Today the leaders of NATO endorsed the US strategy of counter-insurgency in Afghanistan. Similar endorsements have come from key members of the UN.
Two months ago, General McChrystal presented his request for 40,000 additional troops to implement the counter-insurgency strategy that has now been endorsed by these leaders. As of this post, President Obama has yet to commit to that strategy.
However, Rahm has gone on the talk-shows and blasted - who else - the Bush administration for not having an effective strategy in Afghanistan, thus leaving Obama to "start from scratch". We now know that as early as March of this year, President Obama presented his strategy on Afghanistan. Interestingly enough, it mirrored Bush's strategy of a surge-like counter-insurgency. Obama appointed McChrystal to execute the plan. McChrystal established his command and soon after delivered his assessment that implementing the strategy originally designed by the Bush administration, adopted by the Obama administration, and now endorsed by our European allies, would require 40,000 troops. All of a sudden, Obama isn't sure.
McChrystal is waiting. Our dedicated troops are waiting. Obama believes the decision should be put off until the next Afghan election (or, more likely, the gubernatorial elections in NJ and Virgina).
McChrystal has made it clear what he needs. Even the Europeans agree. Obama isn't sure. This is our commander-in-chief. And each day he delays, military morale plummets.
Obama has one of two options: 1) send the troops McChrystal has requested, 2) pack up and get out of Afghanistan. My fear is that it will be somewhere in between, ie 10-20,000 troops. Folks, this is exactly how Vietnam escalated.
If Obama fails to meet his General's request, then I think both McChrystal and Petraeus should resign. And I think they will.
God bless our troops who are fighting and dying while their commander-in-chief deliberates on whether or not to give them what they need to win.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Why Doctors are Worried
I link to this column by Dr Marc Siegel. It's a great contrast to the bogus politics of the AMA and Obama's phony "white coat" gathering on the White House lawn. Dr. Siegel does a great job at voicing the opinion of the majority of doctors in this country who know what Obama's health care reform will do to our patients. Enjoy.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/22/doctors-heath-care-reform-opinions-contributors-marc-siegel.html
http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/22/doctors-heath-care-reform-opinions-contributors-marc-siegel.html
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Limits on income...
Just heard on the Levin show that a recent poll shows that 78% of Americans support Obama's effort to impose federal limits on executive pay.
Think about this for a moment, the latest in many examples of Obama's Marxist ideology. This one is actually two-fold. For one, limiting someone's pay is inherently Marxist. No matter how hard you work, how many hours you put in, how successful your efforts are, there is a ceiling to what you can bring in. The flaw in this thinking is obvious, which is precisely why Marxism in reality has never actually succeeded without tyrannical brutality enforcing it.
But there is another aspect of this poll, one that is also inherently Marxist...that of class warfare. Barack Obama - more than any other political leader in US history - has made amazing progress at fanning the fires of envy and hatred between our social classes. Look at those executives, look at how much money they make, so much more than any of you, this is not fair, we should stop it, we should impose a limit to what they can make, let's get them.
If this poll is to be trusted, then his efforts are succeeding. Ultimately, the collectivist desires equal outcomes for all citizens, which is why they favor mandatory minimum wages for the least-skilled workers and now mandatory maximum wages for the most-skilled. They achieve this by gaining support amongst the populous, in large part by inducing social class envy, bitterness, and hatred towards those who have achieved success in a free-market capitalist system. Their argument is that capitalism is unfair because such a small percentage of citizens become super-wealthy in such a system - of course failing to acknowledge that the same system results in great wealth for the collective compared to similar social classes in other nations and other systems.
The collectivist specializes in divisiveness, fueling the fires of greed and envy so that the populous feels cheated and eventually supports action against the super-wealthy, much like that reflected in this poll. However, the great trap is that those who support salary caps don't realize that their support effectively grants the state the power to cap EVERYONE's salary should the collective need arise...and that is the great trap that the collectivist has set.
The poll reads that 78% of Americans desire caps on executive pay. And this means that 78% of Americans are unwittingly willing to grant the government the power to set pay limits whenever the government deems it necessary. Mr. Alinsky is smiling about this one.
Think about this for a moment, the latest in many examples of Obama's Marxist ideology. This one is actually two-fold. For one, limiting someone's pay is inherently Marxist. No matter how hard you work, how many hours you put in, how successful your efforts are, there is a ceiling to what you can bring in. The flaw in this thinking is obvious, which is precisely why Marxism in reality has never actually succeeded without tyrannical brutality enforcing it.
