offensive can they be?  Hasan was a known threat about whom nothing was done for fear of somehow "offending" his radical jihadist sensibilities. 

When will we learn?  Not only is the PC-driven sensibility of much of this country flat-out irritating, it is creating situations in which we are hamstrung to do anything to protect ourselves from obvious threats.  Hasan should have been rounded up long before he walked into the Ft. Hood processing center and opened fire, or at minimum kept under much closer surveillance so that when he made his inevitable move he could be intercepted.  Instead, thirteen soldiers have now needlessly sacrificed their lives in their country's service on the plains of Texas.

When will we learn?

Gay Marriage Supporters Have Wrong Perspective

I saw a newspaper photo today from a pro-gay marriage rally in Maine, the latest battleground in that issue's spreading war.  A person was holding a sign that said, "We All Deserve the Freedom to Marry."  The thought pattern that produced that sign, which reflects the approach of much of the LGBT lobby on this issue, is simply and patently wrong.

First, just who is "we all"?  All people?  Or all gays?  Or all Mainers?  I'm confused.

The Word "deserve" is in and of itself troubling.  According to my dictionary, "deserve" means "to be worthy of; merit."  In that sense, are they advocating some sort of condition precedent to marriage, such as a maturiy level to commit to one another?  Or are they saying that gays are somehow more "deserving" of the institution of marriage than heterosexuals?  There are legal requirements for marriage, such as age, but to argue that one "deserves" to marry is at best a misnomer.

My real problem, though, and the point of this post, is the phrase "Freedom to Marry."  I don't really think there is any such thing.  Marriage has two components, only one of which is a legal requirement.  As a matter of civil law, marriage is a state of existence that is recognized for certain purposes.  Tax filing status; health insurance coverage; rights of inheritance; rights of determination such as health care issues; and certain other, specific purposes exist for which it makes a legal difference if two individuals are legally married.  Under the broad, sovereign powers of the states, they can each determine as a matter of state law what persons can achieve the legal status of "married."  Thus, Massachussetts, and several other states have decided to allow gay marriage, while several others have not.

But this is not a fundamental "freedom" that is anywhere enumerated in our Constitutional system of laws.  Some would argue this as an issue of "equal protection under the laws", but to do so is to stretch the meaning of the Equal Protection clause far beyond its original intent and purpose.  Otherwise, gay marriage is not enumerated as is freedom of speech, religion, assembly, bearing arms, and the other freedoms we are granted by our system of laws.  Rather, it is a matter of each state defining those persons who may qualify for the status as "married."

The other component of "marriage" that comes into play in some couples is the religious.  Most religions have provisions for granting and/or blessing a marriage within their ecclesiology.  This has little to do with the civil union I mentioned above; religious ceremonies must be conducted by someone who is also licensed by the state to do so for them to have legally binding effect.  Religious denominations have varying requirements for a couple to become recognized as married - our very freedom of religion allows for each different group to set its own standards.  This freedom, however, is not a "freedom of marriage."

The idea of a "freedom of marriage" is perhaps a good marketing move to appeal to Americans, who tend to treasure our fundamental freedoms at some level.  It is, however, an incorrect basis under which to consider the significant step of legal recognition of "marriage."  The issue is more whether recognition of gay marriage would confer some sort of benefit on society as a whole, and whether it is consistent with our guiding principles and standards.  That is a much more difficult question.

UPDATE:  The voters of the State of Maine appear to have passed a referendum to repeal a state law allowing gay marriages.  With almost 90% of the precincts reporting, the pro-repeal vote had a 53% to 47% margin.

The misperception of the meaning of this vote, however, continues.  One proponent of gay marriage has been quoted as saying, "It hurts. It hurts personally. "It's a personal rejection of us and our relationship, and I don't understand what the fear is."  Ah, yes, the "homophobia" card by another name, plus trying for sympathy by claiming personal rejection.

I have talked to many people about this issue, and I have yet to meet anyone who "fears" anyone from the LGBT lobby.  If there is fear, it is about what may happen to American society if we start down this slippery slope of providing legal recognition to such relationships.  There has long been a societal norm, based in large part upon the reproductive biology with which we have been created.  There remains considerable debate and no scientifically accepted understanding of homosexuality - the "nature vs. nurture" question remains unresolved.  If society chooses, in a democratically-conducted manner, to not venture into the unknown realm of recognition of gay marriage, then that is the legal and Constitutional right of each sovereign state to make that choice.

