I want to pass on this quick note from Dennis Gartman's eponymous letter. It should give all of those who favor a nationalized healthcare system pause, before they jump right in. Quoting Dennis:
"Canada is a wonderful place to have a nasty gash on one's forehead stitched, or to break one's nose in a game of pick-up baseball; but have cancer, or need eye surgery, or want an MRI, and the business of medicine in Canada and/or the UK breaks down badly in favour of medical care here in the US. For example... and we wish to thank The Investor's Business Daily for the data noted here this morning...
"... here in the US men and women survived cancer at an average of just a bit better than 65%. In England only 46% survive. In the US, 93% of those diagnosed with diabetes receive treatment within six months; in Canada only 43% do, and in the UK only 15% do! For those seniors needing a hip replacement and getting one within six months, 15% get it done in the UK; 43% get it done in Canada ... and in the US 90% do! For those waiting to see a medical specialist, 23% of those in the US get in within four weeks, while 57% in Canada have not yet done so, and in the UK 60% are still waiting after four weeks.
"When it comes to proper medical equipment, in the US there are 71 MRI or CT scanners available per million people. In Canada there are but 18, and in the UK there are only 14! Ah, but the best figure of all is this: 11.7% of those 'seniors' in the US with 'low incomes' say they are in excellent health, which in and of itself sounds rather low ... rather disconcerting ... and an indictment of the system itself, doesn't it? But in Canada only 5.8% do!
"Yessiree bob, ya' jus' gotta' luv that collectivized, socialized medical care! Let's all go break a collective arm and enjoy the benefits of socialized medicine in the Commonwealth! (Canada) ... but heaven help you if you've got something really, really wrong. If that's the case, you'll be running south to the border faster than you can reach a specialist anywhere in Canada; of that we are certain."
Do we pay too much for health care here in the US? Everyone says yes. And there is a lot of waste (and waist) in the system. But if you are the person who needs treatment, maybe the answer is "not really." If you can't get the medical help you need when you need it, maybe the fact that it is theoretically free doesn't mean anything.
As an aside, I have two friends who have had immediate family members diagnosed with Lou Gehrig's Disease. For all practical purposes, it is a death sentence. Yet one family was told (at a top-five cancer hospital) there could be a cure within a few years, or at least clinical trials. But just not now. Unfortunately, the prognosis is less than a year.
I can guarantee you, if that was me or my family, I would like to be able to make the decision whether to try a radical treatment. What's my downside if I die a little earlier? Shouldn't that be my choice?
And if I don't want some nameless bureaucrat dictating who gets to live or die in the name of his scientific system, why in God's name would I want a bureaucrat deciding to ration my access to health care? But that is what the majority in Congress are planning for our future. And bluntly, I find that far harder to swallow than my taxes going up.
This is an excerpt from a weekly email issued by John Mauldin. Check the following link for more information:
http://www.frontlinethoughts.com/learnmore
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Barack Obama's Teleprompter Blog
We all need a little humor now and again. This imaginative blogspot helps.http://baracksteleprompter.blogspot.com
School Choice Is the New Civil Rights Struggle by Wall Street Journal
It seems unlikely that readers of this blog will see the following article in the local papers. A link to the Wall Street Journal's very interesting article appears in the WSJ widget that appears in the right hand column of this site. To to be certain that readers get to it I have posted a teaser below.
FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
School Choice Is the New Civil Rights Struggle
A word of support from the president could transform local politics on the issue.
By BRENDAN MINITER
Getting arrested doesn't normally bolster a politician's credibility. But when South Carolina state Sen. Robert Ford told me recently that he saw the inside of a jail cell 73 times, he did so to make a point. As a youth, Mr. Ford cut his political teeth in tumultuous 1960s civil-rights protests.Today this black Democrat says the new civil-rights struggle is about the quality of instruction in public schools, and that to receive a decent education African-Americans need school choice. He wants the president's help. "We need choice like Obama has. He can send his kids to any school he wants."
Mr. Ford was once like many Democrats on education -- a reliable vote against reforms that would upend the system. But over the past three and a half years he's studied how school choice works and he's now advocating tax credits and scholarships that parents can spend on public or private schools.more
Friday, May 29, 2009
SC Legislature Record Vote Embarassment
We owe a debt of gratitude to the South Carolina Policy Council for this information.
2009 General Assembly Voted Anonymously 75 Percent of the Time
The South Carolina General Assembly recorded its votes on 532 out of 2,116 bills considered during the 2009 legislative session, according to the final vote count tracked by the Policy Council. This total excludes votes on congratulatory resolutions that did not impact actual legislation.74.9 percent of votes held by the General Assembly were taken via anonymous voice votes despite new rules adopted by the legislature in January requiring more accountability. The House recorded votes 31.2 percent of the time in 2009. The Senate recorded votes 15.6 percent of the time.Both legislative bodies held more votes on the record this year than in 2008, but even with this improvement the South Carolina legislature remains among the nation's worst with just 1 out of every 4 votes being recorded.
Recorded Votes: South Carolina General Assembly 2009
S.C. Senate
Votes Taken 825
Votes Recorded 129
Percentage Recorded 15.6%
S.C. House
Votes Taken 1291
Votes Recorded 403
Percentage Recorded 31.2%
Legislative Total 2116
Votes Taken 532
Votes Recorded 25.1%
Percentage Recorded
For comparison, a 2008 Policy Council study of the constitutional and legislative procedural rules in all other states found 41 of 50 states require at least one legislative chamber to record its vote on every single bill passed into law. Four other states mandate recorded votes on all revenue bills.The rules adopted by the S.C. General Assembly in January do not require a recorded vote on:
Each state budget section - only if one representative requests, no Senate requirement
Uncontested legislation - five representatives or one senator required to contest.
The General Assembly considers legislation on two separate calendars - the contested and uncontested calendar. Bills are considered uncontested unless lawmakers object and request to move the bill to the contested calendar, where it is debated and voted on publicly. One Senator or five Representatives is required to move a bill to the contested calendar.Only legislation on the contested calendar is required to get a vote on the record under the January rules change. This means lawmakers can avoid a recorded vote by agreeing to keep a bill on the uncontested calendar. This leaves citizens with no power and gives lawmakers complete freedom to decide if and when a matter will receive a recorded vote.For example, House Bill 3635 became law this session. It imposes a $10 annual fishing license fee for recreational saltwater angling, along with several other fees, including a $150-$300 fee to operate a saltwater public fishing pier or a saltwater charter fishing vessel. Defenders of the legislation claim the fee increase is necessary to avoid an even larger federal licensing fee. That defense may be entirely valid, but state lawmakers approved a de facto tax increase. Citizens deserve to know how their legislators voted. The Senate approved the bill on a 29-15 recorded vote, while the House approved it via an anonymous voice vote.This example illustrates there is no clear reason why the Senate recorded this vote and the House did not. When lawmakers control which votes are recorded there is no consistency or predictability in the process. Citizens cannot know with any certainty whether legislation will receive a recorded vote nor can they hold their elected officials accountable. For more information:Click Here to view the Policy Council's 2009 Legislative Vote Tracker OnlineLook for more examples of bills passed on voice votes by the legislature next week
2009 General Assembly Voted Anonymously 75 Percent of the Time
The South Carolina General Assembly recorded its votes on 532 out of 2,116 bills considered during the 2009 legislative session, according to the final vote count tracked by the Policy Council. This total excludes votes on congratulatory resolutions that did not impact actual legislation.74.9 percent of votes held by the General Assembly were taken via anonymous voice votes despite new rules adopted by the legislature in January requiring more accountability. The House recorded votes 31.2 percent of the time in 2009. The Senate recorded votes 15.6 percent of the time.Both legislative bodies held more votes on the record this year than in 2008, but even with this improvement the South Carolina legislature remains among the nation's worst with just 1 out of every 4 votes being recorded.
Recorded Votes: South Carolina General Assembly 2009
S.C. Senate
Votes Taken 825
Votes Recorded 129
Percentage Recorded 15.6%
S.C. House
Votes Taken 1291
Votes Recorded 403
Percentage Recorded 31.2%
Legislative Total 2116
Votes Taken 532
Votes Recorded 25.1%
Percentage Recorded
For comparison, a 2008 Policy Council study of the constitutional and legislative procedural rules in all other states found 41 of 50 states require at least one legislative chamber to record its vote on every single bill passed into law. Four other states mandate recorded votes on all revenue bills.The rules adopted by the S.C. General Assembly in January do not require a recorded vote on:
Each state budget section - only if one representative requests, no Senate requirement
Uncontested legislation - five representatives or one senator required to contest.
