The Patriot Post
Patriot Vol. 06 No. 42 Digest | 20 October 2006
THE FOUNDATION
“The great object of my fear is the federal judiciary. That body, like gravity, ever acting, with noiseless foot, and unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step, and holding what it gains, is ingulfing insidiously the special governments into the jaws of that which feeds them.” —Thomas Jefferson
PATRIOT PERSPECTIVE
Order in the Court
In his 1968 monograph A Constitutional Faith, often controversial Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black called the Constitution “my legal bible; its plan of our government is my plan and its destiny my destiny.” Sadly, too many of his fellow justices incline to interpret this “legal bible” in their own image, rather than allowing the plain language of the document to speak for itself. On a prior occasion, this column identified this problem as one of constitutional eisegesis (http://PatriotPost.US/alexander/edition.asp?id=487).
If for this reason alone - putting all legitimate complaints temporarily aside—November’s congressional elections really do matter. Just as The Patriot has twice argued for the election of President George W. Bush based on the imperative of bringing constitutional constructionists to federal benches, and especially the Supreme Court, so too should this solitary issue be foremost in voters’ minds as they head to the polls in two weeks’ time.
President Bush’s two appointments to the Supreme Court, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, replacing the venerable William Rehnquist and the retiring Sandra Day O’Connor (http://PatriotPost.US/alexander/edition.asp?id=315), made clear his intention to appoint solid constructionists—those who will remain loyal to the letter of the Constitution.
These two appointments have already created a marked change on the Court. The “swing-vote” position held for so long by O’Connor has been passed to Justice Anthony Kennedy, moving the Court subtly, if not definitively, to the right. Yet Kennedy will continue to join the Court’s four activist justices (http://PatriotPost.US/alexander/edition.asp?id=296) (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer) from time to time, though (presumably) not as often as O’Connor did. For instance, in this Court term alone, Justice Kennedy will tip the scales in important, precedent-creating cases concerning abortion and racial preferences.
It’s entirely possible that President Bush may have the opportunity to name a third, and maybe even a fourth, justice to the Supreme Court in his two remaining years in office. There are two reasons for this possibility, and their names are Stevens and Ginsburg.
Justice John Paul Stevens, born in 1920 and appointed to the Court by President Ford in 1975, is the oldest of the justices. Stevens is a veritable monument to the difficulty confronting a Republican president who seeks confirmation of a constructionist justice by a Democrat-controlled Senate. Stevens has been, without question, one of the Court’s most liberal members. However, as the nominee of a Republican president, it is possible that he will follow precedent (or the more binding dictates of age) and choose to retire during this Republican administration, rather than await the outcome of an unpredictable presidential election in 2008 or 2012.
Justice Ruth Ginsburg presents another serious prospect for turning the direction of the Court. Born in 1933, Ginsburg is younger than Justice Stevens, but she suffers from poorer health. She was already 60 when President Clinton appointed her in 1993, and she has, by way of her decisions, faithfully applied her champion’s contemptuous disregard for the Constitution. Ginsburg’s departure under a Republican administration could mean an earth-shaking alteration in the makeup and direction of the Court.
However, if Democrats take control of the already closely divided upper chamber (currently composed of 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats and one independent), a Supreme Court appointment of the same caliber as Roberts or Alito would prove all but impossible. Alito’s confirmation (http://PatriotPost.US/alexander/edition.asp?id=460) passed only by a vote of only 58-42, with only four Democrats crossing the aisle to support the nomination. If Democrats gain an edge in the Senate, or even just manage to bring it closer to a 50-50 split, all future nominations, including those to lesser federal courts, will doubtless face the bitter and hopeless fate experienced by nominees of Republican presidents beholden to a Democrat Senate.
Consider Ronald Reagan’s Supreme Court appointments: Sandra Day O’Connor (1981), Antonin Scalia (1986) and Anthony Kennedy (1988). In each case, the degree to which Democrats controlled the Senate correlates with the degree to which President Reagan’s nominee was a compromise appointee. Though O’Connor, nominated to fulfill Reagan’s promise to appoint the first woman Supreme Court Justice, turned out to be more leftward than her proponents believed at the time, the pattern holds.