This debate needs to be removed from the emotional, fear-based accusations being used by the LGBT, and into the arena of facts.  What would it mean, in a civil-legal context, if LGBT relationships were to become eligible for "married-filing-jointly" tax status?  For family coverage in health insurance plans?  To make spousal decisions in health care and inheritance settings?  In countries and states where LGBT marriages are allowed, how do these relationships compare to heterosexual ones?  On all of these bases, is gay marriage something that should be allowed in a civil, secular context?  Why, or why not?

Approval by religious denominations and the availability of rites of marriage is, and should be, a wholly different question.  Each denomination should look to its historic principles and abide by them, in my opinion.  Those who cannot abide by the principles should feel free to break away and form their own denomination, and not hijack that which is existing and is established.  Unlike TEO.

It's Ba-ack - Cap & Trade Legislation Starts Its Path in the Senate

Remember Cap & Trade?  Well, (pardon the pun), it's back for its turn in the Senate, the effort being directed by uber-liberals John Kerry and Barbara Boxer.

 

Cap & Trade is another piece of dangerous, shell-game legislation that is a true wolf-in-sheep's-clothing to the average American.  This legislation is masquerading as "pro-environment", when it more honestly is nothing more than a crippling energy tax the Obama Administration's tax-and-spend policies seek to use to devour an ever-greater share of our incomes.  If enacted in its present form, it will likely cause each family to see over $2,900 more per year in energy costs, including a 58% increase in gasoline prices. 

 

The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent .  The total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the Administration's estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year.  And you know these estimates are comparable to a drunk driver telling the arresting officer that they had only two beers with dinner - the truth is much higher.

 

So, what exactly is Cap & Trade?  A Cap & Trade program would impose a carbon emissions cap that

follows an arbitrarily set downward trajectory that over time continually reduces the amount of carbon emissions that can occur in the U.S.  The Waxman-Markey Bill passed by the House targets a 17% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020 and an 83% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050.  Some of these guidelines would take carbon emissions to pre-1910 levels, which is an absurd goal in 21st century America.  The Senate bill calls for a 20% initial emissions reduction.

 

Some people involved in drafting the legislation have privately admitted the guidelines are impossible to accomplish.  How can this possible make sense?  Easy.  The REAL reason for these guidelines is to allow the government to collect abusively high energy taxes, not to actually reduce emissions.  The lower the standard for carbon emissions, the higher the taxes on American businesses, and the American people.

 

The Cap & Trade program is theoretically designed to ration energy use by dramatically increasing the cost of energy in all forms.  The Federal government would sell credits called "allowances" to anyone at an auction.  The cost would be determined by the auction bidding, but can be anticipated to increase rapidly over time as the emissions cap decreases over time. 

 

In theory, the bill on its face pre-supposes that "low carbon" alternate energy sources will be developed on the same or faster schedule as the carbon emissions caps decrease.  This is a risky gamble - in all the years we have been subjected to foreign oil demands and energy shortages, we still do not have any commercially viable alternative energy sources.  And, in some places where wind turbines have been installed, environmentalists are now complaining (and filing class action lawsuits) about personal injuries related to turbine noise, and birds killing themselves flying into turbine blades.  In other words, the "not in my backyard" syndrome is at work holding back potential alternate technologies.

 

There is significant risk in these technologies not developing on a timely basis.  It is anticipated that a commodity futures trading market would develop for the carbon "allowances", which would render our energy markets even more highly susceptible to market speculation and manipulation than they already are.  Such activities can and do cause extreme market price volatility, to the ultimate detriment of all energy producers and consumers.

 

So, what are the risks and likely complications of Cap & Trade?  The dramatic increase in the cost of energy will drive up the costs of manufacturing, damaging the ability of U.S. companies to compete globally.  Overall, a cap-and-trade system that reduces annual GDP by 0.34 percent per year can be expected to reduce U.S. employment by roughly 964,900 jobs per year, reduce household earnings by $37.8 billion, and reduce total  U.S. economic output by $136.1 billion.