The General Assembly considers legislation on two separate calendars - the contested and uncontested calendar. Bills are considered uncontested unless lawmakers object and request to move the bill to the contested calendar, where it is debated and voted on publicly. One Senator or five Representatives is required to move a bill to the contested calendar.Only legislation on the contested calendar is required to get a vote on the record under the January rules change. This means lawmakers can avoid a recorded vote by agreeing to keep a bill on the uncontested calendar. This leaves citizens with no power and gives lawmakers complete freedom to decide if and when a matter will receive a recorded vote.For example, House Bill 3635 became law this session. It imposes a $10 annual fishing license fee for recreational saltwater angling, along with several other fees, including a $150-$300 fee to operate a saltwater public fishing pier or a saltwater charter fishing vessel. Defenders of the legislation claim the fee increase is necessary to avoid an even larger federal licensing fee. That defense may be entirely valid, but state lawmakers approved a de facto tax increase. Citizens deserve to know how their legislators voted. The Senate approved the bill on a 29-15 recorded vote, while the House approved it via an anonymous voice vote.This example illustrates there is no clear reason why the Senate recorded this vote and the House did not. When lawmakers control which votes are recorded there is no consistency or predictability in the process. Citizens cannot know with any certainty whether legislation will receive a recorded vote nor can they hold their elected officials accountable. For more information:Click Here to view the Policy Council's 2009 Legislative Vote Tracker OnlineLook for more examples of bills passed on voice votes by the legislature next week
Monday, May 18, 2009
New York Times Finally Admits It Spiked Obama/ACORN Corruption Story
From the American Spectator-Will we ever know the whole story?
New York Times Finally Admits It Spiked Obama/ACORN Corruption Story
Acknowledging what the blogosphere has known for weeks, the New York Times finally went on record to admit that just before last Election Day it killed a politically sensitive news story involving corruption allegations that might have made the Obama campaign look bad.But the admission on Sunday, which came seven months after NYT staff reporter Stephanie Strom's reporting about possibly illegal coordination between the Obama campaign and ACORN last year, took the form of a snarky column from Clark Hoyt, the Old Gray Lady's "public editor." Hoyt used the word "nonsense" to describe the allegations of impropriety leveled against ACORN and the Obama campaign.
Hoyt writes in the Sunday New York Times
On March 17, a Republican lawyer, quoting a confidential source for a Times reporter, testified to Congress that the newspaper killed a story last fall because it would have been "a game-changer" in the presidential election.In his very first sentence Hoyt makes a careless mistake: it was March 19, not March 17 (St. Patrick's Day), that the "Republican lawyer," Heather Heidelbaugh, testified before the House Judiciary Committee.
The charge, amplified by Bill O'Reilly on Fox News in April and reverberating around the conservative blogosphere, is about the most damning allegation that can be made against a news organization. If true, it would mean that Times editors, whose job is to report the facts without fear or favor, were so lacking in integrity that they withheld an important story in order to influence the election.
I have spent several weeks looking into this issue - interviewing and e-mailing those involved, reading transcripts, looking at campaign finance records and conferring with legal experts. In a nutshell, I think the charge is nonsense.
Then Hoyt gets caught up in minutiae, agonizing about whether the story would have been "a game-changer in the presidential election." He downplays the illegalities, calling them "technical violations of campaign finance law."
Hoyt writes
The story involved allegations that Barack Obama's campaign, in league with Acorn, a left-leaning community activist group, was guilty of technical violations of campaign finance law. Evidence supplied by the source could not be verified. Even if the story had panned out, it is hard to see how any editor could have regarded it as momentous enough to change an election in which the Republicans were saddled with an unpopular war and an economic meltdown.On the surface if one doesn't think through Hoyt's explanation carefully, it may seem quite reasonable. But spend a few minutes thinking about it and holes begin to appear in the house ombudsman's reasoning.
A quick digression: Of course, we can only wonder what the New York Times would have done if it had gained information that John McCain's campaign had committed technical violations of campaign finance law. The NYT did publish a blog item about the DNC's allegation that McCain's campaign had illegally procured a loan and the paper was only too willing to imply in a Feb. 21, 2008 story that McCain was having a romantic affair with a female lobbyist three decades his junior. The charge, which was based on information provided by anonymous sources supposedly working for McCain, ultimately proved groundless and the newspaper retracted it a year later. The NYT disingenuously claims that it had never intended to suggest that the lobbyist "had engaged in a romantic affair with Senator McCain."
The aborted story that gave rise to the Obama/ACORN controversy centers around information provided by Anita MonCrief, a former ACORN employee whom Hoyt acknowledges "fed information to Stephanie Strom of The Times for several articles on troubles within the group." Apparently the information MonCrief provided was good.
We know this because Strom broke a number of important stories about ACORN and surely much of the information she used came from her trusted source Anita MonCrief. In July she reported that Dale Rathke, brother of ACORN founder Wade Rathke, embezzled nearly $1 million from the group. She also reported that ACORN management covered up the embezzlement for eight years, withholding information even from ACORN's national board.
The next month Strom reported that Tides Foundation founder Drummond Pike, a comrade-in-arms of liberal philanthropist George Soros, had personally covered what remained of Wade Rathke's debt (the embezzler had agreed to a slow-as-molasses repayment plan that would have kept him in debt well into old age).
In September Strom reported on two ACORN national board members' lawsuit aimed at forcing ACORN to provide financial documents regarding the embezzlement.
She followed up the next month with a story on ACORN's efforts to sever its remaining ties with its founder. (Strom reported that Wade Rathke resigned as chief organizer of ACORN. In fact, Rathke was fired, as shown in the ACORN national board's minutes of June 20, 2008, available at page 11 of the linked PDF file.)
The same month Strom wrote about an internal memo written by ACORN's lawyer that alerted the group to potential legal problems related to its organizational structure.
But apparently MonCrief's information was suddenly no good when it might have embarrassed the Obama campaign.
Heidelbaugh testified before a congressional committee in March that the nonprofit group violated a host of tax, campaign finance, and other laws. She said the Obama campaign sent ACORN its "maxed out donor list" and asked two of the avowedly nonpartisan group's employees "to reach out to the maxed out donors and solicit donations from them for Get Out the Vote efforts to be run by ACORN."
Hoyt describes the interactions between ACORN and Democratic campaigns this way:
On Sept. 7, Moncrief wrote to Strom that she had donor lists from the campaigns of Obama and Hillary Clinton and that there had been "constant contact" between the campaigns and Project Vote, an Acorn affiliate whose tax-exempt status forbids it to engage in partisan politics. Moncrief said she had withheld that information earlier but was disclosing it now that the conservative columnist Michelle Malkin was "all over it."Hoyt writes that Strom received from MonCrief "a spreadsheet purporting to be the Obama donor list, but there was no on-the-record source or other way to verify that the list came from the Obama campaign." MonCrief agreed to go on the record but the NYT suddenly discovered that she had "a credibility problem" because she "had been fired by Acorn for using an official credit card for personal expenses."
To repeat, although the newspaper knew of the supposed credibility problem, it found MonCrief's information highly reliable in previous ACORN articles. All of sudden MonCrief was deemed not credible on a story that might have an adverse impact on Obama's candidacy.
Hoyt wrote that Suzanne Daley, the national editor, "called a halt to Strom's pursuit of the Obama angle."
Hoyt then presents an expert opinion about how, even if true, MonCrief's allegations would not have been a game-changer for the election.
But PowerLine's John Hinderaker skillfully dissects Hoyt's sophistry, writing:
Hoyt also argues that the story about Obama and ACORN would not have been a "game-changer" in that it would not have swung the election to John McCain. I agree. But since when is that the standard? Is Hoyt telling us that the Times' policy is only to print stories that have the potential to change the result of a Presidential election? Of course, if the story did have the potential to change the outcome of the election, that, too, would have been offered as a reason not to print it.Hinderaker also argues that "the facts as related by Hoyt don't rebut the charge; they support it."
Read Hinderaker's commentary on the case and decide for yourself if the New York Times was right to end its probe.
(crossposted at NewsBusters)
Saturday, May 16, 2009
SC Policy Council Weekly Review
Important news from the the South Carolina Policy Council
Five Myths About the General Assembly's State Budget
The General Assembly approved the second-largest budget in state history this week at $20.7 billion. Governor Sanford has until Tuesday to issue vetoes. This budget increases spending more than $700 million above the $19.97 billion the state spent this year.