O’Connor’s nomination passed 99-0 in a Senate with a seven-seat Republican majority (53-46, and one independent), before her conservative credentials came into question. Scalia, a brilliant and rock-ribbed constructionist, was confirmed 98-0 with a similar GOP majority. Kennedy, however, was Reagan’s “consensus appointment,” and the direct consequence of a 10-seat Democrat majority in the 100th Congress (55-45). Only one of these three appointments, Scalia, has proved to be a reliable constructionist. O’Connor and Kennedy, on the other hand, became ever more beguiled by the false notion of a “living Constitution,” (http://PatriotPost.US/alexander/edition.asp?id=330) going so far as to seek out international consensus in the interpretation of U.S. law. Indeed, these two have succeeded one another as the Court’s swing voters.
George H. W. Bush’s 1990 nomination of David Souter under a Democratic Senate (55-45) evokes even greater heartache. Like O’Connor, Souter initially played the part of the conservative justice, voting with Scalia 85 percent of the time in his first year on the Court. Later, when Casey v. Planned Parenthood offered the opportunity to overturn the Roe decision in 1992, Souter and Kennedy wavered, eventually joining O’Connor in that troika’s joint opinion upholding Roe. Similarly, the first President Bush’s nomination of a true constructionist, Clarence Thomas, reveals the kind of bloody confirmation process that awaits a future nominee if Democrats regain the Senate. (Anita Hill, call your office.)
With the exception of their commitment to President Bush’s national-security and tax-relief efforts, congressional Republicans have done little to commend themselves for re-election. Yet when we think of the issues destined to appear before the courts now and in years to come—counter-terrorism laws, abortion, school choice, affirmative action, personal property, business regulation, environment regulation and on the list goes—it may be shortsighted to throw the bums out just yet.
Quote of the week
“Judges do not cease to be human beings when they go on the bench. In important cases, it is my humble opinion that finding the right answer is often the least difficult problem. Having the courage to assert that answer and stand firm in the face of the constant winds of protest and criticism is often much more difficult... The Founders warned us that freedom requires constant vigilance, and repeated action. It is said that, when asked what sort of government the Founders had created, Benjamin Franklin replied that they had given us ‘A Republic, if you can keep it.’ Today, as in the past, we will need a brave ‘civic virtue,’ not a timid civility, to keep our republic.” —Justice Clarence Thomas
On cross-examination
“One more retirement on the Supreme Court could mean the difference between overturning Roe v. Wade and keeping abortion-on-demand in place for decades.” —Mike Mears, Director of State Legislative Relations, Concerned Women for America
Open query
“The European Union has just uncovered another dangerous threat to European social stability: home-schooling. Yes, German police recently arrested the mother of children who were being home-schooled. The father had to flee with the children to Austria. The European Court of Human Rights upheld the German ban on home-schooling, which dated back to 1938 in the Nazi era. ... Think about that at a time when Americans, even Supreme Court justices, are advocating the use of foreign legal precedents for American court rulings. Do we really want to start jailing home-schooling parents?” —Patrick Henry College Professor David Aikman
GOVERNMENT & POLITICS
Senate Democrats build a ‘culture of corruption’
After a year of trying to convince voters that all Republicans are corrupt because of the actions of a couple of rotten apples, the Democrats now find themselves with not one, but two senators under fire for crooked behavior. Minority Leader Harry Reid promised to amend disclosure reports after it became known that he earned $1.1 million on a real estate deal for property he hadn’t owned for three years. Not a bad deal. While Reid was busy trying to sweep this questionable transaction under the rug, another “clerical error” was discovered. Apparently, Reid used $3,300 in campaign donations for a holiday fund for personal employees at a condominium he owns at the Ritz-Carlton. He promptly promised to replenish the money from his own pocket. If you’re keeping track, that would be the pocket lined with money from a questionable real estate deal in 2004. Someone should really crack open this guy’s books and do a top-to-bottom review to see just what else lies beneath.
