ONLY NUCLEAR POWER CAN PROVIDE FOR AMERICA'S NEEDS

Wind, solar and thermal power generation are just terrific ideas. That is, when they are applied locally where there is an abundance of wind, sunshine or thermal activity and a relatively limited demand. All three will work where the supply can meet the demand.

But none of those technologies can at the present or in the foreseeable future supply the ever more heavily burdened power grid across the United States. As the demand for power consumption spirals ever upward, our system of power supply remains basically static. That cannot sustained.

As expected, the enviros on the far left are fully and totally against the one source of power that could be the answer to all of our future electrical demands, that being nuclear generated power.

It is the least environmentally threatening source know to human kind, it is readily available, it is virtually 100% safe (no, we no longer live with the technologies of the 1960's and 70's), long term waste storage is not a problem worthy of any note, it is way less expensive than what we have now or what could be provided by other alternative sources and it has proved to be a screaming success in nations like France and Japan.

In other words, there is not one good reason to avoid the use of nuclear generated power.

So naturally, under the leadership of our far left President and Congress, not one word is put forward for the cause of actually powering America into the future.

Considering that our electrical grid is now on life support and is in immediate danger of full collapse, now would be exactly the proper time to move forward on this clean energy resource. Not on coal, not on oil and not on other fossil fuel sources. Nuclear energy is clearly and unmistakably the only way we can secure our domestic power future.

Pile on top of current demand the subject of the article below and you have an impossible circumstance to resolve by any other means. A nation of battery powered automobiles will require an immense amount of electricity to keep those batteries charged. That, along with our air conditioning, computers, cell phones, portable music devices, lights, manufacturing needs etc. will simply burn out our current power system.

Does team Obama take leadership on this matter? Not a word. Nuclear power does not fit the agenda of the far left so that even if it is in the best interests of the people of this nation, they will oppose it on fully antiquated, ideological grounds. In their world, nothing can change that does not fit with their rather warped and fully uninformed view. If it is something that is good for the country but not on their political wish list, screw the country.

Thus as the far left enviros refuse to drill for oil at home, refuse to pursue clean coal and refuse to support nuclear generated power, they gleefully push the battery powered motor vehicle upon an unprepared public. As is almost always the case, their own pursuits are diametrically opposed to one another and cannot coexist in reality but on they go in spite of the contradictions and hypocrisy.

Once again, the far left openly and in full public view proves why they have no appeal among intellectually honest and logically reasonable people.

Will Electric Cars Crash The Grid? By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Conservation: The Chevy Volt is said to be able to get 230 miles per gallon. That's if it's continually plugged into a fragile and overburdened power grid. Where will you be when the lights go out? The folks at GM, now affectionately known as Government Motors, have made this astounding claim. Before you drive one off the lot, you should read the fine print. Chevrolet's caveat is that this assumes "a Volt driver (will) plug into the electric grid once each day" to get "40 miles of electric-only, petroleum-free driving." That depends on where you live, according to Adam Victor, president of TransGas Energy, who has been fighting with the city of New York and its resident Nimbys to build an environmentally friendly natural gas cogeneration facility in Brooklyn to generate electricity these cars might plug into. Writing in the New York Post, he notes that in much of the nation, particularly in flyover country, many utilities use heavy fuel oil to generate that electricity. So the more electric cars you plug into the grid, we may actually be increasing pollution and carbon emissions by using oil that's not included in miles-per-gallon computations. As Victor puts it, "If a few thousand well-meaning dupes plug a few thousand new Chevy Volts into electrical outlets (especially in urban centers), you could actually add millions of pounds of dangerous, dirty unregulated pollution and carbon into the air we breathe — possibly more pollution than would be offset by putting the Volts on the road." Since most U.S. electricity generation is not carbon-free, the Congressional Research Service agrees. The "widespread adoption of plug-in hybrid vehicles through 2030 may have only a small effect on, and might actually increase, carbon emissions," it observes. Also not included in these mpg calculations is the coal used to generate much of this electricity. A recent report by the Government Accountability Office says the move to electric cars may only shift the problem somewhere else. That's why we have called them elsewhere-emission vehicles. "If you are using coal-fired power plants and half the country's electricity comes from coal powered plants, are you just trading one greenhouse gas emitter for another?" asks Mark Gaffigan, co-author of the GAO report. The report notes: "Reductions in CO2 emissions depend on generating electricity used to charge the vehicles from lower-emission sources of energy." Nuclear power would solve the elsewhere-emission problem. But with the administration shutting down the Yucca Mountain facility in Nevada where spent fuel was supposed to be stored, we have one more impediment to building a nuclear plant. Wind? Solar? Geothermal? These non-fossil fuel sources generate less than 1% of U.S. electricity and work only when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining. They also have their own environmental drawbacks. And where do you put all the wind turbines, solar panels and transmission lines required? A 2007 MIT report says that a reliance on bio fuels, another renewable, would displace so much cropland that the U.S. would have to become a "substantial agricultural importer." TransGas' Victor, a New Yorker, is familiar with brownouts and blackouts. After decades of refusing to build nuclear power plants or clean facilities such as the one he proposes, does the system have enough capacity? He wonders if the electrical grid can handle even a few thousand Chevy Volts. He warns that adding them to "a growing list of devices that need to be plugged in will put a major strain on an already flimsy electrical supply and distribution infrastructure." As with any mileage rating, it depends to a certain extent on how you drive your car. It may give you 40 miles of gas-free driving, but after that you must either plug it in again or use gas to run the car and recharge the battery. What happens to a plug-in hybrid in a brownout or blackout is anyone's guess. Just be sure to keep that gas can ready.