If we assume, which is likely, that emerging energy technologies will not arrive on time, there is no question that energy costs will go up as the emissions caps dictate.  We will be forced to forego potential energy independence and national security that exist in untapped oil deposits in the Bakken Reserve in the Dakotas, in the Rockies, in the Gulf of Mexico, and in Alaska, all of which are there and available in amounts that are many multiples of, for example, Saudi reserves.  The ability to have below-$1 per gallon gasoline and be free of energy dependence?  Gone under Cap & Trade.  The value of those goals to America's future?  Priceless.

 

The revenue derived from the allowances auctions will be enormous, and effectively put the Federal government in charge of energy markets.  In addition, there is no assurance that these revenues will be directed toward the development of new energy sources, but rather, the majority of these funds will likely be used to fund expansive social programs, such as universal, public health care.

 

Friends, please don't let them pull the wool over your eyes.  It is but another example of the Obama Administration using the scare tactics of "Global Warming", which has still not been conclusively proven, or the "Environment" generally, as a vehicle to exert government control over another significant segment of our economy.  Can you spell S-O-C-I-A-L-I-S-M?  The proposed "cure", as with their idea of "health care reform", does not address the real-world problems at all.

 

American energy production is significantly better and cleaner than it has ever been.  Still more and better technologies exist to continue its improvement.  The solution is not to pass legislation that reverses GDP growth, reduces jobs, and cripples the economy with another burdensome level of taxes, all of which Cap & Trade will most certainly do.  The solution is to tap into those resources we already have, secure our economy by reducing energy costs and by eliminating the threat energy dependence poses to our national security, and then, from a position of stability, financial security, and safety, look to the future of ever-cleaner energy sources. 

 

That is what a free economy would do.  Only socialists want these huge segments of our economy enclosed in the chilly grasp of government and taxes.  One need only look at the fiscal and social failings of European Socialist governments to know, with certainty, that we as Americans do not want to go there.  Cap & Trade is dangerous legislation, my friends, and we need to stand up and stop it along with its evil taxation twin, health care "reform."

 

This Ain't No Astroturf Movement - The Issues Are Real

I recently received an e-mail with a number of photos from the TEA ("Taxed Enough Already") Party held in Washington, D.C., on September 12, 2009.  Although the liberal, mainstream media tried to ignore this event, and then downplay it, ABC News finally estimated the crowd at 2 million.  Looking at these photos, I think even that estimate is low.

The first photo is an aerial photo a few blocks from the Capitol, showing streets packed with people who could not get to the grounds for the rally. The tall tower in the right foreground is the Old Post Office; the Capitol is 3-4 blocks further up that street, visible in the distance.  The rest of the photos I am going to post with this are of participants in the rally - young, old, black, white, and from all over the country.  In all the pictures I've seen, there do not appear to be any professionally-organized groups, nor hired rabble-rousers; just Americans who are so scared about what their government is doing that they were compelled to go to Washington to speak out by their presence.

Rather than recognize the serious concerns of American conservatives , whether they are at "town hall" meetings, or at massive protests such as these, Democrats has, as per usual, resorted to insults and

tarring these people with a broad brush.  Nancy "Botox Babe" Pelosi has cutely referred to it as an "Astroturf" movement, i.e., a pseudo-"grass roots" movement.  Anyone who has so many un-natural alterations of her own face, hair, and body should NEVER throw that brick.  Our own Ben "Chicken Little" Chandler here in central Kentucky has refused to even hold a town hall meeting because people are "un-civil."  Actually, Ben, they are "un-civil" when their representatives have not read and know nothing about what is being voted on, and when their representatives vote against the interests of their constituents.

The most offensive insult, however, has been the declaration by Jimmy "Peanut" Carter and others that anyone who opposes President Obama's policies must be a "racist."  Funny, I remember many of

the same people declaring Obama's election to be the "end of racism" in America - what happened?  I've not heard anyone say they're not going to vote for health care reform, or cap & trade, because Obama is half-black.  Rather, they are frightened of what his Trillion-Dollar ideas will do to this country, regardless of his racial origin.  Many believe his socialistic ideas render him more "RED" than any other color.

This tactic dates back to the early days of civil rights, and has been co-opted by both the womens' and LGBT movements in m ore recent years.  When someone opposes their policies, rather than listening to their position and discussing it in good faith, these people have been trained to respond by slinging highly-toxic adjectives such as "racist", "misogynist", or "homophobe", by which they seek to short-circuit any substantive debate.  Too often, conservatives allow themselves to be put on the defensive by this name-calling, and end up losing track of the honest, substantive agenda.