For New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez, everything is already coming to the surface. Hailing from a state that has recently given us such ethically challenged Democrats as Jim McGreevey and Bob Torricelli, Menendez has drawn the attention of federal investigators looking into a rental deal he was involved with that received millions of dollars in government funding. For the record, Menendez is not officially under investigation at this point, but that is sure to change. While Reid is not facing re-election this year, Menendez is, and his race has been affected by the possibility that he has sticky fingers. Loyal Democrat voters, however, have admitted that they would rather have a corrupt politician in the Senate than Republican Tom Kean, Jr., so we’ll have to see how this hypocrisy plays out.
The GOP rogues gallery
It’s safe to say that the Democrats are being hypocritical about corruption, but that doesn’t let corrupt Republicans off the hook for abusing their office. This week, House Ethics Committee began its inquiries into the Mark Foley page scandal, questioning the chief of staff to Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-LA) about the internal handling of Foley’s preying on congressional pages. One of the pages that Foley had been overly friendly with was sponsored by Alexander, but the emails were not sexually explicit and the matter had been referred to Speaker Hastert’s office as protocol required. Hastert’s office then notified Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL), chairman of the House Page Board, who told Foley to cease contact with the youngster. At the request of the parents, the matter was not pursued further.
Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH) pleaded guilty this week for his role in the Jack Abramoff scandal and could face anywhere from 27 months to 10 years in prison, depending on the outcome of his 19 January sentencing hearing. Ney accepted gifts from Abramoff during the disgraced lobbyist’s whirlwind influence-peddling tour on behalf of Indian casino owners, and is the latest casualty in this sordid drama that began in January of this year with Abramoff’s guilty plea.
Another congressman caught up in a possible lobbying imbroglio is Curt Weldon (R-PA). This week the FBI raided the home of Weldon’s daughter and her business partner, looking for evidence that Weldon used his influence to help his daughter win a million-dollar lobbying contract. Unlike Foley and Ney, Weldon’s situation could be just an attempted character assassination by Democrats on behalf of his opponent. Weldon is facing a tight race for election to an eleventh term, and the issue that the FBI is investigating was reviewed by the House Ethics Committee in 2004 without consequence.
Lieberman calls for Democrats to change the tone
Joe Lieberman, who pledged to remain with the Democrat caucus if re-elected in November, told his fellow Democrats this week that they need to change the tone in Washington if they gain control of Congress. Lieberman, a die-hard liberal on social issues, has received a lot of flack from his base for supporting President Bush and the Iraq war. He is not a poster boy for bipartisanship, but he’s closer to the true definition of cooperation than any of his liberal cohorts. It’s likely that his plea for more level-headed governance from his colleagues fell on deaf ears, though. Democrats are not as hungry to lead the country as they are for revenge against President Bush. They’ve already demonstrated their willingness to throw Lieberman under the bus; why should they listen to Joltin’ Joe now?
Warner takes his hat out of the ring
Former Democrat Virginia Governor Mark Warner has decided against running for president in 2008, citing a greater desire to spend time with his family. Warner, known as a centrist Democrat, was considered the most viable counter to Hillary Clinton’s expected ‘08 bid. The effects of his withdrawal are yet to be fully realized in the race for the Demo nomination, but, at 51, Warner has a lot of time to consider his future, and it is likely we will see him again. One can’t help but speculate, though, whether Warner knows something we don’t. Family considerations are often cited by popular politicians for not running for office when they believe that their party cannot win. Maybe he’s sitting out ‘08 because he thinks the Demos can’t take the White House.