Sphere: Related Content

AMERICA AND INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC JIHAD

Fundamentally, there is little to disagree with relative to the basic premise of the article below in which Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, advocates that actions rather than words will prove far more effective in delivering our message to the Muslim world.

Most all of what Mullen advocates in the article is worthwhile and meaningful, as long as everyone involved on all sides fully understands that his approach of communication, listening and understanding applies to Muslims who seek to live in peace and harmony with the rest of the world. That is, by all accounts, the vast majority of the Muslim faithful. But given their vast numbers world wide, even their radical minority could amount to millions.

The hard cold truth is that their radicals, who have in many ways co opted the religion to serve their violent and self-serving ends, are a direct and constant threat to international stability and safety.

Jihadists are really nothing more than cold blooded and evil killers. Just as our message by example must be clearly communicated by our actions toward the majority of Muslims, so must our actions toward jihadis be clear, unmistakable and unequivocal.

In that regard, the point made by Mullen might be utilized by some to mean we are turning the other cheek to terrorists and unfortunately the words and actions of Barack Obama are an encouragement to such murderous scum.

Neutering the CIA, the possible prosecution of intelligence agents, treating terrorism as a legal matter to be adjudicated by courts, closing Gitmo, releasing interrogation technique memos and apologizing for American history all around the globe have been critical Obama mistakes relative to the ongoing threat of terrorism.

Certainly all of the above are part and parcel of the far left agenda but the truth is that carrying out said ideology returns this country to a pre-911 security mindset. We have been there and done that under the Clinton administration and all we got in return was an ever increasing level of violence against American citizens and American interests both at home and abroad.

It is beyond easy to predict the same outcomes will emerge in our future because this highly dangerous and fully useless agenda is put into practice by our government. Barack Obama and his far left cronies will be the cause of the unnecessary and brutal deaths of Americans somewhere not far down the line of time.

To terrorists, it is the wrong message at the wrong time. Those Muslims who hate the United States and our American values will not suddenly change their deeply held convictions because we will now prosecute and imprison jihadis as if they are common criminals. They have one goal in mind and that is the destruction of the United States and the deaths of all of those who will not convert to their warped form of Islam. To them, all else is meaningless.

To believe otherwise is to be naive, foolish and ignorant of the tenants of international Islamic jihad. If the approach outlined by Admiral Mullen is to be effective it must have two paths. One message by example for most Muslims and another message by example for jihadists, the face of evil incarnate.

The road to hell is being paved by the President Obama's foolhardy intentions. He knows not what he does.

NYT: Military chief seeks new plan to woo Muslims

Mullen says actions, not words, needed to erase 'arrogant Americans' label

By Thom Shanker

The New York Times

WASHINGTON - The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has written a searing critique of government efforts at “strategic communication” with the Muslim world, saying that no amount of public relations will establish credibility if American behavior overseas is perceived as arrogant, uncaring or insulting.

The critique by the chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen, comes as the United States is widely believed to be losing ground in the war of ideas against extremist Islamist ideology. The issue is particularly relevant as the Obama administration orders fresh efforts to counter militant propaganda, part of its broader strategy to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

“To put it simply, we need to worry a lot less about how to communicate our actions and much more about what our actions communicate,” Admiral Mullen wrote in the critique, an essay to be published Friday by Joint Force Quarterly, an official military journal.

“I would argue that most strategic communication problems are not communication problems at all,” he wrote. “They are policy and execution problems. Each time we fail to live up to our values or don’t follow up on a promise, we look more and more like the arrogant Americans the enemy claims we are.”

While President Obama has sought to differentiate himself from his predecessor, George W. Bush, in the eyes of the Muslim world — including through a widely praised speech in Egypt on June 4 — the perception of America as an arrogant oppressor has not changed noticeably, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan, where United States forces remain engaged in war, and in Pakistan, where American-launched missiles aimed at militants from the Taliban and Al Qaeda have killed civilians.

Last week, during a visit to Pakistan by Richard C. Holbrooke, Mr. Obama’s special envoy, Pakistanis told his entourage that America was widely despised in their country because, they said, it was obsessed with finding and killing Osama bin Laden to avenge the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

American messages 'lack credibility'
Admiral Mullen expressed concern over a trend to create entirely new government and military organizations to manage a broad public relations effort to counter anti-Americanism, which he said had allowed strategic communication to become a series of bureaucracies rather than a way to combat extremist ideology.

He also challenged a popular perception that Al Qaeda operates from primitive hide-outs and still wins the propaganda war against the United States. “The problem isn’t that we are bad at communicating or being outdone by men in caves,” Admiral Mullen wrote. “Most of them aren’t even in caves. The Taliban and Al Qaeda live largely among the people. They intimidate and control and communicate from within, not from the sidelines.”

American messages to counter extremist information campaigns “lack credibility, because we haven’t invested enough in building trust and relationships, and we haven’t always delivered on promises,” he wrote.

As a guide, Admiral Mullen cited American efforts at rebuilding Europe after World War II and then containing communism as examples of successes that did not depend on opinion polls or strategic communication plans. He cited more recent military relief missions after natural disasters as continuing that style of successful American efforts overseas.

“That’s the essence of good communication: having the right intent up front and letting our actions speak for themselves,” Admiral Mullen wrote. “We shouldn’t care if people don’t like us. That isn’t the goal. The goal is credibility. And we earn that over time.”

Members of Congress also have expressed concern about the government’s programs for strategic communication, public diplomacy and public affairs. Both the Senate and House Armed Services Committees have raised questions about the Pentagon’s programs for strategic communication — and about how money is spent on them.