The budget increases fees on businesses and taxpayers, directs money toward the government-driven "pyramids and pillars" economy, and dramatically increases federal control of state government. Legislative leaders have argued the state is in a severe crisis and that a quick influx of federal cash is the only way to avoid firing teachers and closing prisons. A closer look at the budget reveals that is not the case. Below are some of the myths about this year's state budget, and the truth behind them more
Five Myths About the General Assembly's State Budget
The General Assembly approved the second-largest budget in state history this week at $20.7 billion. Governor Sanford has until Tuesday to issue vetoes. This budget increases spending more than $700 million above the $19.97 billion the state spent this year.
The budget increases fees on businesses and taxpayers, directs money toward the government-driven "pyramids and pillars" economy, and dramatically increases federal control of state government. Legislative leaders have argued the state is in a severe crisis and that a quick influx of federal cash is the only way to avoid firing teachers and closing prisons. A closer look at the budget reveals that is not the case. Below are some of the myths about this year's state budget, and the truth behind them more
Global Warming
The following article appears in the Augusta Chronicle today:
Colleges fall for global warming hype
Letter to the Editor
Saturday, May 16, 2009
I was sickened and scared when I read David Skorton's (president of Cornell University) guest column "Save economy -- stop global warming" (May 7).
Sign up for breaking news alerts from The Chronicle
He says he represents a consortium of 600 college and university presidents representing 5 million students. He states manmade global warming is a proven fact, and that President Obama's stimulus package will save the economy and the climate. He is proud that he and 599 other university leaders are going to delude our students into the notion that their perception is the right one.
Hogwash. There is not a consensus among scientists on the cause of warming, which has reversed since the peak in 1999; the Earth's temperature has varied for 5 billion years. And there is definitely ample evidence that forced efforts to "green" our country with carbon credits, and mandatory solar and wind power goals, will be unattainable and will have horrific negative impacts on our economy for years.
But the most damage this kind of university group-think will have is to squelch the creativity of our future. Colleges are supposed to educate our children so they can investigate, evaluate and make decisions for themselves. Yes, they should teach climate science, economics, government and other basics -- but without bias. This drivel is indoctrination and an abomination to education. They should be embarrassed, and it should not be allowed.
On the Climate Commitment Web site, I was saddened to find that Bud Peterson, president of my alma mater Georgia Tech, has signed on to this social agenda. It is a travesty that the premier engineering university of the Southeast is pursuing this instead of focusing on teaching proved scientific and engineering techniques and letting Tech's graduates evaluate and confront reality.
It kills me to say "Go Dawgs," but according to the Web site, the University of Georgia's president has resisted the pressure to succumb to this politically correct organization. Good for UGA; our flagship liberal arts university is staying true to education and avoiding politics.
Steve Sheetz, Martinez
Colleges fall for global warming hype
Letter to the Editor
Saturday, May 16, 2009
I was sickened and scared when I read David Skorton's (president of Cornell University) guest column "Save economy -- stop global warming" (May 7).
Sign up for breaking news alerts from The Chronicle
He says he represents a consortium of 600 college and university presidents representing 5 million students. He states manmade global warming is a proven fact, and that President Obama's stimulus package will save the economy and the climate. He is proud that he and 599 other university leaders are going to delude our students into the notion that their perception is the right one.
Hogwash. There is not a consensus among scientists on the cause of warming, which has reversed since the peak in 1999; the Earth's temperature has varied for 5 billion years. And there is definitely ample evidence that forced efforts to "green" our country with carbon credits, and mandatory solar and wind power goals, will be unattainable and will have horrific negative impacts on our economy for years.
But the most damage this kind of university group-think will have is to squelch the creativity of our future. Colleges are supposed to educate our children so they can investigate, evaluate and make decisions for themselves. Yes, they should teach climate science, economics, government and other basics -- but without bias. This drivel is indoctrination and an abomination to education. They should be embarrassed, and it should not be allowed.
On the Climate Commitment Web site, I was saddened to find that Bud Peterson, president of my alma mater Georgia Tech, has signed on to this social agenda. It is a travesty that the premier engineering university of the Southeast is pursuing this instead of focusing on teaching proved scientific and engineering techniques and letting Tech's graduates evaluate and confront reality.
It kills me to say "Go Dawgs," but according to the Web site, the University of Georgia's president has resisted the pressure to succumb to this politically correct organization. Good for UGA; our flagship liberal arts university is staying true to education and avoiding politics.
Steve Sheetz, Martinez
Friday, May 15, 2009
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Socialized Medicine and its Dangers
The following letter from Brian Cronin arrived in my email today. We should be very afraid of what appears to be coming.
Quote
Rick Scott, CEO
Conservatives for Patients' Rights
Dear Mr. Scott,
I have noted with interest your recent television spots highlighting the dangers of socialized medicine and featuring comments from doctors in the UK Canada
I thought you might like to know the following story. 25 years ago, I came to the USA UK
Founded in 1948, it was a laudable concept and righted many wrongs but since its inception it has always been in debt. The system has been overworked and there have never been enough doctors, nurses or hospital facilities with up to date equipment. If it wasn’t for West Indian nurses, many hospitals would have ground to a halt.
My father died in 1983. He went into hospital for what he thought was gall stones surgery, being somewhat jaundiced, and they discovered pancreatic cancer once they opened him up. He never recovered consciousness from the operation and died a day later. Preventative care was just not in the purview of many overworked general practitioners and he never had any tests or scans prior to going into hospital.
In the late 1980s, my mother visited us when we were living in California UK
Not being covered in the US UK
Prior to her visit and because of concerns we had for her healthcare, we purchased private health insurance for her from Private Patients Plan (PPP). An increasing number of people were using this insurance or BUPA, the British United Provident Association. The cost, in American terms, was minimal, roughly $1,500 a year. It did not accept any pre-existing conditions but it proved very beneficial.
So, my mother went to the specialist and he confirmed the diagnosis and booked her in for the operation within two weeks because she had the insurance. Though she worried that it cost too much, it was a savior, and here’s why:
She thanked the doctor and inquired: what if I didn’t have the private insurance and had to rely on the NHS? How long would she have had to wait for an operation? The answer was shocking – seven years! What, she asked, would happen if she had an attack, if a gall stone was trapped in the bile duct? She would have had to call 999 (their 911) and be transported to the ER of the local hospital to be worked on by a doctor she did not know.
Now, the corollary to this story is that I myself experienced emergency care at Northampton General Hospital
So while it is true that you will get immediate emergency care, it is the ongoing preventative care, the testing and the rationing of drugs and services, which you have recently highlighted, that is the issue. The cost of health care in the United States is astronomical and there has to be a way to ensure portability so that healthcare coverage is not dependant on employment or that employers opt out of providing healthcare coverage altogether because the government has a bigger stick. By the same token, some measure of personal responsibility is also a prerequisite. The happy medium is the holy grail.
While I am not thrilled to have a body of doctors and/or bureaucrats playing God and deciding whether my life is worth living and denying me needed drugs as it currently the case in the UK, I can see there is merit in not having to fill out endless forms every time I go to see a new doctor. Making sure the privilege of centrally storing my medical information is not abused is the key. But I’ll believe that when I see it.
So I am against socialized medicine as it is currently ‘enjoyed’ in the UK and very much hope that Mr. Obama’s announcement today that comprehensive healthcare reform be enacted by July 31st is realistic and does not end up having a central payer system edging out competitive pricing by other healthcare insurance providers.
If the above stories about my parents aid you in your efforts, please feel free to use them with my blessing. I look forward to your response in due course and the success of your continued good efforts.
Sincerely,
Brian Cronin
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Governor Sanford on the S.C. Budget and Tea Party 2.0
Two important message from Mark Sanford follow:. To read his messages with all the appropriate links please go here.
Quote
Dear Friends,
With legislators likely wrapping up deliberations on the state budget very soon, we've reached the time for all of us to stand and be counted with regard to the stimulus money. The budget House and Senate members send our way as early as tonight will almost certainly spend the ten percent of stimulus dollars we've advocated putting toward state debt relief. Not dedicating this reasonable portion of the money to paying down debt, we believe, would represent a mistake with serious consequences for our state today and for our children and grandchildren tomorrow.
That's why I'd ask you make your voice heard now. Call, write, email, twitter, contact your respective Representatives and Senators any way you can and tell them that you believe spending all the money isn't the best course to take. Tell them that doing so: 1) leaves us in a more than $700 million budget hole two years down the road when federal funds run dry; 2) continues our legislature's pattern of boom or bust, and ignores both the Biblical and common sense notions of moderation and preparing for a rainy day; and 3) allows us to paper over some changes to our state that are indeed long overdue – including restructuring our duplicative and wasteful system.