Kerry seeks Purple Heart for 2004 election
John Kerry continues to bash President Bush for the Iraq war and bears the scars of the 2004 presidential election like a fourth Purple Heart. Redefining the term “sore loser” has been Kerry’s stock in trade as he continues to stump for liberal candidates in this year’s midterm elections. He seems to be edging his way toward another run for the White House in ‘08, but he is decidedly less popular than he was two years ago, trailing Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Al Gore in a University of New Hampshire poll of Demo presidential preferences. For sheer entertainment value, we encourage Kerry to run again. The Democrats haven’t re-nominated a presidential candidate since Adlai Stevenson in 1956, and for good reason.
Don’t worry, be happy
To hear Karl Rove tell it, and to hear President Bush sell it, the GOP will retain control of both houses of Congress on 7 November, but if one listens to off-the-record Republicans in Congress, they will say that the GOP is in for a shellacking. If the excessive drooling of congressional Democrats is any indication, the White House had best shore up its legal team for the impeachment assault sure to come when the Demos take over the legislative branch.
Who’s right? There is no crystal ball on Karl’s desk, but there are reams of polls coming in from races all over the country, and his team has been analyzing the data closely. Targeting the key races and getting those candidates the resources necessary for victory are Rove’s stock in trade. The model that assured Republican victory in 2002 and 2004 is still alive and well. Based on all that, Rove believes that the Republicans may lose eight to 10 seats in the House, but that they will definitely maintain control of both the House and the Senate.
Despite the reputation Rove has earned, fellow Republicans are not necessarily buying his optimism. So, suppose he’s wrong. If Democrats do take the House, they’ll get their Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, one of the most divisive figures in American politics. While acting as minority leader, she hasn’t even been able to keep her team from breaking ranks. It is doubtful she can do any better as Speaker of the House, much less provide overall leadership. Demos will gain the committee chairmanships, but Bush will still be President. Those who’ve lamented his lack of vetoes up till now can take heart that he’ll have plenty of Demo legislation to strike down in the next two years. On top of that, any margin that the Democrats claim in November is likely to be slim, assuring that the inevitable plethora of left-wing bills get bogged down in committee. A Democrat majority 110th Session is sure to be a true do-nothing Congress—with the notable exception of impeachment hearings.
NATIONAL SECURITY
Bush signs Military Commission Act
President Bush signed the Military Commission Act of 2006 this week as a vital part of the nation’s counterterrorism effort. The Act allows the CIA to continue its program for interrogating terrorist leaders and operatives. Terrorist detainees are protected from torture under the new provision but are also banned from filing habeas corpus petitions to challenge their detention. Second, according to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the Act “provides a legal framework for prosecuting terrorists... At the same time, this new law protects the sources and methods used to collect our most sensitive national intelligence.”
Most of the 14,000 terrorists detained worldwide will be unaffected by this provision, which was made necessary by June’s Supreme Court decision that detainees could not be tried in military tribunals. Under the new law, the administration intends to try a number of high-profile terrorists, perhaps two dozen in all, including 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, would-be 9/11 hijacker Ramzi Binalshibh and Abu Zubaydah, believed to have been a strategic link between Osama bin Laden and a number of al-Qa’ida’s operating cells.
Meanwhile, while many at home and abroad decry the Act’s alleged contempt for the rights of detainees, reports this week confirm that many U.S.-allied governments, while publicly demanding the closure of the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have privately refused to reclaim their citizens held in the camp—some for as long as four years. In short, these governments are content to let the U.S. handle their problem. Opponents of terrorist detentions and the Military Tribunal Act would do well to consider the question posed by Mr. Bush at the Act’s signing: “Did this generation of Americans take the threat seriously, and did we do what it takes to defeat that threat?” Let’s hope so.
How do you solve a problem like Korea?
U.S. intelligence confirmed this week that North Korea’s claimed test of a nuclear weapon was, in fact, just that, though possibly weaker than planned. Meanwhile, the Dark Kingdom defiantly prepared to stick another finger in the world’s eye. Intelligence assets detected preparations for additional nuclear tests at three sites. When the UN Security Council passed a resolution imposing limited sanctions on the North, the North responding by calling the sanctions an act of war. Heading into this hornet’s nest, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice began a four-nation visit to the region, seeking to reassure Japan and South Korea that the U.S. would defend them from attack, while seeking assurances from them and Russia and China that they will implement the UN sanctions. Needless to say, the region is red hot.