This knee-jerk tendency to use broad-brush pejoratives is, in and of itself, a form of racism, or whatever insult is being thrown.  If a white person opposes an Obama policy, why can he or she not do

so because they legitimately disagree, for real, non-racial reasons?  To declare such opposition to be, ipso facto, racism, is in and of itself racist, and is damaging to the national debate on critical issues.  To be sure, some who oppose Obama have and will always do so because of his race.  Likewise, there has been opposition to white Presidents by people of color because they are white.  No side in any political debate is free from wrong-thinking people, who take a side for reasons unrelated to the issue.  It would be nice to one day reach a point where we can hold such political debates, and leave the broad brushes of pejorative insults in their fetid, stinking cans.

In these recent instances, the Democrats have substantial majorities in both houses of Congress, as well as the White House.  Blue Dog Democrats aside, does the stridency of the insults - racism, astroturf, etc., say anything about just how far out on a liberal limb the Democrats are going?  If their programs were reasonable and appropriate solutions for the real problems at hand, why, then, do they feel the need to be so insulting and offensive in responding to criticism?  The answer, of course, is that their proposals are neither reasonable nor appropriate.

The overriding problems with America's health care system are high costs and poor allocation of resources.  A clear example of high costs is in the pharmaceutical industry - drugs and medications in America are substantially more expensive than elsewhere.  One of the main reasons is that our system subjects pharmaceutical manufacturers to the double-whammy of over-regulation prior to market, and runaway lawsuits after market.  It takes years and years of research, studies, and field testing to gain FDA approval, which costs billions of dollars.  Yet, once a drug is approved, such approval provides no protection or immunity from liability lawsuits.  In a situation where a drug has been tested many times over, but starts to show other issues once it goes into mainstream distribution, a drug manufacturer receives no protection from the fact that it invested billions to bring the drug to market in the first place.

To contrast, in the railroad industry thee is a doctrine called "pre-emption."  Railroads are highly regulated by the Federal government, for example, on crossing protection.  What sort  of signs, lights, gates, etc., are specified by FRA regulation.  If the railroad in a crossing accident is in compliance with its crossing protection, any claim against it that it should have had more lights, etc., is "pre-empted" and cannot be filed, so long as there is no claim that the mandated protection was not working.  Why should drug manufacturers not also receive a similar protection as a result of FDA compliance?

Tort reform is also widely trumpeted, as one of the favorite pasttimes of liberals is to bash lawyers.  There are some who give the rest of the practicing Bar a bad name, to be sure, but again, let's focus on the real problem.  The real problem is not so much massive jury verdicts (by jurors who are neither lawyers nor doctors - right?), but the volume of frivolous litigation.  In states that have not provided some form of pre-screening, doctors are exposed to "open courts" and suits by anyone who can pay the filing fee.  In some cases, professional malpractice insurance carries will cancel coverage for doctors who may have been sued in "x" number of cases during a policy period, whether the suits were frivolous or not.  To solve this, our court's need to develop some way to pre-screen lawsuits (require competent expert testimony within 90 days of filing suit?), and some way to quickly dispose of the frivolous cases, and the insurance industry probably needs to reform how it decides to cancel such policies.  Damage caps will not fix the real problem.

"Defensive medicine", i.e., multiple tests and procedures ordered for fear of litigation, is in some cases an excuse, not a real issue.  I tell physicians that practicing from fear is a good way to get sued.  Rather, practicing good medicine on a patient-by-patient basis as opposed to pill-pushing or ordering the same battery of tests for all patients, is always going to be something I can defend.  Even more important is treating patients with care, to make them believe the physician is truly concerned about the patient's welfare and not just a clinical automaton.  This problem can be resolved, and it doesn't take an Act of Congress to fix it.

Allocation of health care resources is critical, and is paid little attention in this whole debate.  America has for years failed miserably in preventive care, instead spending gargantuan sums of money on curing illness that can and should be prevented. Obesity, smoking, and other poor lifestyle habits ingrained in American society have caused our relative life-expectancy to drop ten places on the world list in the last several years.  We pride ourselve in our healthcare system, but the results don't support it.  Yet, creating a system to be run by government bureaucrats will not "fix" this problem, but will only further institutionalize it into an entity which has proven it cannot efficiently run things on such a scale.