We highlighted a few examples of this waste in a press conference yesterday - talking specifically about money wasted in the upkeep of our state Division of Aeronautics, the unnecessary creation of a legislatively-controlled and constitutionally-questionable Capitol Police Force, and three quarters of a million more taxpayer dollars sent to hydrogen research that may in fact fall under the category of pet projects rather than viable economic development. You can get more details about this budget waste on my website here, under the link "Waste of the Day."
I'd ask once again you urge your Senator and Representative as soon as possible this afternoon to take a principled stand against this budget's waste and lost opportunities, and craft a responsible budget that pays down debt and makes much-needed changes.
Sincerely,
Mark Sanford
Follow the Governor
© Copyright SanfordForGovernor.net All rights reserved.
Quote
Dear Friends,
With legislators likely wrapping up deliberations on the state budget very soon, we've reached the time for all of us to stand and be counted with regard to the stimulus money. The budget House and Senate members send our way as early as tonight will almost certainly spend the ten percent of stimulus dollars we've advocated putting toward state debt relief. Not dedicating this reasonable portion of the money to paying down debt, we believe, would represent a mistake with serious consequences for our state today and for our children and grandchildren tomorrow.
That's why I'd ask you make your voice heard now. Call, write, email, twitter, contact your respective Representatives and Senators any way you can and tell them that you believe spending all the money isn't the best course to take. Tell them that doing so: 1) leaves us in a more than $700 million budget hole two years down the road when federal funds run dry; 2) continues our legislature's pattern of boom or bust, and ignores both the Biblical and common sense notions of moderation and preparing for a rainy day; and 3) allows us to paper over some changes to our state that are indeed long overdue – including restructuring our duplicative and wasteful system.
We highlighted a few examples of this waste in a press conference yesterday - talking specifically about money wasted in the upkeep of our state Division of Aeronautics, the unnecessary creation of a legislatively-controlled and constitutionally-questionable Capitol Police Force, and three quarters of a million more taxpayer dollars sent to hydrogen research that may in fact fall under the category of pet projects rather than viable economic development. You can get more details about this budget waste on my website here, under the link "Waste of the Day."
I'd ask once again you urge your Senator and Representative as soon as possible this afternoon to take a principled stand against this budget's waste and lost opportunities, and craft a responsible budget that pays down debt and makes much-needed changes.
Sincerely,
Mark Sanford
Follow the Governor
© Copyright SanfordForGovernor.net All rights reserved.
Important Message from Governor Sanford
Dear Friends,
With legislators likely wrapping up deliberations on the state budget very soon, we've reached the time for all of us to stand and be counted with regard to the stimulus money. The budget House and Senate members send our way as early as tonight will almost certainly spend the ten percent of stimulus dollars we've advocated putting toward state debt relief. Not dedicating this reasonable portion of the money to paying down debt, we believe, would represent a mistake with serious consequences for our state today and for our children and grandchildren tomorrow.
That's why I'd ask you make your voice heard now. Call, write, email, twitter, contact your respective Representatives and Senators any way you can and tell them that you believe spending all the money isn't the best course to take. Tell them that doing so: 1) leaves us in a more than $700 million budget hole two years down the road when federal funds run dry; 2) continues our legislature's pattern of boom or bust, and ignores both the Biblical and common sense notions of moderation and preparing for a rainy day; and 3) allows us to paper over some changes to our state that are indeed long overdue – including restructuring our duplicative and wasteful system.
We highlighted a few examples of this waste in a press conference yesterday - talking specifically about money wasted in the upkeep of our state Division of Aeronautics, the unnecessary creation of a legislatively-controlled and constitutionally-questionable Capitol Police Force, and three quarters of a million more taxpayer dollars sent to hydrogen research that may in fact fall under the category of pet projects rather than viable economic development. You can get more details about this budget waste on my website here, under the link "Waste of the Day."
I'd ask once again you urge your Senator and Representative as soon as possible this afternoon to take a principled stand against this budget's waste and lost opportunities, and craft a responsible budget that pays down debt and makes much-needed changes.
Sincerely,
Mark Sanford
Follow the Governor
© Copyright SanfordForGovernor.net All rights reserved.
With legislators likely wrapping up deliberations on the state budget very soon, we've reached the time for all of us to stand and be counted with regard to the stimulus money. The budget House and Senate members send our way as early as tonight will almost certainly spend the ten percent of stimulus dollars we've advocated putting toward state debt relief. Not dedicating this reasonable portion of the money to paying down debt, we believe, would represent a mistake with serious consequences for our state today and for our children and grandchildren tomorrow.
That's why I'd ask you make your voice heard now. Call, write, email, twitter, contact your respective Representatives and Senators any way you can and tell them that you believe spending all the money isn't the best course to take. Tell them that doing so: 1) leaves us in a more than $700 million budget hole two years down the road when federal funds run dry; 2) continues our legislature's pattern of boom or bust, and ignores both the Biblical and common sense notions of moderation and preparing for a rainy day; and 3) allows us to paper over some changes to our state that are indeed long overdue – including restructuring our duplicative and wasteful system.
We highlighted a few examples of this waste in a press conference yesterday - talking specifically about money wasted in the upkeep of our state Division of Aeronautics, the unnecessary creation of a legislatively-controlled and constitutionally-questionable Capitol Police Force, and three quarters of a million more taxpayer dollars sent to hydrogen research that may in fact fall under the category of pet projects rather than viable economic development. You can get more details about this budget waste on my website here, under the link "Waste of the Day."
I'd ask once again you urge your Senator and Representative as soon as possible this afternoon to take a principled stand against this budget's waste and lost opportunities, and craft a responsible budget that pays down debt and makes much-needed changes.
Sincerely,
Mark Sanford
Follow the Governor
© Copyright SanfordForGovernor.net All rights reserved.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Immigration Policy
The following youtube is definitely politically incorrect but it was aimed at legal immigrants who had not yet fully assimilated into American society. In this case Germans who supported the Kaiser. Many Americans are the descendants of immigrants and it should give us all more to think about. The Immigration Act of 1965 (Thank you Ted Kennedy!)was a huge mistake and has dramatically changed our country.
Letter of Amends from a Recovering Liberal in Berkeley
There follows the first part of a letter printed in American Thinker.com. To read the entire letter go here
Letter of Amends from a Recovering Liberal in Berkeley
By Robin
Dear friends, family, loved ones, conservatives, Republicans, libertarians, my brother in law, Sam, and my cousin Joe: I am sorry and you were right.These are not easy words for anyone to utter, much less a leftist from Berkeley, or a recovering leftist, that is. Even though I've been in recovery for 14 months, 2 weeks, and 3 days, leftists are always right in your face, in an I-hate-you-if-you-disagree sort of way. Hence, this letter of amends to all the people I've lectured, scolded, ranted and raved at, and otherwise annoyed during my 30 plus years of "progressive" politics.My... (Read Full Article)
Letter of Amends from a Recovering Liberal in Berkeley
By Robin
Dear friends, family, loved ones, conservatives, Republicans, libertarians, my brother in law, Sam, and my cousin Joe: I am sorry and you were right.These are not easy words for anyone to utter, much less a leftist from Berkeley, or a recovering leftist, that is. Even though I've been in recovery for 14 months, 2 weeks, and 3 days, leftists are always right in your face, in an I-hate-you-if-you-disagree sort of way. Hence, this letter of amends to all the people I've lectured, scolded, ranted and raved at, and otherwise annoyed during my 30 plus years of "progressive" politics.My... (Read Full Article)
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Council Update
THURSDAY NIGHTS AT THE FARMER’S MARKET – Beginning May 28th, the Farmer’s market will be open from 6:00 PM to 9:00 PM.
WEB SITE IMPROVEMENTS – Wes Funderberg continues to improve our City website, www.aiken.net. When you visit the homepage, you will see that a dropdown menu has been added to the Home, Residents, Business, Visitors, and Government bars at the top.
HOPELAND CONCERT SERIES – The Monday evening summer concerts have begun at Hopeland Gardens. The Aiken Standard usually publishes information in the Monday edition about the evening performance. Lisa Hall of the Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Department does an excellent job in coordinating these concerts.
SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE TO REVISE CONCEPT PLAN TO ALLOW TRAILERS AT 1310 EAST PINE LOG ROAD – The Boot, Bridles, and Britches store would like to revise their Concept Plan drawing to allow storage of up to three trailers behind their building. The trailers would be used to store hay and wood chips and would be parked no closer than 20 feet from the building.
SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CONCEPT PLAN FOR UNIVERSITY HEALTH SERVICES, INC. University Health Services is asking for approval to build one 17,000 one-story building on their property on Silver Bluff Road. The building would be located close to Silver Bluff road. Since they are asking to build only one building, most of the traffic concerns discussed during their prior application have been significantly reduced. At last Council meeting, I again raised concerns about traffic at this location. Silver Bluff Road, without this project, will be at LOS F by 2015. Level of Service F describes operations with high delay values that often occur with over-saturation. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels. I assume that the phrase “high delay values” means highly congested traffic flow. No doubt the planned improvement at the intersection of Silver Bluff and Daugherty Road will help traffic at that intersection, but the fact remains that planned traffic along Silver Bluff Road will still be too congested. The Traffic Study also states that the intersection of Silver Bluff Road at Town Creek will be LOS E progressing to LOS F even without the University project. The traffic study assumes 1% growth.
EXPANSION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STUDY AREA – At our recent joint meeting with the Planning Commission, we reviewed recommendations by the Planning Commission to expand the Comprehensive Plan Study Area. Generally, the City’s comprehensive plan area should match the City’s water district line unless there is good reason for a different boundary. They also felt that the Comprehensive Plan area should expand further to the east. This would include the water district area behind Rudy Mason parkway and a large portion of the area between Toolbeck Road and U. S. 78. I expect we will approve the recommendations of the Planning Commission although I am not comfortable with expanding into areas not currently controlled by the City without citizen input.
FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE TO SET THE MILLAGE RATE OF THE YEAR 2009-2010 – Every year the Council sets the millage rate. It has not increased in 21 consecutive years, assuming tonight’s approval to retain the current rate. This is largely caused by the steady growth the City of Aiken has experienced and excellent management of city funds. In fact over the years, the millage rate has reduced on five separate occasions including last year when it was reduced from 71 mills to the current 66 mills. This outstanding record has occurred despite recent revenue losses during these economic times and the loss of revenues from reduced telecommunication and vehicle taxes amounting to well over $1 million every year.
FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE TO APPROVE A BUDGET FOR THE YEAR 2009-2010 – Each year City Council adopts a budget for the City of Aiken representing the policies and goals for the city’s upcoming year. It should not surprise residents to know that we are facing difficult times. Our revenues are projected to be lower than last year with Building Permits down 55%, State revenues down 27%, Interest Earned on Investments down 73%, Vehicle Taxes down 11%, and Business License Fees down 8%. All of this represents a decrease of $1.8 million in revenue. Nonetheless, the City Manager has done an outstanding job of preparing a budget without recommending a tax increase at this time. Some programs have been reduced, hiring delayed, travel expenses reduced, and some maintenance items reduced. Capital purchases have been delayed saving $800,000 and $640,000 has been shifted from Reserve Funds. Depending on water usage, a rate increase may be imposed later in the year.
APPROVAL OF DEED OF DEDICATION FOR SANITARY SEWER LINES AND EASEMENTS IN WOODSIDE PLANTATION – Council will consider accepting deeds of dedication for sewer lines and easements in Phase 3, Sections 8A, 9A, and 14 and Phase 4 Sections 1-6. Staff has recommended approval of this item.
APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA – At a recent joint meeting with the Planning Commission, Council agreed on the following Action Agenda for the Planning Commission:
1. Possible expansion of the Comprehensive Plan study area.
2. Open Space Element
3. Expand the Old Aiken Overlay to the northeast and northwest quadrants of the City
4. Evaluate the need for Zoning Ordinance amendments to possibly limit the intensity of development on large tracts in the horse-training and historic areas.
5. Possible amendments to the Zoning Ordinance regarding inoperable vehicles at commercial locations.
6. Review Old Aiken Master Plan status.
7. Revisions to the Zoning Ordinance to address issues that have arisen since its adoption in 1999.
8. Review definition of “family” in the Zoning Ordinance.
MISCELLANEOUS – If you know someone who would like to receive this email, please ask them to send their email address to me at fastwalk1@gforcecable.com.
CITY WEB SITE LINK FOR MONDAY’S CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CAN BE FOUND AT http://www.cityofaikensc.gov/weblink7/docview.aspx?id=104540.
WEB SITE IMPROVEMENTS – Wes Funderberg continues to improve our City website, www.aiken.net. When you visit the homepage, you will see that a dropdown menu has been added to the Home, Residents, Business, Visitors, and Government bars at the top.
HOPELAND CONCERT SERIES – The Monday evening summer concerts have begun at Hopeland Gardens. The Aiken Standard usually publishes information in the Monday edition about the evening performance. Lisa Hall of the Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Department does an excellent job in coordinating these concerts.
SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE TO REVISE CONCEPT PLAN TO ALLOW TRAILERS AT 1310 EAST PINE LOG ROAD – The Boot, Bridles, and Britches store would like to revise their Concept Plan drawing to allow storage of up to three trailers behind their building. The trailers would be used to store hay and wood chips and would be parked no closer than 20 feet from the building.
SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CONCEPT PLAN FOR UNIVERSITY HEALTH SERVICES, INC. University Health Services is asking for approval to build one 17,000 one-story building on their property on Silver Bluff Road. The building would be located close to Silver Bluff road. Since they are asking to build only one building, most of the traffic concerns discussed during their prior application have been significantly reduced. At last Council meeting, I again raised concerns about traffic at this location. Silver Bluff Road, without this project, will be at LOS F by 2015. Level of Service F describes operations with high delay values that often occur with over-saturation. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels. I assume that the phrase “high delay values” means highly congested traffic flow. No doubt the planned improvement at the intersection of Silver Bluff and Daugherty Road will help traffic at that intersection, but the fact remains that planned traffic along Silver Bluff Road will still be too congested. The Traffic Study also states that the intersection of Silver Bluff Road at Town Creek will be LOS E progressing to LOS F even without the University project. The traffic study assumes 1% growth.
EXPANSION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STUDY AREA – At our recent joint meeting with the Planning Commission, we reviewed recommendations by the Planning Commission to expand the Comprehensive Plan Study Area. Generally, the City’s comprehensive plan area should match the City’s water district line unless there is good reason for a different boundary. They also felt that the Comprehensive Plan area should expand further to the east. This would include the water district area behind Rudy Mason parkway and a large portion of the area between Toolbeck Road and U. S. 78. I expect we will approve the recommendations of the Planning Commission although I am not comfortable with expanding into areas not currently controlled by the City without citizen input.
FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE TO SET THE MILLAGE RATE OF THE YEAR 2009-2010 – Every year the Council sets the millage rate. It has not increased in 21 consecutive years, assuming tonight’s approval to retain the current rate. This is largely caused by the steady growth the City of Aiken has experienced and excellent management of city funds. In fact over the years, the millage rate has reduced on five separate occasions including last year when it was reduced from 71 mills to the current 66 mills. This outstanding record has occurred despite recent revenue losses during these economic times and the loss of revenues from reduced telecommunication and vehicle taxes amounting to well over $1 million every year.
FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE TO APPROVE A BUDGET FOR THE YEAR 2009-2010 – Each year City Council adopts a budget for the City of Aiken representing the policies and goals for the city’s upcoming year. It should not surprise residents to know that we are facing difficult times. Our revenues are projected to be lower than last year with Building Permits down 55%, State revenues down 27%, Interest Earned on Investments down 73%, Vehicle Taxes down 11%, and Business License Fees down 8%. All of this represents a decrease of $1.8 million in revenue. Nonetheless, the City Manager has done an outstanding job of preparing a budget without recommending a tax increase at this time. Some programs have been reduced, hiring delayed, travel expenses reduced, and some maintenance items reduced. Capital purchases have been delayed saving $800,000 and $640,000 has been shifted from Reserve Funds. Depending on water usage, a rate increase may be imposed later in the year.
APPROVAL OF DEED OF DEDICATION FOR SANITARY SEWER LINES AND EASEMENTS IN WOODSIDE PLANTATION – Council will consider accepting deeds of dedication for sewer lines and easements in Phase 3, Sections 8A, 9A, and 14 and Phase 4 Sections 1-6. Staff has recommended approval of this item.
APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA – At a recent joint meeting with the Planning Commission, Council agreed on the following Action Agenda for the Planning Commission:
1. Possible expansion of the Comprehensive Plan study area.
2. Open Space Element
3. Expand the Old Aiken Overlay to the northeast and northwest quadrants of the City
4. Evaluate the need for Zoning Ordinance amendments to possibly limit the intensity of development on large tracts in the horse-training and historic areas.