While some seek solace in the apparent partial failure of the North’s first test, they miss two important facts. First, North Korea has proved its possession of nuclear weapons, however primitive they may be. Second, while the yield of the first test was low, between one half to one kiloton, that is still a lot of energy. For comparison, the Oklahoma City bomb was about 2.5 tons, some 200 to 400 times smaller than the North’s “partial failure.” It doesn’t take much imagination to realize what such a “small” nuclear device would do to the middle of an American city. North Korea cannot be allowed to produce, use or transfer these weapons, and President Bush has pledged just that.
This week’s ‘Braying Jackass’ award:
“When George W. Bush turned his back on diplomacy, Kim Jong Il turned back to making bombs, and the world is less safe today because a mad man has the Bush bomb.” —Jean-Francois Kerry (http://PatriotPetitions.US/kerry/)
IAEA estimates 49 nations have nuclear know-how
With the cases of North Korea and Iran jolting capitols around the globe, many are asking one of our era’s fundamental strategic questions: To proliferate or not to proliferate?
The U.S. may have let the genie out of bottle by transforming unique discoveries of atomic energy into atomic weapons, but not without reason. The new weapons were put to good use to bring an earlier V-J Day and save millions of lives. Later, nuclear weapons helped preserve the peace for a half-century long Cold War, when Warsaw Pact conventional forces greatly outnumbered their free counterparts in the West. On the other hand, the United Nations’ decision to let the genie the rest of the way out of the bottle—specifically through the efforts of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to facilitate the development of nuclear power in numerous states from the 1950s to the present—seems to have a logic all its own.
Now, the Director General of the IAEA, Mohammed El Baradei, estimates 49 nations have the know-how to produce nuclear weapons. Will weaponization in North Korea and Iran push more countries to go nuclear? That has always been the theory, but reality may prove to be more complicated. The world is watching what happens to two nations who were told by the United Nations that they didn’t have permission to build nukes, as when the League of Nations told Fascist Italy that it didn’t have permission to invade Ethiopia. Orders without sanctions and sanctions without punishment will send every nation—from fearful neighbors of rogue regimes to state sponsors of stateless Islamists—the clear message that proliferation is permissible. While the doctrine of deterrence through mutually assured destruction may continue preventing nuclear war between major powers, the immediate cause for concern is that nuclear weapons may find their way to Islamist terrorists, where deterrence ceases to apply.
GAO slams Homeland bid for nuclear-detection equipment
The Government Accountability Office noted this week that the Department of Homeland Security’s plan to spend $1.2 billion on nuclear-detection equipment couldn’t be justified because the devices do not meet standards previously set by DHS. The devices are supposed to detect uranium 95 percent of the time, but actually performed accurately at a lower percentage in tests and were far less accurate when the nuclear material was shielded. The detection equipment is meant to be employed at U.S. ports and border crossings. Clearly more work needs to be done to ensure the effectiveness of the new machines, or the government risks spending money on equipment that cannot tell the difference between uranium and cat litter, as it did after September 11th.
How many deaths in Iraq?
Last week, Johns Hopkins University received quite a bit of press for a study that claimed Iraqi civilian deaths had topped 655,000 since the war began in 2003. We mentioned then (http://PatriotPost.US/alexander/edition.asp?id=501) that the number was quadruple the next closest estimate and, as such, was nothing more than a pre-election hit piece. Now for the number crunching.
Iraq’s population is about 27 million, which makes any estimate of war-related civilian deaths a mammoth undertaking, and Johns Hopkins was not up to the task. To compensate, surveys use cluster points—door-to-door interviews in random neighborhoods. The trick is to sample enough clusters. In 2004, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) did a similar survey that used 2,200 cluster points and ten interviews each, totaling 21,688 interviews. They concluded that there were somewhere between 18,000 and 29,000 deaths. By comparison, Johns Hopkins sample was absurdly ridiculous: Forty-seven clusters, 1,849 interviews. Clearly, the researchers’ object was propaganda, not truth.