The Senate Armed Services Committee issued a budget report last month noting that while “strategic communications and public diplomacy programs are important activities,” it was unclear whether these efforts were integrated within the Pentagon or across other departments and agencies. “Nor is the committee able to oversee adequately the funding for the multitude of programs,” the Senate report stated.

'Certain arrogance'
Admiral Mullen did not single out specific government communications programs for criticism, but wrote that “there has been a certain arrogance to our ‘strat comm’ efforts.” He wrote that “good communications runs both ways.”

“It’s not about telling our story,” he stated. “We must also be better listeners.”

The Muslim community “is a subtle world we don’t fully — and don’t always attempt to — understand,” he wrote. “Only through a shared appreciation of the people’s culture, needs and hopes for the future can we hope ourselves to supplant the extremist narrative.”

He acknowledged that the term strategic communication was “probably here to stay,” but argued that it should be limited to describing “the process by which we integrate and coordinate” government communications programs.

Coinciding with the publication of his essay, Admiral Mullen released a YouTube video inviting questions from members of the armed services and the public on a range of national security and military personnel issues for an online discussion.

“The chairman intends to use social media to expand the two-way conversation with service members and the public,” said a statement announcing the interactive video question-and-answer session.

This story, "Message to Muslim World Gets a Pentagon Critique," originally appeared in The New York Times.

Copyright © 2009 The New York Times

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32589657/ns/politics-the_new_york_times

MSN Privacy . Legal

© 2009 MSNBC.com

Sphere: Related Content

AMERICAN VALUES TRUMP THE NANNY STATE

Self-reliance and accountability: two very American values that the Statists on the left have never been able to grasp, let alone practice. Such concepts are totally foreign to those who endlessly push forward the cradle to grave nanny state.

But at the end of the day, our values fully and completely trump the socialist mind set. The story that follows about just one of the legions amongst us is illustrative of that reality.

Such are the values that built this country and those that will sustain it going forward. The Barack Obama's in our society do not represent the stories that can truly inspire, not that his isn't a worthy tale. The problem with the Obama bio is that it starts as a story of note that devolves into elitist nannyism, thuggish political behavior and 'holier than thou' commentary. In the end, it fully disappoints.

But this story about Arthur Webb remains consistent from start to current day and in the process increasingly promotes the importance of American values. This represents a short summary of what this country has been, is and will continue to be all about because it is the story of an everyday American. No whining, no excuses, just living and growing.

It is not only worth the read, it is worth passing on to others.

Defying Death Valley CHRIS BALLARD It's been a month now, and the top of Arthur Webb's right big toe remains a sunken rectangle of pale, wrinkled skin. Not that he's upset, considering that Webb is the one who yanked the toenail off with a pair of pliers in the first place. It's something he does to both big toes every year, just after he squeezes his feet into a pair of too-small shoes and runs 15 miles to loosen the nails. Otherwise, they tend to crack and bleed as the toes swell like tiny, overinflated balloons during the Badwater Ultramarathon, the grueling 135-mile race through Death Valley that Webb has run for the past 12 summers. Think of Badwater as five consecutive marathons, only they're uphill (from 280 feet below sea level to 8,360 feet above), held inside a blast furnace (the temperature hovers at 115º—and that's at night) and capable of frying runners' brains like a fistful of peyote (intense hallucinations from sleep deprivation are part of the event's charm). During the day it's 130º of shadeless hell, the heat mirage so thick that runners appear to be churning through a wall of water. Shoes actually melt, the soles disengaging like skin shed by small synthetic animals. The race is invitation-only and famously humbling, which makes Webb something of a legend. He has run the second-most Badwaters ever, finishing as high as fourth (in just under 34 hours), and he consistently "buckles," earning a coveted Badwater belt buckle by breaking 48 hours. And, oh, yeah, Webb is 67 years old. Sixty-seven. That's a year older than Joe Biden. Webb has two grown children, has been married 41 years and recently retired after 30 years as a postal service electrician in Santa Rosa, Calif. Yet he still runs 15 to 20 miles every day for 10 months of the year. To acclimatize for Badwater, he sits in a 170º sauna for an hour at a time—that is, when he's not running in it. And come race time he endures stress fractures and vomiting; once, he briefly lost both consciousness and an active pulse. Some golden years, huh? But to Webb, this is the joy of retirement. He doesn't run for fame or money—good thing, as he gets neither. Nor is he some narcissistic fanatic. He has never let running come before family; if midnight was the only time he could train, he ran in the dark, then woke at dawn with the kids. The way Webb sees it, running is never hard. Hard is having your father bail on the family, forcing your mother to work two jobs to support five kids. Hard is moving a dozen times before ending up in a foster home when your mom can't carry on. By 13, Webb was working full time as a busboy. Still, he graduated from Cal State--Northridge and made a life for himself, discovering running at 35. So you believe him when he says he hates excuses. "The minute you lean on an excuse, you slide backward," he says. "You made the commitment, so whatever you do, you're morally obligated to follow that commitment. If you don't, what's the purpose?" Each year Webb dedicates his race to the Valley of the Moon Children's Home in Santa Rosa, which cares for kids from dysfunctional families. He visits regularly, preaching self-reliance without self-pity. "You know that story about the engine—'I think I can'?" says Webb. "I take the think out. My thing is, 'Yes I can, yes I can.'" Last year a boy came up to Webb after one of his presentations. "You know what," the boy said, "I've now run twice." "Good for you," replied Webb, beaming. "No, I've run away from this facility twice," the boy said. "But because of you I'm going to stick it out." As he retells the story, Webb's blue eyes, set deep into a creased face, go watery. The chance to inspire others is, he says, why he is so fanatical about finishing every race he starts. But what happens when his body doesn't hold up its end of the bargain? This year at Badwater, Webb felt "wrong" and broke down at mile 17. He was rushed to a medical station. You are 67 years old, the doctor reminded him. Your fluids are imbalanced, and you need to rest. So Webb did, for nearly nine hours. Then, still woozy, he asked his wife, Christine, to drive him back to where he'd stopped. The road was searingly hot and pitch dark. The pack was a good half-day ahead. Hot winds whipped Webb's legs. He felt like collapsing again. Finishing would be a Herculean task; buckling seemed out of the question. Still, Webb stuck in his earphones, pumped up Led Zeppelin and began again. Usually, competitors alternate between running and walking; by mile 55, Webb realized he needed to run nearly the rest of the route, much of it uphill, to have a shot at buckling. So he ran. Through day and night. Up the side of Mount Whitney. He even clocked a couple of seven-minute miles. And then, finally, the small man with the gray hair and the herky-jerky stride—"a giddyup," as Badwater vet Chris Frost affectionately calls it—hobbled over the finish line. The clock said 46 hours and 35 minutes. Webb had buckled, barely. That night at the awards ceremony he received a standing ovation from the other competitors. Think about that when you're feeling too lazy to go to the gym. Next year Webb will be back, and he plans on running Badwater until he can't. "People say, 'What if you die out there?'" he says. "And I say, 'So what? I gotta go sometime, right?' After all, I'd rather die living than live dying."