5. Possible amendments to the Zoning Ordinance regarding inoperable vehicles at commercial locations.
6. Review Old Aiken Master Plan status.
7. Revisions to the Zoning Ordinance to address issues that have arisen since its adoption in 1999.
8. Review definition of “family” in the Zoning Ordinance.
MISCELLANEOUS – If you know someone who would like to receive this email, please ask them to send their email address to me at fastwalk1@gforcecable.com.
CITY WEB SITE LINK FOR MONDAY’S CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CAN BE FOUND AT http://www.cityofaikensc.gov/weblink7/docview.aspx?id=104540.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Obama and the 9/11 Families
By DEBRA BURLINGAME
In February I was among a group of USS Cole and 9/11 victims' families who met with the president at the White House to discuss his policies regarding Guantanamo detainees. Although many of us strongly opposed Barack Obama's decision to close the detention center and suspend all military commissions, the families of the 17 sailors killed in the 2000 attack in Yemen were particularly outraged.
[Commentary] Getty Images
Barack Obama addresses CIA employees, April 20.
Over the years, the Cole families have seen justice abandoned by the Clinton administration and overshadowed by the need of the Bush administration to gather intelligence after 9/11. They have watched in frustration as the president of Yemen refused extradition for the Cole bombers.
Now, after more than eight years of waiting, Mr. Obama was stopping the trial of Abu Rahim al-Nashiri, the only individual to be held accountable for the bombing in a U.S. court. Patience finally gave out. The families were giving angry interviews, slamming the new president just days after he was sworn in.
The Obama team quickly put together a meeting at the White House to get the situation under control. Individuals representing "a diversity of views" were invited to attend and express their concerns.
On Feb. 6, the president arrived in the Roosevelt Room to a standing though subdued ovation from some 40 family members. With a White House photographer in his wake, Mr. Obama greeted family members one at a time and offered brief remarks that were full of platitudes ("you are the conscience of the country," "my highest duty as president is to protect the American people," "we will seek swift and certain justice"). Glossing over the legal complexities, he gave a vague summary of the detainee cases and why he chose to suspend them, focusing mostly on the need for speed and finality.
Many family members pressed for Guantanamo to remain open and for the military commissions to go forward. Mr. Obama allowed that the detention center had been unfairly confused with Abu Ghraib, but when asked why he wouldn't rehabilitate its image rather than shut it down, he silently shrugged. Next question.
Mr. Obama was urged to consult with prosecutors who have actually tried terrorism cases and warned that bringing unlawful combatants into the federal courts would mean giving our enemies classified intelligence -- as occurred in the cases of the al Qaeda cell that carried out the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and conspired to bomb New York City landmarks with ringleader Omar Abdel Rahman, the "Blind Sheikh." In the Rahman case, a list of 200 unindicted co-conspirators given to the defense -- they were entitled to information material to their defense -- was in Osama bin Laden's hands within hours. It told al Qaeda who among them was known to us, and who wasn't.
Mr. Obama responded flatly, "I'm the one who sees that intelligence. I don't want them to have it, either. We don't have to give it to them."
How could anyone be unhappy with such an answer? Or so churlish as to ask follow-up questions in such a forum? I and others were reassured, if cautiously so.
News reports described the meeting as a touching and powerful coming together of the president and these long-suffering families. Mr. Obama had won over even those who opposed his decision to close Gitmo by assuaging their fears that the review of some 245 current detainees would result in dangerous jihadists being set free. "I did not vote for the man, but the way he talks to you, you can't help but believe in him," said John Clodfelter to the New York Times. His son, Kenneth, was killed in the Cole bombing. "[Mr. Obama] left me with a very positive feeling that he's going to get this done right."
"This isn't goodbye," said the president, signing autographs and posing for pictures before leaving for his next appointment, "this is hello." His national security staff would have an open-door policy.
Believe . . . feel . . . hope.
We'd been had.
Binyam Mohamed -- the al Qaeda operative selected by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) for a catastrophic post-9/11 attack with co-conspirator Jose Padilla -- was released 17 days later. In a follow-up conference call, the White House liaison to 9/11 and Cole families refused to answer questions about the circumstances surrounding the decision to repatriate Mohamed, including whether he would be freed in Great Britain.
The phrase "swift and certain justice" had been used by top presidential adviser David Axelrod in an interview prior to our meeting with the president. "Swift and certain justice" figured prominently in the White House press release issued before we had time to surrender our White House security passes. "At best, he manipulated the families," Kirk Lippold, commanding officer of the USS Cole at the time of the attack and the leader of the Cole families group, told me recently. "At worst, he misrepresented his true intentions."
Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder told German reporters that 30 detainees had been cleared for release. This includes 17 Chinese fundamentalist Muslims, the Uighurs, some of whom admit to having been trained in al Qaeda and Taliban camps and being associated with the East Turkistan Islamic Party. This party is led by Abdul Haq, who threatened attacks on the 2008 Olympics Games in Beijing and was recently added to the Treasury Department's terrorist list. The Obama administration is considering releasing the Uighurs on U.S. soil, and it has suggested that taxpayers may have to provide them with welfare support. In a Senate hearing yesterday, Mr. Holder sidestepped lawmakers' questions about releasing detainees into the U.S. who have received terrorist training.
What about the terrorists who may actually be tried? The Justice Department's recent plea agreement with Ali Saleh al-Marri should be of grave concern to those who believe the Obama administration will vigorously prosecute terrorists in the federal court system.
Al-Marri was sent to the U.S. on Sept. 10, 2001, by KSM to carry out cyanide bomb attacks. He pled guilty to one count of "material support," a charge reserved for facilitators rather than hard-core terrorists. He faces up to a 15-year sentence, but will be allowed to argue that the sentence should be satisfied by the seven years he has been in custody. This is the kind of thin "rule of law" victory that will invigorate rather than deter our enemies.
Given all the developments since our meeting with the president, it is now evident that his words to us bore no relation to his intended actions on national security policy and detainee issues. But the narrative about Mr. Obama's successful meeting with 9/11 and Cole families has been written, and the press has moved on.
The Obama team has established a pattern that should be plain for all to see. When controversy erupts or legitimate policy differences are presented by well-meaning people, send out the celebrity president to flatter and charm.
Most recently, Mr. Obama appeared at the CIA after demoralizing the agency with the declassification and release of memos containing sensitive information on CIA interrogations. He appealed to moral vanity by saying that fighting a war against fanatic barbarians "with one hand tied behind your back" is being on "the better side of history," even though innocent lives are put at risk. He promised the assembled staff and analysts that if they keep applying themselves, they won't be personally marked for career-destroying sanctions or criminal prosecutions, even as disbelieving counterterrorism professionals -- the field operatives and their foreign partners -- shut down critical operations for fear of public disclosure and political retribution in the never-ending Beltway soap opera called Capitol Hill.
It worked: On television, his speech looked like a campaign rally, with people jumping up and down, cheering. Meanwhile, the media have moved on, even as they continue to recklessly and irresponsibly use the word "torture" in their stories.
I asked Cmdr. Kirk Lippold why some of the Cole families declined the invitation to meet with Barack Obama at the White House.
"They saw it for what it was."
Ms. Burlingame, a former attorney and a director of the National September 11 Memorial Foundation, is the sister of Charles F. "Chic" Burlingame III, the pilot of American Airlines flight 77, which was crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.
In February I was among a group of USS Cole and 9/11 victims' families who met with the president at the White House to discuss his policies regarding Guantanamo detainees. Although many of us strongly opposed Barack Obama's decision to close the detention center and suspend all military commissions, the families of the 17 sailors killed in the 2000 attack in Yemen were particularly outraged.
[Commentary] Getty Images
Barack Obama addresses CIA employees, April 20.
Over the years, the Cole families have seen justice abandoned by the Clinton administration and overshadowed by the need of the Bush administration to gather intelligence after 9/11. They have watched in frustration as the president of Yemen refused extradition for the Cole bombers.
Now, after more than eight years of waiting, Mr. Obama was stopping the trial of Abu Rahim al-Nashiri, the only individual to be held accountable for the bombing in a U.S. court. Patience finally gave out. The families were giving angry interviews, slamming the new president just days after he was sworn in.
The Obama team quickly put together a meeting at the White House to get the situation under control. Individuals representing "a diversity of views" were invited to attend and express their concerns.