Not only could this study affect U.S. policy in Iraq, but also it endangers the very lives of the Iraqi civilians that hypocrites at Johns Hopkins pretend to care so much about by giving aid and comfort to the enemy. After all, with a number that high, the Jihadis (http://PatriotPost.US/papers/primer01.asp) are winning, right?
’Surviving the Sword’
The current debate on America’s war with Islamo-fascism includes many analogies to the debate over WWII. In a recent book by Brian MacArthur, Surviving the Sword, the author cites a widely read WWII anti-West Japanese propaganda manual that played off the real or imagined slights of Europe’s colonial empires: “If you fail to destroy [the West] you can never rest at peace. And the first blow is the vital blow. Westerners—[are] very superior people, very effeminate, and very cowardly... You must demonstrate to the world the true worth of Japanese manhood... [the responsibility] to set Asia free, rests on our shoulders.”
Compare this to Osama bin Laden’s 1998 fatwa: “...to kill the Americans and their allies civilians and military—is an individual duty for every Muslim... for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim.” Bin Laden’s post-Somalia quote contains more of the same: “...the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging...”
Today’s “Axis of Evil” continues many of the brutal fascist ideologies and racial myths of WWII’s Axis. The beheadings of prisoners by al-Qa’ida’s thugs and the Japanese in WWII are eerily similar, not to mention the common reliance on “suicide missions” to accomplish their political and military goals. It took intense firebombing campaigns and two nuclear attacks to convince the former Axis member that they had underestimated these “paper tigers.” Let’s not rule out that strategy again as we work to survive another, crescent-shaped sword.
Bush signs controversial new National Space Policy
The Military Tribunal Act wasn’t the only piece of controversial security legislation authorized by the President this week. Seeking to maintain U.S. control of the ultimate high ground, President Bush signed a new National Space Policy that asserts the country’s right to deny access to space to any entity “hostile to U.S. interests,” as well as rejecting future agreements that might hamstring U.S. flexibility in space. The new policy is the first revision of overall U.S. space policy in ten years, and its top goals are to “strengthen the nation’s space leadership and ensure that space capabilities are available in time to further U.S. national security, homeland security, and foreign policy objectives.” With space now integral to the U.S. economy, serving cell phone providers, personal navigation devices, multimedia telecommunications and banking services, and with the military dependent on satellite communications, navigation and intelligence, the President’s new policy is a very wise move. The usual hand-wringers, forever fearing weapons in space, started howling that the new policy will lead to just that. If weapons do end up in space, the President’s policy will at least make sure the best ones are in hands of the good guys.
BUSINESS & ECONOMY
U.S. oil policy needs a tune-up
The Council on Foreign Relations has released a report titled “National Security Consequences of U.S. Oil Dependency” that pointedly warns, “The lack of sustained attention to energy issues is undercutting U.S. foreign policy and national security.” The report added, “A significant interruption in oil supply will have adverse political and economic consequences in the United States...” The oil-rich countries of Iran, Venezuela and Russia gain great leverage against the U.S. due to our dependence.
According to the Energy Information Administration, the U.S. imports nearly 60 percent of its oil, a number that will likely rise in the years to come, due in large part to the political obstruction by Democrats of sensible de-regulation of the oil industry. While energy independence is not likely, drilling in ANWR and easing restrictions on offshore drilling are key to reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Democrats line up against them both, while advocating further taxation—a sure-fire way to harm the economy. The CFR also recommends more taxes and regulation, when, on the contrary, the free market should determine both the price of oil and when alternative energy sources are preferable.