Find this article at: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1159491/index.htm

Copyright © 2007 CNN/Sports Illustrated

Sphere: Related Content

ABC: ANYWHERE BUT CALIFORNIA

California has long suffered under the control of the political left and the results are out there for all the world to see and for history to record. No one can deny that it is a failed state. And if that reality is not bad enough, it remains suspended in a leftist limbo where Utopian fantasies continue to trump the realities of life. As a result, the late great Golden State continues to circle the drain all the while coming ever closer to full collapse.

All of which makes the subject of the accompanying article more and more compelling. The idea of a constitutional convention, once a rather silly consideration, comes ever closer to being the answer to what has gone from a dream to a nightmare.

We now live in the era of "Anywhere But California" (ABC). Has the natural beauty and near ideal climate of the state gone away? Not at all. Is it no longer able to be the world's trend setter in so many different ways? Given the latest trends, unfortunately no.

Currently, California is in truth the beacon for these United States relative to what happens when the left is in control of the levers of government power. But it could be that the good news will be that this state can lead the nation back to political and governmental sanity via a full blown reorganization before the rest of the country achieves the cesspool status of the leader of the left coast.

Businesses have been pouring out of California for years to escape punitive taxes, over regulation, environmental wackiness and political lunacy. In more recent years, taxpaying Californians have been following suit. That double whammy has put a revenue hit on state and local governments that created fiscal chaos. Despite all of the temporary band aid remedies that are thrown up to stall off budget Armageddon, everyone knows that the end is near. California cannot survive as currently constituted. It has to change to survive.

Naturally the leftist legislature raises taxes, fees and other charges as the answer to fixing a wholly upside down budget. Doing so, as any sane economic observer can attest, only further diminishes revenues to government. The increase in bankruptcies, unemployment and foreclosures only mirrors the increase in taxes and an ever expanding odious regulatory regime. The left knows that is the case from repeated experience but nothing, and that means nothing, gets in the way of driving home their radical agenda.

If it ruins the state in the process, that is considered all the more useful to those on the left. In their warped world, idealism trumps the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (keep that in mind in terms of the entire nation).

Thus the reality of a growing ABC trend will become the driving factor in a wholesale change of direction in California. Whether by constitutional convention or by other means, things are destined to change in the former Golden State.

There is no other choice.

Repairs for Broken Systems

Citizens in California and New York are pushing for constitutional conventions.

By JOHN P. AVLON

Frustrated with steep budget deficits, unprecedented spending, and chronic government dysfunction, citizens in a growing number of states are calling for constitutional conventions. In recent weeks, both former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani and former New York governor Mario Cuomo have authored op-eds in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, respectively, arguing that the political circus in Albany compels a constitutional convention. Such efforts are already well underway in California, alongside burgeoning drives in Alabama, Arizona, and Michigan. Altogether, 25 percent of the U.S. population lives in these five states. These growing grassroots movements are a sign of the times.

In New York, a five-week summer standoff in the state senate, characterized by party switches and backroom power-broker deals, ended up costing the state upwards of $125 million amid a legislative stalemate. In California, chronic budget shortfalls have become national news. With the third emergency budget deal in ten months temporarily closing a $26 billion budget gap, the Golden State suffers from an 11.6 percent unemployment rate, which reaches 15 percent in agricultural areas like Fresno. The state is caught in a vicious cycle of declining tax revenues from high tax rates, making each budget deal both painful and temporary.

Momentum for a constitutional convention in the Golden State got underway in August 2008, when business leaders from the Bay Area Council took a trip to Sacramento and found the state in the throes of a now-familiar budget crisis. They determined that only a state constitutional convention could cure its chronic structural problems. "At times of dysfunction such as this there tends to be a 'throw the bums out' impulse," says John Grubb of Repair California, the civic group backed by the Bay Area Council that is pushing for the constitutional convention. "But we believe that if you throw these bums out, the next set of bums will have the same problems. That's because the system is broken." By using California's ballot-initiative process, Repair California is bypassing the state legislature and putting the question of a constitutional convention to voters in November 2010.