Talk of "death panels" is unfortunate and distracting, because Americans really do need to come to grips with issues of death and dying being a natural part of life.  Anecdotal stories such as the one about a terminal cancer patient who received open heart surgery even while comatose from the cancer, clearly illustrate part of this problem.  Whose interest are we really taking to heart in these issues?  Are we honoring our elderly, who may wish to pass along peacefully into the afterlife?  Or, are we, by demanding excessive but hopeless treatments, acting out a guilty conscience in the guise of "doing everything we can"?

Gen. Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, staunch Presbyterian he, feared nothing on the battle field because he believed that God had fore-ordained the date and time of his death.  While this may be an extreme example, it does illustrate a place of faith in God wherein death is not so much to be feared as accepted, and understood as a natural end-point to every one of our lives.  Modern medicine and science can in many cases forestall death; I know this intimately, having nearly died twice in 2003 during a 13-week hospital stay for acute gallstone pancreatitis.  But there are also times when the patient and his/her doctor should decide "enough", and we all need to learn to be more open to understanding when that time has arrived.

One of the key points in this whole debate, that gets little shrift, is that throwing Trillions of dollars in government money, i.e., our tax dollars, is not the solution.  Creating 53 new bureaucracies is not the solution.  The solution lies in finding some way for Americans to focus on the real, tangible issues, and to focus on them not only in what we ask our government to do, but more importantly to focus on them in the ways we interact with our doctors, our insurers, and the health care system in general.  Personal responsibility for our own health would be a good place to start, as well as achieving the realization that health care is not a competitive, zero-sum game, but is something we are all in together.

 

Obama to Fund Oil Drilling...In Brazil

From the "You've Got to Kidding Me?" file, word comes from the Wall Street Journal that the Obama Administration is planning to fund, to the tune of AT LEAST $2 billion, yes, "billion" with a "B", to Brazil's state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil's Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro.  The $2 billion was a "preliminary commitment" and discussions are underway about increasing the amount.  It has not been determined whether these will be loans, loan guarantees, or a combination.

Petrobas is one of the largest corporations in the Western Hemisphere.  The U.S. Treasury has got to be strapped with the trillions of dollars of bail-outs and corporate acquisitions it has executed over the past few months.  Why, then, are we loaning this money?  Why are we promoting oil drilling in Brazil, yet another country to whom we are indebted for oil supply, and steadfastly stonewalling oil exploration and development at home?

As I have discussed in this space several times before, there are known oil deposits within the U.S. that, if tapped, would provide us with the national security of not relying on foreign oil sources and being forced to protect them, and could drive the price of gasoline below $1 per gallon, which would surely boost our economy.  Yet, we're not promoting our own oil development, but promoting that of Brazil?

The pie-in-the-sky notions that we can become a solar and wind energy economy are nice to discuss, but the reality is that even were those technologies commercially feasible, it would take years to convert to them from fossil fuels.  Coal and oil are a viable and dependable part of our economy for may years to come, whether the environmentalists like it or not.  This being the case, the safety, security, and economic viability of this country demand that we continue to strive toward energy independence.

Offshore sources in ANWR and the Gulf of Mexico are known and available, and can be tapped with a minimal ecological foot print.  Likewise, known and available oil fields in the Dakotas and Colorado, and oil shale on Federal lands in three western states, provide us the opportunity to have larger oil reserves than Saudi Arabia and the other OPEC states combined, again with a modest ecological footprint.  Clean production technologies exist, as do clean technologies for use of these fuels.  The ability to free us from foreign oil dependence, as well as from the chains of high energy prices, is literally at our fingertips.

Yet, the Obama Administration wants to send BILLIONS to Brazil to boost their oil production?

Not only is the Administration's plan wholly inconsistent with its public stance on energy, it is directly and significantly counter productive to the most basic of American interests - national security.  Given that Obama seems to have forgotten the Constitution in his trampling of individual rights with such legislation as healthcare and cap & trade, it should not be surprising that one of the most basic purposes for creation of a Federal government was to provide for a common entity to deal with America's foreign relations.  Not only is Obama sacrificing an opportunity to put our national security on a safe footing for the first time since the end of WW II, he is promoting the economy of a foreign nation at our own expense.

Billions for Brazilian oil is just not right, while our government turns a blind eye toward our own resources and potentials for economic development and national security.