Peace at Any Price

Let's be honest. For all the hype generated by state run media about the gifted Barack Obama, his accomplishments to date have been minimal. His $787 billion "stimulus" package has done little to put people back to work. His vice president has admitted that the incoming Administration "misread the economy" when they came to power so self-assured about wrapping up this recession thing by Mothers Day.

Pres. Obama's rapprochement to the Muslim world has gotten high marks for good will, but is fairly meaningless, since it does nothing to alter the fundamentals of Middle Eastern politics. His outreached hand to Iran has been slapped back by President Ahmadinejad who had felt emboldened enough to steal an election and shoot protesters in the streets--all at considerable cost to American foreign policy prestige. His secretary of state is racking up frequent flier miles trying to get Honduras' president, a Hugo Chavez protege, reinstated, despite being deposed through a lawful act of the Honduran government. And let's not even talk about the rootin', tootin', missile-shootin' North Koreans. 

So desperate for a win, the President has journeyed to Moscow to meet with its puppet president, Dmitry Medvedev. In the span of three hours he has compromised American security at a breakneck pace of which even Neville Chamberlain would be proud. As Ralph Peters writes in this morning's New York Post, the President has exchanged a piece of American security for an illusion that he is a seasoned negotiator and a foreign policy heavyweight.

At issue is the President's willingness to limit the U.S. to 1,100 missile launchers. The Russians are also facing this limit; however their equipment is much older and would have to be junked anyway. So the Russians gave up nothing in exchange for letting President Obama claim a foreign policy victory that would appeal to his anti-nuke supporters.

This isn't just the claim of some right-wing blogger. The Russian military, which cooked this deal, has been bragging for some time that not a single Russian missile launcher with remaining service life will have to be destroyed, according to Keith Payne, a member of a bi-partisan Congressional task force assessing America's nuclear capabilities. Mr. Payne testified last month about this impeding giveaway before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Obama has gotten punked by Iran's Ahmadinijad, schooled by Kim Il Sung, , lectured by the EU, and now embarrassed by Vladimir Putin, the Russian strongman who pulls the strings for President Medvedev. 

This is the second coming of Jimmy Carter, whose four years of chaos brought us the Iranian revolution, Americans held hostage,  and a Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. At some point maybe this crowd will remember what Mr. Payne calls "arms control amnesia" and realize that just and lasting peace between nations--which takes more than three hours to conclude--is preferable to the illusion of peace.

Just thought you might like to know.

4th of July

"I have never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence..something in that Declaration (gives) liberty, not alone to the people of this country, but hope to the world for all future time."

Abraham Lincoln, Pennsylvania State House (Independence Hall), Philadelphia, 1861

Just thought you might like to know.

Happy Fourth of July.

Declaration of Independence

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Just thought you might like to know!

Happy Fourth of July!

Karl Malden

Karl Malden died the other day. He was 97. He was from that era when movies (I hate the more pompous term "films") could be entertaining and artistic. His body of work included The Birdman of Alcatraz, a Streetcar Named Desire, Patton, and my personal favorite, On the Waterfront, in which he played a crusading priest fighting against union corruption among dockworkers.

I don't want to minimize his career. But perhaps his most significant lifetime achievement was working in Hollywood and being married to the same woman for 70 years. A 70-year marriage would be notable anyplace, but Mr. Malden worked in an industry where marriages are sometimes measured in nanoseconds. An industry where some actors approach the altar as a leading man rather than a spouse. Or where some marriages are, like medieval dynasties, made strictly for convenience. 

So it got me to thinking about those celebrities who buck the trend with marriages that last longer than Gunsmoke or CSI. Here's what I've come up with:

• Denzel Washington and wife Paulette-26 years
• Ernie Borgnine and his wife Tora-36 years
• Billy Crystal and Janice-38 years
• Jack LaLanne. fitness guru and wife Elaine-50 years this coming September
• Alan Alda and wife Arlene-51 years
• Jim "Rockford" Garner and wife Lois-52 years
• Jerry Stiller, father of Ben and founder of the Festivus holiday, and his wife and comedy team partner Anne Meara-54 years
• Peter Graves, brother of Gunsmoke's Jim Arness, and wife Joan-58 years

But perhaps the grandaddy of all Hollywood marriages goes to celebrity game show host Art Linkletter and Lois Foerster-his bride of 73 years!

Karl Malden was a close friend of director and producer Elia Kazan, for whom he worked in A Streetcar Named Desire and On the Waterfront. In 1952 Kazan testified before the House Un-American Affairs Committee, naming names in the Committee's investigation into Communist influence in the entertainment industry. For that Hollywood elites blackballed him, and he never received the praise he deserved for his professional achievements. Many of their mutual friends also turned their backs on Mr. Malden because of his friendship with the director. Nevertheless, Mr. Kazan and Mr. Malden remained friends until the director's death in 2003. 