California's last constitutional convention took place in 1879, but the governing document has been amended 512 times since then through a combination of legislative action and ballot initiatives, which have contributed to the cost and dysfunction of state government. The document ballooned to over 75,000 words at one point, and it now authorizes 389 boards, commissions, and agencies with overlapping jurisdictions. This guarantees gridlock as well as the waste of taxpayer dollars.

Repair California's proposed remedies include governance reform to strengthen the executive branch, budget reforms to rein in spending, and revenue distribution between state and local governments to prevent unfunded mandates. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, along with every major candidate to succeed him, supports a constitutional convention—with the notable exception of state insurance examiner Steve Poizner, a Republican who so far remains noncommittal on the issue.

New Yorkers are no strangers to the expense of multi-jurisdictional bodies or a stalemated state legislature, either. Policy reforms suggested in New York so far include increasing the governor's power in budget negotiations; mandating spending caps and a legislative super-majority for tax increases; instituting term limits; and enacting non-partisan redistricting. Other changes might include addressing the state's chronic inability to renegotiate pension obligations in the event of insolvency.

But in the Empire State, the process of organizing a constitutional convention is far more circuitous than in California, because New York doesn't have a direct ballot-initiative process. Before voters can even weigh in on the idea, the state legislature must first vote on whether to put the question of a constitutional convention to voters. The whole process would likely take until 2012 to be implemented, at earliest—and that's assuming state legislative leaders don't succeed in stonewalling until a review is required by state law in 2017.

Bipartisan consensus is building in favor of a convention, however. So far supporters include not only Giuliani and Cuomo, but also former congressman Rick Lazio and former governor George Pataki. Governor Paterson has released a statement in support of a constitutional convention, while Democratic Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, Assembly Minority Leader Brian Kolb, and State Senator Marty Golden have all submitted legislation calling for a convention. But State Senate Majority Conference Leader John Sampson and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver have yet to declare their support, an ominous sign. Unless they become convinced that it's in their political self-interest, they can be expected to block these reform efforts and defend the status quo.

Governor Paterson could take a decisive step by submitting constitutional-convention legislation when he calls the state legislature back into session in September to close a new multi-billion-dollar budget gap. There would be no better time to highlight the need for fundamental reform. Public frustration with Albany is hitting a new high, and elected officials should not feel insulated by their 98 percent re-election rate. The growing movement in favor of constitutional conventions across the country in a time of fiscal crisis contains a warning: if legislators won't lead responsibly, citizens might start leading themselves.

John P. Avlon is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. He served as chief speechwriter for New York mayor Rudy Giuliani and is the author of Independent Nation: How Centrists Can Change American Politics.

Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

Sphere: Related Content

THE TWO WORDS THAT ARE THE RUIN OF OBAMACARE

Far left!

Rational people, that is most folks not among the far left radicals, either intellectually or intuitively know that if those on the far left are wildly enthusiastic about something, whatever it is cannot be good for America.

In this case, it is the issue of government controlled and run health care for all. The radical left desperately wants it passed in Congress and put into place. All other details aside, that alone should sink the idea for the vast majority of Americans. It appears to be doing so. We can only hope it will turn out that way.

Unfortunately, the radical left both here and abroad hates the United States and what we stand for, promote and provide. Understand that this does not include liberals who are allied with the far left under the Democrat party banner. Liberals, often dead wrong, do not hate their country. But leftist radicals do and always have. Like jihadists, they want to bring this country to her knees and humble her before the world. In their case, radicalism not Islam, is their religion of choice.

If you understand the far left it is virtually impossible to be allied with any cause they espouse. Look at their track record.

1. By and large they do not believe in a God and they oppose any and all organized religion. It is a part of American life they fully disdain and demean.

2. They are vehemently anti-military and they are devoted to the demise of American military power.

3. They leave no stone unturned in their endless effort to infiltrate and control many of the pillars of American society such as the print and electronic media, higher education and the courts. Once successful they pursue their agenda without consideration of reason, logic or the greater good of the nation. Getting control of the lives of millions of Americans via the health care system that is common to all is their ultimate end of American evil dream. They will stop at nothing to get there.

4. They are fully anti-capitalist and tirelessly strive for an economic system that would be the match of the old Soviet Union's goal of, "To each according to his need from each according to his ability" (the essence of the government option).

5. The far left is largely anti-family. They have little respect for the institution of marriage. They do not support any aspect of right to life. They openly promote disrespect for authority of any kind.

6. Then there is their deep seated hatred of law enforcement, the "pigs" if you will. The prefer to defy the law and those charged with keeping social order. They never stop trying to demonize cops.

7. The far left completely rejects the notion of personal responsibility. In their view of the world, it is not right to hold people accountable for their actions. Be it substance abuse, earning a living, responsible parenting of their own children, honesty and truth or respect for those who disagree with their radical advocacy, the far left never takes ownership for their behavior. Why? Because rejecting responsibility is the essence of chaos and chaos will destroy the fabric of a society.

Knowing such things about the far left leads to the most obvious conclusion available related to government run health care. If they want it one can only conclude that it is because the radicals believe it will further lead to the degradation of the nation.

If the far left is for the government option, Americans of all other persuasions must oppose it in the form being touted by leftists. By definition, it cannot be good.