Great economy gets poor coverage
Here are a few of the many reasons to be optimistic about the economy: The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has issued its annual revision of employment statistics, adding 810,000 more jobs to the previous total. The latest numbers show 2.54 million new jobs in the last 12 months, and 5.5 million in the last 24. Unemployment is at 4.7 percent. The Dow Jones has now topped 12,000 and is up 51 percent since the tax cuts in 2003, while the S&P 500 is up 63 percent and the NASDAQ is up 80 percent. The U.S. economy has grown at a 3.7 percent annual average rate in the same period. Despite vastly increased federal spending (spending is $907 billion higher than it was in 2000), the federal budget deficit is down to $248 billion in FY2006 due to increased tax revenue.
Incredibly, however, watching the nightly newscasts, one gets the impression that the economy is in the tank. High gas prices and a slowing housing market equal a lousy economy to the Leftmedia talkingheads. Facts just get in the way: Gas prices, adjusted for inflation, never did reach 1981 levels and the housing market is just readjusting after two years of incredible boom. Yet, for example, according to the Business and Media Institute, between 1 August 2005 and 31 July 2006, over 80 percent of the full-length stories on the “CBS Evening News” conveyed a negative view of the economy.
The Leftmedia uses pollaganda (http://PatriotPost.US/news/pollaganda.asp) to drive public opinion heading into the election—loaded poll questions obscure views of the economy and then the media dutifully reports on the bad polls to further drive public opinion down in the next poll. We’re left to the perhaps obvious conclusion that they want the economy to be bad. Then, apparently, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi can come to the rescue.
Feds provide model for healthcare (or not)
The Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), where all federal workers purchase coverage and heralded by some as a model for health coverage, announced that premiums for 2007 would rise an average of 1.8 percent—far less than the national average. Under the FEHBP, the federal government invites health insurers to participate, although FEHBP has experienced an exodus of health-insurance plans in recent years. The number of participating HMOs declined from nearly 400 in the mid ‘90s to about 165 or fewer, and participants in rural areas may not have access to more than a single plan. Likewise, while FEHBP’s 2007 increase is the smallest in over a decade, the program proved capable of up to 13-percent annual increases previously, under arguably more favorable conditions.
In future years, the FEHBP plans may experience additional decline in the number of participating insurers when this year’s 7.7 percent increase in premiums for private health insurance or employer-funded coverage is taken into consideration. While FEHBP’s costs and regulatory burdens continue to rise, the ability of insurers to break even becomes ever more difficult despite the enormous number of FEHBP-plan insured.
The FEHBP owes its existence to the efficiency of private health insurers who enabled to program to survive. Eventually, the artificially low premium increases will be unsustainable and the government will need to correct the program’s financial imbalance or lose its remaining insurers. When that happens, the FEHBP system will become a living manifestation of Cheop’s Law—everything takes longer and costs more than anticipated.
CULTURE
’Thank you for flying Air America’
After less than three years on the air, is the liberal response to conservative talk radio growing fainter? Air America Radio recently announced it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy because of failure “to resolve outstanding debt with a creditor from the company’s earliest days.”
Air America Spokeswoman Jaime Horn maintains the company “does not think this says anything about the viability of progressive talk.” Yet, might recent departures by several key figures in Air America’s leadership along with the company’s struggles to solicit and maintain affiliate stations suggest differently? Washington, DC’s “Progressive Talk 1260,” which broadcasts several Air America programs, failed to make the area’s top 35 stations, and Air America enjoys no air time in Dallas, Philadelphia and Houston, three of the country’s major radio markets. Nevertheless, industry sources anticipate Air America will continue broadcasting, so don’t turn that dial yet.
When an anniversary isn’t a celebration
A 90th anniversary is traditionally cause for celebration, but when the birth commemorated is that of death itself, congratulations hardly seem in order. This week, Planned Parenthood marked the ninetieth year of its prenatal holocaust. Spouting deceptive aphorisms of “freedom and equality” for women, the country’s largest abortion provider has led a nation to exchange truth for falsehood, hope for regret, life for death.