In his book, Mr. Malden later explained the relationship, writing that he "never believed that politics had a place in art." Later, as president of the Motion Picture Academy of Arts and Sciences he led the charge to award Kazan a Oscar for lifetime achievement. "There's no place for politics" in an award like this, he told his peers.

It's a lesson that some of the younger Hollywood stars of today should take to heart.

Just thought you might like to know.

Talking Healthcare Again

These posts continue to try and inform the healthcare debate, substituting facts for the emotion and wishful thinking of the left. Here is another quick "cheat sheet" on some of the most contentious issues in the healthcare debate and the facts that address them:

• Voters in November made the point they want healthcare reform. Voters in November voted for change and against Republicans who had started governing like--well, like Democrats. Healthcare is part of that change. But there's a big leap between wanting to reform what we have and ending up with what Pres. Obama proposes. In fact the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows the country is pretty much deadlocked on whether it supports the President's plan. Sure, when asked if they favor having government pay for healthcare the answer is yes. Why not? If you ask anyone if they'd rather have someone else pay their bill--whether that means picking up a tab for dinner, buying them a new car, or paying their healthcare premium--of course the answer would be yes. But polls consistently show that most Americans like the quality of the healthcare they currently receive. The consummate Chicago pol, Barack Obama, reads those polls. That's why he's promising to let consumers keep the care they already have. So while most people agree for the need for reform, few people believe in the radical change that the President proposes.
• Healthcare had gotten too expensive. No doubt. What hasn't? In 1977 I paid $5600 for a slick, tricked out car--my first one that hadn't been someone else's first car. The equivalent car today would cost nearly $40,000. But it would come with a power train, safety features and conveniences undreamed of 32 years ago. So it is with healthcare. It costs more and keeps costing more, but we get so much more--new diagnostic treatments, new drugs, and new technologies that save lives, improve the quality of life, and prolong life.
• 46 million Americans are uninsured. OK, we've beaten this to death, but here it is again. When you back out 1) workers who are transitionally uninsured--that is, they were between jobs and without insurance when the survey was taken; 2) the people who are already eligible for a government insurance program like Medicaid, Medicare or SCHIP but choose not to enroll for whatever reason; 3) the number of illegal aliens who aren't entitled to care anyway; and 4) the millions of "invincibles"--largely young males under the age of 34 who think they'll live forever and choose to spend their money on other things--the actual number of uninsureds is closer to 8 million. A much more manageable problem that hardly calls for the radical changes the President proposes. But OK, let's play the leftist numbers game. Let's say 45 million people are uninsured. That means 260,000,000 are not uninsured. The point holds. Are you really going to turn the system on its head for a problem that affects less than 15% of the population?
  
• American business could be much more competitive if it could shift the cost of employee healthcare to government. You hear this frequently from corporate whiners. They say that they're disadvantaged because European and Asian countries in effect subsidize their global competitors through nationalized healthcare. This is the same corporate foresight brought you Enron, Worldcom and the Fannie Mae economic meltdown. The truth is that the cost of health care in these other countries is just shifted from premiums to taxes. And so what those companies don't pay to insurers they pay to their governments. At least right now U.S. business has some control over how their money is spent on healthcare. When Uncle takes over they'll still be paying for healthcare, only this time it will be through the IRS and they won't have a clue or a say in how the money is spent.
• Nationalized healthcare will simplify healthcare and reduce its cost. Does the IRS simplify paying your taxes? Does the EPA, with its thousands of pages of environmental regulations,  simplify conservation? If government makes healthcare so simple, why do many doctors refuse to take Medicare assignments? If Medicaid is so cost-effective why are up to 40% of its expenditures in some states fraudulent? This one is so stupid as to not require a response.
• A "government option" plan will provide competition for the private insurers. There are 1500 healthcare plans of various stripes out there. If that's not competition, I don't know what is. The issue isn't that there is no competition in our current system. The issue is that the cost allocation mechanisms are all wrong. The true cost of Medicare and Medicaid treatment is partially allocated to those of us with private insurance. The cost of jackpot justice lawsuits are allocated in the form of higher malpractice premiums to providers with no history of litigation . The true cost of employee health insurance is allocated mostly to the employer's customers as healthcare costs are passed on to you and me in the form of higher prices for everything. These misallocations of cost skew the system and negate the consumer advantage of having 1500 companies competing for your business. The one thing we don't need is a government which can't deliver the mail on time, can't educate our children properly, can't secure our borders, and can't balance its own budget putting itself in charge of your health. 

Bottom line, when the President says that he's going to "reform" health care by providing a "public option" and by ensuring that his new system will lower healthcare costs, improve care and still allow you to keep your own insurance, reach for your wallet and hold on tightly. As my mother would say, if it seems too good to be true, it is.

Just thought you might like to know.