Dems plan hundreds of reform rallies By: Chris Frates

Faced with a souring public mood on health care reform, Democrats and their supporters are launching a national grassroots push Wednesday to show lawmakers that the majority of Americans still support overhauling the system. Reform supporters are planning to hold more than 500 events between Wednesday and when lawmakers return to Washington Sept. 8, ranging from neighborhood organized phone banks to professionally staffed rallies with hundreds of people. The Democratic National Committee and its grassroots arm, Organizing for America, are helping to organize the effort along with the Health Care for America Now, a group pushing to create government-run insurance plan. “In these last few weeks of recess we want to demonstrate the energy, passion and commitment that the American people have to health insurance reform so that when members return after Labor Day they know that they can turn their attention to getting this done because they have the backing of the American people,” said DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse. Supporters have their work cut out for them. Many lawmakers were thunderstruck over theAugust recess by the anger and outrage expressed by their constituents in town hall meetings across the country. And in poll after poll, support for reform has eroded throughout the month. But Democrats and their allies insist that the majority of Americans still support reform and have organized the grassroots campaign to buck up lawmakers as they get ready to head back to Washington. A health-insurance-reform-now bus will travel the country starting Wednesday and anchor events in 11 cities: Phoenix, Albuquerque, Denver, Des Moines, Pittsburgh, Raleigh, Charlotte, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Indianapolis and Columbus, Ohio. But the talk of broad health insurance reform does not mean that progressives have backed off their push for a government-run insurance option. “We want members of Congress to get back to work and pass reform that means something. We need affordable care. We need real insurance regulation. And we need a strong public health insurance option,” said HCAN spokeswoman Jacki Schechner. “It’s doable and we expect it to get done now.”

© 2009 Capitol News Company, LL

Sphere: Related Content

DEMOCRAT CONGRESS ABANDONS SENIOR CITIZENS

This horse is out of the barn and long gone. Under the wildly agenda driven Barack Obama and his far left allies in Congress, the Democrat party has shoved one of the most important voting blocks in American overboard.

If one were to go by age groups, the easily influenced under 30 crowd leans in favor of Obama; the more discerning under 60 crowd has been rapidly turning away from the policies of this President; most notable, the 60 and over gang has turned away from Obama and the Democrat Congress in massive numbers in the past 90 days.

That is devastating to those leftists in so many ways. Consider the following information in that regard.

1. Seniors vote in very high percentages and rarely miss the opportunity to cast their ballots. A recent and very costly exception was the election of Barack Obama last November. Of all the demographics, seniors were the one group that voted in smaller numbers than in 2004. The primary reason was the choice that was offered between Senators McCain and Obama. Seniors carefully considered both and in rather large numbers decided to give neither their votes. That turned into a benefit for Obama. Count of this: it will not happen again. As things stand today, seniors in huge numbers would vote for whomever was running against Obama and the Democrat left. Watch their numbers in the scattered elections this fall and the nationwide election in November 2010. Their message will be clear.

2. Seniors reject the current trend of huge budget deficits and massive increases in the national debt. The over 60 crowd does not want that kind of obligation put on the backs of their grandchildren. They will reject those who have put it in place.

3. The recent announcement by the feds that the standard COLA increase in Social Security WILL NOT occur in 2009 or 2010 also does not sit well with Seniors either. When older Americans see the massive, unnecessary, and inappropriate government spending waste and politically motivated payoffs now in evidence, no COLA is a disconnect that makes them angry. Guess which party will receive the brunt of that upset?

4. Most Seniors have to deal with the Medicare system. They are well aware of the flaws and weaknesses therein as well as knowing that the entire system is fiscally imploding. When Obama and his fellow leftists proclaim that $500 billion will be taken out of the Medicare system in the hopeless effort to pay for the $1.5 trillion government run and controlled health care plan, our elderly fully comprehend exactly who will have to bear the ultimate impact of such foolishness. Obviously removing one half a trillion dollars from an already stressed and strained system will only serve to degrade the care of those in that system. There can be no other outcome. So Seniors know that the left could care less about their health care and their futures. It is a truth that they will not forget.

5. Most people, Seniors included, are aware that our existing health care system is stretched. There is a serious shortage of nurses and an ever diminishing number of doctors in rural areas nationwide. Hospitals are going bankrupt. Into this reality, the left wants to inject up to 47 million new insured health care consumers. The existing system of care cannot, under any scenario, handle that kind of relatively sudden increase in demand. Thus, the ability of that system to care for those in need will greatly decrease. Under such conditions, those who currently receive the bulk of health care will stand to lose much of what they now enjoy. Even the simplest of tools knows that means our Senior citizens. To put this all in different terms, the system will be required, by sheer numbers, to ration medical treatment and care. Seniors will be the group most subject to said rationing since they are by far the largest group of care consumers. Again, understand that older people are not stupid. They are clear on what the left is attempting to do and they will not tolerate it.

6. It is worth noting that Seniors, of all groups, are very sensitive to the now much talked about "end of life counseling" component to what the left is proposing. The elderly are, almost without exception, not afraid to face reality but virtually none of them have even the slightest of interest in having the federal government involved in any way with their life decisions. Older folks learned long ago not to trust government and that is especially true when they reach the point in life where they become more of an expense than a profit center to their government.


It is very important to consider that the Baby Boom generation, the largest in American history, is now transitioning into the 60 and over age category. Boomers have long been activists and anti-establishment advocates. Like Seniors, theirs is a demographic that tends to vote. Although generally left leaning, Boomers have become increasingly more conservative as they have aged. They have contributed heavily over their working careers to Social Security and Medicare and are bearing the family related expenses of both elderly parents and kids in college or living back at home.

The Boomers thus are not likely to be enamored of what the left is doing to our economy, our health care system and especially our Seniors, the group that they are joining by the millions each and every year.

Losing the growing 60 and over voting block will damage the Democrat left for decades. As is the case with Mother Nature, it is better not to mess with Senior citizens. As is evident below, even the American Association of Retired People is learning that lesson.