On Feb. 6, the president arrived in the Roosevelt Room to a standing though subdued ovation from some 40 family members. With a White House photographer in his wake, Mr. Obama greeted family members one at a time and offered brief remarks that were full of platitudes ("you are the conscience of the country," "my highest duty as president is to protect the American people," "we will seek swift and certain justice"). Glossing over the legal complexities, he gave a vague summary of the detainee cases and why he chose to suspend them, focusing mostly on the need for speed and finality.
Many family members pressed for Guantanamo to remain open and for the military commissions to go forward. Mr. Obama allowed that the detention center had been unfairly confused with Abu Ghraib, but when asked why he wouldn't rehabilitate its image rather than shut it down, he silently shrugged. Next question.
Mr. Obama was urged to consult with prosecutors who have actually tried terrorism cases and warned that bringing unlawful combatants into the federal courts would mean giving our enemies classified intelligence -- as occurred in the cases of the al Qaeda cell that carried out the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and conspired to bomb New York City landmarks with ringleader Omar Abdel Rahman, the "Blind Sheikh." In the Rahman case, a list of 200 unindicted co-conspirators given to the defense -- they were entitled to information material to their defense -- was in Osama bin Laden's hands within hours. It told al Qaeda who among them was known to us, and who wasn't.
Mr. Obama responded flatly, "I'm the one who sees that intelligence. I don't want them to have it, either. We don't have to give it to them."
How could anyone be unhappy with such an answer? Or so churlish as to ask follow-up questions in such a forum? I and others were reassured, if cautiously so.
News reports described the meeting as a touching and powerful coming together of the president and these long-suffering families. Mr. Obama had won over even those who opposed his decision to close Gitmo by assuaging their fears that the review of some 245 current detainees would result in dangerous jihadists being set free. "I did not vote for the man, but the way he talks to you, you can't help but believe in him," said John Clodfelter to the New York Times. His son, Kenneth, was killed in the Cole bombing. "[Mr. Obama] left me with a very positive feeling that he's going to get this done right."
"This isn't goodbye," said the president, signing autographs and posing for pictures before leaving for his next appointment, "this is hello." His national security staff would have an open-door policy.
Believe . . . feel . . . hope.
We'd been had.
Binyam Mohamed -- the al Qaeda operative selected by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) for a catastrophic post-9/11 attack with co-conspirator Jose Padilla -- was released 17 days later. In a follow-up conference call, the White House liaison to 9/11 and Cole families refused to answer questions about the circumstances surrounding the decision to repatriate Mohamed, including whether he would be freed in Great Britain.
The phrase "swift and certain justice" had been used by top presidential adviser David Axelrod in an interview prior to our meeting with the president. "Swift and certain justice" figured prominently in the White House press release issued before we had time to surrender our White House security passes. "At best, he manipulated the families," Kirk Lippold, commanding officer of the USS Cole at the time of the attack and the leader of the Cole families group, told me recently. "At worst, he misrepresented his true intentions."
Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder told German reporters that 30 detainees had been cleared for release. This includes 17 Chinese fundamentalist Muslims, the Uighurs, some of whom admit to having been trained in al Qaeda and Taliban camps and being associated with the East Turkistan Islamic Party. This party is led by Abdul Haq, who threatened attacks on the 2008 Olympics Games in Beijing and was recently added to the Treasury Department's terrorist list. The Obama administration is considering releasing the Uighurs on U.S. soil, and it has suggested that taxpayers may have to provide them with welfare support. In a Senate hearing yesterday, Mr. Holder sidestepped lawmakers' questions about releasing detainees into the U.S. who have received terrorist training.
What about the terrorists who may actually be tried? The Justice Department's recent plea agreement with Ali Saleh al-Marri should be of grave concern to those who believe the Obama administration will vigorously prosecute terrorists in the federal court system.
Al-Marri was sent to the U.S. on Sept. 10, 2001, by KSM to carry out cyanide bomb attacks. He pled guilty to one count of "material support," a charge reserved for facilitators rather than hard-core terrorists. He faces up to a 15-year sentence, but will be allowed to argue that the sentence should be satisfied by the seven years he has been in custody. This is the kind of thin "rule of law" victory that will invigorate rather than deter our enemies.
Given all the developments since our meeting with the president, it is now evident that his words to us bore no relation to his intended actions on national security policy and detainee issues. But the narrative about Mr. Obama's successful meeting with 9/11 and Cole families has been written, and the press has moved on.
The Obama team has established a pattern that should be plain for all to see. When controversy erupts or legitimate policy differences are presented by well-meaning people, send out the celebrity president to flatter and charm.
Most recently, Mr. Obama appeared at the CIA after demoralizing the agency with the declassification and release of memos containing sensitive information on CIA interrogations. He appealed to moral vanity by saying that fighting a war against fanatic barbarians "with one hand tied behind your back" is being on "the better side of history," even though innocent lives are put at risk. He promised the assembled staff and analysts that if they keep applying themselves, they won't be personally marked for career-destroying sanctions or criminal prosecutions, even as disbelieving counterterrorism professionals -- the field operatives and their foreign partners -- shut down critical operations for fear of public disclosure and political retribution in the never-ending Beltway soap opera called Capitol Hill.
It worked: On television, his speech looked like a campaign rally, with people jumping up and down, cheering. Meanwhile, the media have moved on, even as they continue to recklessly and irresponsibly use the word "torture" in their stories.
I asked Cmdr. Kirk Lippold why some of the Cole families declined the invitation to meet with Barack Obama at the White House.
"They saw it for what it was."
Ms. Burlingame, a former attorney and a director of the National September 11 Memorial Foundation, is the sister of Charles F. "Chic" Burlingame III, the pilot of American Airlines flight 77, which was crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Aiken Standard Accused of Cheap Shots
The following letter from Scott Singer appeared in the Aiken Standard today.
Quote
On numerous occasions the Standard has espoused the need for us to be civil and tolerant toward others and their point of views and to refrain from personal character attacks. Hence, I found the tone and tenor of today's (May 1)editorial regarding Mark Sanford's refusal to accept the stimulus money under the terms set forth by the Obama Administration to be extremely hypocritical and certainly not in keeping with this purported ideal.
I hope we can agree that reasonable people can draw different conclusions based on a set of facts and circumstances. I for one believe the unparalleled amount of debt we are rolling up as a Nation in the name of "stimulus" is the greatest threat to our long-term prosperity as a people, which if left unchecked will eventually destroy the economic and political fabric upon which America is built. You may disagree. But that makes neither one of us bad people.
To categorically attribute the Governor's position on the stimulus money as an effort "to stroke his 2012 Presidential aspirations..." is simply irresponsible. Need I remind you that this is the man who stepped down as U.S.
Congressman after six years because he said he believed in term limits; the millionaire who slept on a cot in his Congressional office and returned his housing allowance to the U.S. Treasury. Certainly you don't believe Sanford did these things way back in the early 90's in order to score political points. You may not like him, but Mark Sanford is the same man today that he has been throughout his public life; a true leader that does what he thinks is right rather than what is politically expedient.
It appears that in your zeal to support public education (certainly a worthy goal) you have resorted to cheap shots and even seem to be willing to trash the SC Constitution, which vests certain powers in the Office of the Governor.
Categorically dismissing the concerns of fiscal conservatives by attributing the Governor's actions to selfish motives does nothing to build trust and thus in the long run is counterproductive to your ultimate goal.
Quote
On numerous occasions the Standard has espoused the need for us to be civil and tolerant toward others and their point of views and to refrain from personal character attacks. Hence, I found the tone and tenor of today's (May 1)editorial regarding Mark Sanford's refusal to accept the stimulus money under the terms set forth by the Obama Administration to be extremely hypocritical and certainly not in keeping with this purported ideal.
I hope we can agree that reasonable people can draw different conclusions based on a set of facts and circumstances. I for one believe the unparalleled amount of debt we are rolling up as a Nation in the name of "stimulus" is the greatest threat to our long-term prosperity as a people, which if left unchecked will eventually destroy the economic and political fabric upon which America is built. You may disagree. But that makes neither one of us bad people.
To categorically attribute the Governor's position on the stimulus money as an effort "to stroke his 2012 Presidential aspirations..." is simply irresponsible. Need I remind you that this is the man who stepped down as U.S.
Congressman after six years because he said he believed in term limits; the millionaire who slept on a cot in his Congressional office and returned his housing allowance to the U.S. Treasury. Certainly you don't believe Sanford did these things way back in the early 90's in order to score political points. You may not like him, but Mark Sanford is the same man today that he has been throughout his public life; a true leader that does what he thinks is right rather than what is politically expedient.
It appears that in your zeal to support public education (certainly a worthy goal) you have resorted to cheap shots and even seem to be willing to trash the SC Constitution, which vests certain powers in the Office of the Governor.