The cost has been unfathomably high. Since Planned Parenthood won its fight for legalized abortion with the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, more than 47 million infants have been terminated—murdered—in their mothers’ wombs.
While Planned Parenthood deems itself a portal to feminine liberation, Jim Sedlak, vice president of the American Life League, called the anniversary one of “killing and corruption.” By disparaging life as expendable and children as a burden, Planned Parenthood has enslaved women in a prison of untold regret guarded by the muted cries of lives denied. This week, one group will celebrate behind its mask of deception, while countless women with empty arms will mourn the lives extinguished before they ever had the chance to begin. If you, or someone you know, suffers silently the anguish of abortion, we invite you to read Empty Arms (http://PatriotShop.US/product_info.php?cPath=45&products_id=84)—60 stories of hope and healing from across the nation as a more appropriate means of marking Planned Parenthood’s anniversary passage.
It’s time to face the giants
The movie “Facing the Giants” will be out of the theaters any day now. It’ll be wonderful at home on DVD, but catching it in theaters is worth missing poker night or your nail appointment just to see that such a movie can still be seen in theaters today. The film centers on a football coach and his small high-school team in Georgia. How can they overcome six losing seasons and the disastrous start of another? They add God to the team. Incredible things happen. This is the family movie that got a PG rating because it was “too Christian.” Hollywood’s secularists, modern pagans that they are, think such a dose of Christianity might affect children. It will—and their parents—profoundly. “Facing the Giants” is the best of “Rudy,” “Hoosiers,” “Seabiscuit” and “Cinderella Man,” where the characters live, talk and act like Evangelical Christians actually do. Facing the Giants is a true story of faith and life. Just watch it and see.
And last...
Longtime Democrat and “Scary Movie 4” producer David Zucker recently produced an ad that was unfortunately deemed “too hot” by GOP strategists. “Jaws dropped... Nobody could believe Zucker thought any political organization could use this ad,” one strategist said. “It makes a point, but it’s way over the top.” Au contraire. The ad unequivocally states, “In a post 9/11 world, making nice to our enemies will not make them nice to us,” and centers upon former Secretary of State Madeline Albright’s concessions to North Korea’s Kim Jong Il—including the gift of a basketball signed by Michael Jordan. The ad shows actors in a “recreation” of that exchange and includes other memorable scenes of Albright mowing the lawn at a North Korean nuclear-weapons lab, serving cookies and singing “Kumbaya” while suicide bombers deploy, painting Osama bin Laden’s cave and changing the tire of a terrorist’s limo. The only thing not included was just how hard Bill Clinton tried to kill bin Laden. Needless to say, we were thrilled to finally see such truth in advertising. If the GOP won’t show it, we will—take a look at Zucker’s ad (http://PatriotPost.US/news/zuckerad.asp) on us.
Lex et Libertas—Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus, et Fidelis! Mark Alexander, Publisher, for the editors and staff. (Please pray for our Patriot Armed Forces standing in harm’s way around the world, and for their families, especially those of our fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, who have died in defense of American liberty while prosecuting the war with Jihadistan.)
SUPPORT THE 2006 PATRIOT FUND
Link to our Secure Commerce Page at—http://PatriotPost.US/support.asp
SUBSCRIBE
The Patriot Post (PatriotPost.US) is FREE by E-mail! To get your own subscription, link to—http://PatriotPost.US/subscribe/
REPRINT AND FORWARD POLICY
Subscribers may reprint or forward The Patriot Post (PatriotPost.US), in whole or part. If reprinting, please include the citation "The Patriot Post (PatriotPost.US)" in accordance with our Subscriber/User Disclaimer. For questions, contact our legal department at Legal@PatriotPost.US.
*PUBLIUS*
"FRUIT FROM THE TREE OF LIBERTY"
The Patriot Post (PatriotPost.US) is protected speech pursuant to the "inalienable rights" of all men, and the First (and Second) Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
In God we trust.
Copyright © 2006 Publius Press, Inc.
All rights reserved. |