AARP loses members over health care stance

WASHINGTON (AP) — About 60,000 senior citizens have quit AARP since July 1 due to the group's support for a health care overhaul, a spokesman for the organization said Monday.
The membership loss suggests dissatisfaction on the part of AARP members at a time when many senior citizens are concerned about proposed cuts to Medicare providers to help pay for making health care available for all. But spokesman Drew Nannis said it wasn't unusual for the powerful, 40 million-strong senior citizens' lobby to shed members in droves when it's advocating on a controversial issue.
AARP is strongly backing a health care overhaul, running ads to support it and hosting President Obama at an online forum recently to promote his agenda to AARP members. However, the group has not endorsed a specific bill and says it won't support a plan that reduces Medicare benefits.
DOCTOR SHORTAGE: Fewer perks for primary care MDs
THE OVAL: Obama still prefers public option, White House says
"We take stands on issues that are contentious, it's part of what we do," Nannis said. "And because we have so many members we'll always have a small percentage that disagree with us so strongly they feel they need to cancel membership."
FIND MORE STORIES IN: Barack Obama AARP
The approximately 60,000 number represents members who specifically cited AARP's stance on the health overhaul debate in canceling their membership between July 1 and mid-August, Nannis said. He said that on average AARP loses some 300,000 members a month, but he couldn't say how many more members had quit for other reasons in that time period.
He said AARP gained some 400,000 new members during the same period and that 1.5 million members renewed their membership.
The membership loss figure was first reported Monday by CBS News.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.

Sphere: Related Content

LEFTIST UNION'S FALSE THREATS

The following story reports the latest instance of saber rattling by the very large, Obama supporting Service Employees International Union (SEIU). As is typical of the mindset of modern union leadership, an attempt at intimidation becomes their fallback modus operandi when they cannot control the issues and politicians at hand, in this case the health care debate.

But this is such a transparent effort to control their wholly owned Democrat pols as to be laughable. As their cause fails, they turn to faux thuggery to win the argument.

The fact is that SEIU leaders know that their desired government run health care option has failed in the court of public opinion. Not being willing to concede the obvious defeat, this union turns to what has worked for them in the past: threats, intimidation, fear mongering and, as has been the case at some recent town hall meetings, violence.

Yet anyone with a first grade education knows that, in the end, they don't mean it. After all, who are they going to turn to if they abandon their puppet Democrats in Congress? Certainly not Republicans. Are they willing to give up their, at this point in time, significant influence in the political arena for a single issue that might swing their way over time, were they to show some patience? Undoubtedly not.

The bottom line for the thuggish thinking that dominates the union movement is simple. If they cannot buy the support of others, go for the fear factor. Try and scare people into seeing things the way the union wants things seen. Kind of like the mob don't you think?

The media likes to play up older people shouting at politicians as mobbish behavior. They make no mention of union bosses relying on their tried and true methods of intimidation as mob like. But the public recognizes thug like activity when they see it and they hold the punks in the SEIU responsible.

The problem for the SEIU is that their Democrat minions know that the union will not, in the end, abandon their slowly sinking ship.

Is there any wonder why the union movement has fallen out of favor?

Obama Ally: Dem Majority Is History If Health Reform Fails

ABC News' Teddy Davis reports:

A top Obama ally predicted Wednesday in an interview with ABC News that Democrats will lose their congressional majority in next year's midterm elections if they fail to put a health-care reform bill on President Obama's desk.

"I think we're talking losing control of Congress," said Andy Stern, the president of the Service Employees International Union. "[The failure of health-care reform] would totally empower Republicans to kill all change."

"It's hard to imagine the Democrats convincing the public that Republicans are to blame for health-care reform going down when the Democrats have such large majorities," he added. "After last year's promise of change, voters will start feeling buyer's remorse."

Stern, who was invited to sit with the Obama family during the president's inaugural parade, is watched closely on health-care reform not only because of the labor muscle he wields as the head of the 2-million member SEIU but also because of the effort he has made to work with business groups: in 2007, he started "Divided We Fail," a coalition which joined SEIU and AARP with the Business Roundtable and National Federation of Independent Business to promote the general principle of universal health care coverage.

Stern did not tie his 2010 prediction to the inclusion of a public option in the final bill. He did, however, warn that dropping a public option could "unravel" support for the more modest package of insurance reforms that President Obama began emphasizing last week.

"If there is going to be a mandate without real cost control and without an adequate subsidy, it's hard for us to go to our members and say, 'you have to buy insurance even though we know you can't afford it'," said Stern.

Since lawmakers have already decided not to pursue strict regulations on insurance premium increases, Stern said that a public option is the only real cost control mechanism on the table. Without the cost control provided by a public plan, Stern says it would be difficult for SEIU to support an individual mandate which would require all adults to purchase health insurance.

If support for an individual mandate collapses, it will become difficult for the Democrats to help those with pre-existing conditions who are currently denied coverage in the individual market. The insurance industry has made clear throughout the process that it will fight guaranteed issue and community rating tooth and nail if it does not get a new federal requirement that all adults purchase insurance. The insurance industry says that an individual mandate must go hand-in-hand with guaranteed issue and community rating because customers will otherwise avoid buying insurance until they are sick.

In addition to viewing a public option as vital to cost control, Stern is also concerned about the reach of the subsidies that are being proposed and suggested that they will be inadequate if members of the Senate Finance Committee were to limit them to 300 percent of poverty.

As for the idea of creating a co-op instead of a government insurance option, Stern said it was a non-starter.

"There is no way that a co-op can compete with Aetna or United American," said Stern.

He signaled that a more acceptable compromise might be to create a public option whose creation is only triggered if certain circumstances are met.

"It's obviously better than no public option," said Stern.

While Stern left the impression that a public option with a trigger was a more acceptable compromise than a co-op, he stopped short of actually endorsing the trigger approach.