Categorically dismissing the concerns of fiscal conservatives by attributing the Governor's actions to selfish motives does nothing to build trust and thus in the long run is counterproductive to your ultimate goal.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
100 Days of Obama by Jack Devine
Our local columnist has published another incisive column in the Aiken Standard .The first two paragraphs follow:
Quote
100 Days of Obama: Revealing - and Frightening
5/5/2009 12:31 AM
By JACK DEVINE
Columnist
Early this year, when I proposed to write this series of columns, I promised myself and the Standard that it would not be just a weekly Obama-bash. My intent was to look at issues from all sides, to find the substance behind the spin and to prompt thoughtful discourse. But I confess that as each week goes by I'm finding it harder and harder to find anything at all that I like about the direction our new administration is taking the country. There's a lot to be worried about.
I am writing this column on the 100th day of Mr. Obama's presidency, the traditional time for pundits' report cards on new presidents. Historically, it's too short a time for objective assessment - all presidents in recent memory, even Jimmy Carter, enjoyed high marks and strong public support at this point in their first terms. But in Obama's case, I think 100 days is a meaningful milestone. We knew so little about him going in, and now we know so much. more
Quote
100 Days of Obama: Revealing - and Frightening
5/5/2009 12:31 AM
By JACK DEVINE
Columnist
Early this year, when I proposed to write this series of columns, I promised myself and the Standard that it would not be just a weekly Obama-bash. My intent was to look at issues from all sides, to find the substance behind the spin and to prompt thoughtful discourse. But I confess that as each week goes by I'm finding it harder and harder to find anything at all that I like about the direction our new administration is taking the country. There's a lot to be worried about.
I am writing this column on the 100th day of Mr. Obama's presidency, the traditional time for pundits' report cards on new presidents. Historically, it's too short a time for objective assessment - all presidents in recent memory, even Jimmy Carter, enjoyed high marks and strong public support at this point in their first terms. But in Obama's case, I think 100 days is a meaningful milestone. We knew so little about him going in, and now we know so much. more
Monday, May 4, 2009
Massive Inflation on the Way
As we all feared massive inflation is on the way according to Warren Buffett an Obama supporter. For the full article in NEWSMAX MONEYNEWS click here
Buffett Sees Massive Inflation to Handle Staggering Debt
Monday, May 4, 2009 2:34 PM
By: Dan Weil
Faced with a staggering national debt relative to the rest of the world, Buffett says the U.S. government will do what every country that has denominated its debt in its own currency has done — "inflate its way out of the burden of that debt."
The explosive rise of the U.S. budget deficit and debt burden will lead to serious inflation down the road, says billionaire and Obama supporter Warren Buffett.
The Congressional Budget Office predicts that government debt will peak around 54 percent of GDP in 2011.
But Buffett told CNBC Monday morning that the ratio could surpass 80 percent — unless there are significant spending cuts or tax increases.
After a testy exchange with Sen. Judd Gregg, who suggested that President Obama’s plans to hike federal spending would only increase the nation’s staggering national debt, Buffett relented by stating that, in the end, the U.S. government simply will do what every other government has done in such circumstances.More
Buffett Sees Massive Inflation to Handle Staggering Debt
Monday, May 4, 2009 2:34 PM
By: Dan Weil
Faced with a staggering national debt relative to the rest of the world, Buffett says the U.S. government will do what every country that has denominated its debt in its own currency has done — "inflate its way out of the burden of that debt."
The explosive rise of the U.S. budget deficit and debt burden will lead to serious inflation down the road, says billionaire and Obama supporter Warren Buffett.
The Congressional Budget Office predicts that government debt will peak around 54 percent of GDP in 2011.
But Buffett told CNBC Monday morning that the ratio could surpass 80 percent — unless there are significant spending cuts or tax increases.
After a testy exchange with Sen. Judd Gregg, who suggested that President Obama’s plans to hike federal spending would only increase the nation’s staggering national debt, Buffett relented by stating that, in the end, the U.S. government simply will do what every other government has done in such circumstances.More
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Friday, May 1, 2009
Power Line- Please read it!
I don't want to put the entire Power Line Daily Digest up but I beg you to read Power Line tonight. All of their postings deserve your attention. Don't forget I have a link to PowerLine in the side bar. Add it to your favorites and stay well informed.
SC Policy Council on "Downside of Stimulus"
The following article appears on the SC Policy Council website:
Quote
Lawmakers Ignoring Downside of Stimulus
Ashley Landess
April 29, 2009
The Legislature and the media claim that without stimulus dollars, teachers and law enforcement officers will be fired and prisoners will go free. The speaker of the House claims that lawmakers cannot fund education or protect citizens unless they have hundreds of millions of federal dollars.Gov. Mark Sanford expressed concern about spending the one-time money on recurring programs. The speaker says the governor is “out-of-touch” with ordinary South Carolinians. What he doesn’t say is that the House passed the largest budget in state history, spending millions on programs that have nothing to do with law enforcement or classrooms.
Legislators cut most programs from the state’s general fund, which is the smallest of the three funding categories. The “other funds” category contains $7 billion from fees and fines. Perhaps the speaker knows how that money is spent, but most lawmakers do not. “Other funds” are not debated, nor opened up for legislative review. At least one such program continues to receive millions even though the initial project was completed and the program has no current legislative authority to spend money.The speaker conveniently argues that Congress made a terrible mistake with the bailout, and now we might as well spend the money. Ironically, Congress rushed to spend trillions of dollars with little discussion about consequences. The S.C. Legislature is about to make the same mistake.
Before the speaker and his colleagues expose taxpayers to even greater risks, they should fully and honestly debate the dangers. They should disclose every dime of state spending and review every program to determine if it is more critical than classrooms and law enforcement.
There are many legitimate concerns to discuss. For example, the stimulus money will be gone in two years, and there is no plan for how to pay teachers and lock up prisoners without it. Also, a group of economists that includes the well-renowned Art Laffer concluded that stimulus spending will cost our state tens of thousands of jobs — far more than the speaker cites. Those consequences should be addressed.
In a recent editorial, The State referenced the Laffer study as one Gov. Sanford “trotted out.” Actually, the report was released by the S.C. Policy Council, an independent research organization, and it projected between 24,800 and 34,850 jobs lost.
Speaker Harrell and The State focus on between 3,000 and 5,000 government jobs they claim would be lost without spending budget stabilization money — jobs that could be funded by cutting other programs. They don’t concede that some economists predict a much worse scenario that includes tens of thousands of private and public sector jobs lost. If those figures are even half right, the impact would be devastating.
The speaker and The State believe increased government spending will improve our economy, but not all economists agree. Some make a compelling case that stimulus spending will crowd out the private sector, leaving businesses with higher costs and less capital. Most jobs created with one-time government money are temporary, and come at the expense of more stable, permanent jobs in the private sector.
If legislators spend stimulus dollars to pay teachers and fund prisons, they will have to choose in two years between cutting classrooms and closing prisons anyway, or passing a multibillion-dollar tax increase. Absent spending cuts today, we will have higher unemployment or higher taxes in two years — and very likely both.
Despite cries of bare-bones budgeting, lawmakers spent money on an “economic development” plan devised by Speaker Harrell, three other legislative leaders and three college presidents. They have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into venture capital funds, empty buildings and startup money for “knowledge-based” companies. They are spending millions on tourism marketing, paying the salaries of lobbyists and consultants and funding the Clemson Spring Dairy Exhibition — all while threatening to close down prisons and release criminals.
Lawmakers should chop all that spending. Economic development is never the job of government, much less at the expense of classrooms and law enforcement. The speaker’s plan to run the economy from Columbia has robbed small businesses of capital to expand and hire South Carolinians, and now our state has the third-highest unemployment rate in the nation.
Government spending has not produced prosperity — legislative leaders have already proved that. Taxpayers can’t afford to fund companies chosen by politicians and bureaucrats when their own jobs are at risk.
Legislative leaders are playing defensive politics to deflect attention from their own irresponsibility. Our Legislature controls how all revenue is raised and how it is spent. Lawmakers are responsible for the economic mess in South Carolina, but instead of making that right and passing a sound budget, they are attacking the governor. They are also risking huge tax increases and tens of thousands of jobs. We cannot afford that. South Carolinians have to make hard choices at home, and they deserve better from their elected officials.
Nothing in the foregoing should be construed as an attempt to aid or hinder passage of any legislation. Copyright 2009. South Carolina Policy Council Education Foundation, 1323 Pendleton Street, Columbia, South Carolina 29201.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)