While warning of grave consequences if the Democrats fail on health-care reform, Stern said that he is optimistic that Senate Democrats will find a way forward, possibly with the help of Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe (R).

To help Democrats get the votes that they need, Stern is prepared to use SEIU resources to pressure recalcitrant Democrats in Congress if progress is not made by Sept. 15, the deadline which Senate Finance Committee negotiators have set for themselves.

For now, however, he is holding his fire against fellow Democrats since the president has signaled through his staff that he does not want Democrats shooting at one another.

"We call it: 'helping the president be successful,'" said Stern with a smile when asked if he was willing to pressure fellow Democrats. "I don't think it will be necessary. I think Democrats find a way forward in the Senate when they stop believing that they're going to get [Iowa Sen. Chuck] Grassley and [Wyoming Sen. Mike] Enzi."

Sphere: Related Content

POLITICIANS: EXCUSE MAKERS, BLAME PLACERS, PANDERERS, PETTY PARTISANS, PROPAGANDISTS

Far from the idealized 'Best & Brightest', today's elected "public servants" are, for the most part, at the level of the least among us.

Many are self-serving, ego maniacal, petty, whining, finger pointing, purely agenda driven, cowardly, often lazy political lifers who do not understand the meaning of leadership, let alone practice it. The article below regarding New York Governor David Paterson is a case in point.

This is a man who did not run for and was not elected to the office of Governor. He inherited the role when his predecessor resigned under pressure and in disgrace. There is not one scintilla of evidence that Paterson could have ever been elected Governor of a big state like New York on his own merits. The job fell into his lap. He was in the right place at the right time. It was purely good fortune that got him the gig.

Since taking over the position about a year and a half ago, he has bumbled and stumbled his way into and through a non stop series of mistakes, errors in judgment, unpopular policy moves and foolish statements. He accomplished all of that in record time. Many of his fellow Democrat state office holders no longer support him. The people of the Democrat controlled state of New York do not, by and large, care much for his performance. Emphasis on performance. In other words the longer he is in office and the more people get familiar with his act, the less popular he becomes.

So, like most all politicians who are ignorant of what it takes to be an effective leader, Paterson places the blame on forces outside of his own behavior and performance.

In this case, he plays the ever so tired race card. He wants the world to believe that he is not liked because he is black. He even goes so far as to claim that as the reason why President Obama is losing popularity along with the black Governor of Massachusetts. Of course he fails to note that, unlike him, both of those office holders were actually elected to their positions by the same folks who supposedly now no longer support them solely because they are black. Does any of that make sense? Clearly, this man Paterson is fully living up to the opinion the New York public has of his ability to lead.

Quality leaders do not make excuses nor do they place the blame for failure on others. How many of our current "political class" can you name who regularly live up to that kind of profile? Unfortunately you can count their numbers of the fingers of one hand, maybe.

Paterson, like his role model Obama and others of that ilk, are blame placers, finger pointers, excuse makers, panderers, propagandists and agenda driven partisans. None of that will be found in the biographies of most of the recognized true leaders in history. Not Washington, not Lincoln, not Churchill nor others like them. It is in large part why they are all sinking in the polls.

Paterson might as well have claimed that he is unpopular because he is legally blind or because he has facial hair or because he lacks a male model quality face. All of that is equally as valid as his excuse of being black.

He has made himself the poster child for loser politicians. The people of New York are not likely to decide that he needs to the their Governor, in theory a position of leadership and executive decision making, once the election rolls around next year.

The sad news is that Paterson is not an exception to the rule in the world of politics. Instead he exemplifies the ever so common lack of quality and character we find in office holders today.

PATERSON WHINES: 'RACISM!' By BRENDAN SCOTT Post Correspondent ALBANY -- Gov. Paterson has played the race card. The state's first black governor yesterday blamed his political woes -- and those of President Obama -- on a white-dominated media that he accused of taking part in an "orchestrated" attack campaign. "We're not in the post-racial period," Paterson said in a freewheeling interview on the liberal talk-radio station WWRL. "My feeling is it's being orchestrated, it's a game, and people who pay attention know that." "We don't have the kind of forces in the community that we had before, in other words, our black media outlets," the Democratic governor continued. "Even our own reporters from our own community buy the public line, which is, 'We're going to get rid of David Paterson.' " Paterson cited critical stories about his late-night partying at a Chelsea nightclub on the eve of a painful budget announcement as proof of the media's bias. "The next victim on the list -- and you see it coming -- is President Barack Obama, who did nothing more than try to reform a health-care system . . . only because he's trying to make change," Paterson said. Hours later, the governor tried to tone down his remarks in a statement. "What I did point out was that certain media outlets have engaged in coverage that exploits racial stereotypes," Paterson said. "That's not only unfair -- it's wrong -- and it sends an objectionable message." Paterson has come under pressure to bow out of next year's election from labor groups and others who worry his historically low popularity could jeopardize the party's fortunes statewide. The most formidable potential rival, state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, outperforms Paterson in polls even among black voters. "It's not the media going after him, it's members of his own party," said Baruch College political science professor Doug Muzzio. "The media has its faults, but to blame it for David Paterson's troubles and ascribe it to race, no way." Paterson teed off on two media figures by name, accusing The Post's veteran State Editor Fredric Dicker, who is white, of attacking him "every single week." He also took a shot at Dominic Carter, the African-American anchor of NY1's "Inside City Hall." "I know he likes to ingratiate himself with folks, trying to beat up on elected officials from our community," Paterson said. brendan.scott@nypost.com

---

NEW YORK POST is a registered trademark of NYP Holdings, Inc

Sphere: Related Content