But there is another aspect of this poll, one that is also inherently Marxist...that of class warfare. Barack Obama - more than any other political leader in US history - has made amazing progress at fanning the fires of envy and hatred between our social classes. Look at those executives, look at how much money they make, so much more than any of you, this is not fair, we should stop it, we should impose a limit to what they can make, let's get them.
If this poll is to be trusted, then his efforts are succeeding. Ultimately, the collectivist desires equal outcomes for all citizens, which is why they favor mandatory minimum wages for the least-skilled workers and now mandatory maximum wages for the most-skilled. They achieve this by gaining support amongst the populous, in large part by inducing social class envy, bitterness, and hatred towards those who have achieved success in a free-market capitalist system. Their argument is that capitalism is unfair because such a small percentage of citizens become super-wealthy in such a system - of course failing to acknowledge that the same system results in great wealth for the collective compared to similar social classes in other nations and other systems.
The collectivist specializes in divisiveness, fueling the fires of greed and envy so that the populous feels cheated and eventually supports action against the super-wealthy, much like that reflected in this poll. However, the great trap is that those who support salary caps don't realize that their support effectively grants the state the power to cap EVERYONE's salary should the collective need arise...and that is the great trap that the collectivist has set.
The poll reads that 78% of Americans desire caps on executive pay. And this means that 78% of Americans are unwittingly willing to grant the government the power to set pay limits whenever the government deems it necessary. Mr. Alinsky is smiling about this one.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
White House vs Fox news
It's been a while. My apologies.
Two stories to comment on today. First, there was announcement today that Congress was attempting to fix the payment gap in Medicare for doctors. For those who don't know, this is an annual problem that Congress has to address. When Congress first established payment schedules for doctors they forgot to adjust these payments for inflation. So every year doctors face a reduction in reimbursement from medicare. What adds to the problem is that fact that if Congress fails to patch the problem from year to year, the payment schedule resorts back to the original payment schedule as determined years ago. So essentially, every year the problem gets bigger and bigger. And instead of actually fixing it once and for all, Congress just patches it year to year.
The problem is so big now that if Congress fails to fix it, then doctors would face as much as a 25% reduction in medicare reimbursement. That's serious. Many doctors would simply stop accepting medicare as a result, thus leaving seniors with fewer health care options. So Congress decides to put in a patch at a cost of $250 billion, which they aren't going to pay for. Yes, this money will just be added to our growing debt. Why? Well, I have a theory.
I have never been a member of the AMA because I think they are a political group who isn't interested in the well-being of our patients. The AMA represents doctors. And the AMA has thrown itself in with the Obama administration, supporting Obamacare. Now, Obama can claim to have the support of America's doctors for his health care reform. The only problem is that America's doctors don't support his reform. The AMA supports it, but if you poll physicians nationwide you'll find they basically reflect the opinion of the general population. My guess is the AMA agreed to get behind Obamacare for a trade-off, and we saw the fruits of that trade-off today. More pay for doctors, more debt on the shoulders of our children.
Now for the next topic. Today Robert Gibbs announced that the White House doesn't consider Fox News a legitimate news organization and it discourages people from getting their news from that network. This announcement was met with little objection from the White House press corps, except for one lone voice, that of ABC news' Jake Tapper. Tapper is a liberal. And he is also a professional journalist in the sense that his own political views rarely interfere with his reporting. He spoke up and pressed Gibbs about the administration's attitude toward Fox News, and I suspect he did so because Tapper recognized something that should disturb any journalist. Anytime the White House declares that a certain news organization should be ignored, it should make any citizen, and certainly any journalist pause.
Gibbs said that Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity were the primary reasons why the administration wants to marginalize Fox. Those shows are commentary, hosted by men who never try to hide their political ideology. Yet, Gibbs feels that's enough to black list the entire network. Meanwhile, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow are always welcome at the White House despite their opinion-based programs. Keep in mind, Fox is really the only major news organization that has bothered to question many of Obama's initiatives, and now the administration wants them ignored, even marginalized. There is something quite disturbing about that. People like Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro do these kinds of things. It should never come from an American president. Even the Liberal commentators on Fox are voicing some legitimate objections to this.
George Bush welcomed dissent, and never tried to bully the media into falling in line with his objectives. Obama is bringing something much different to the table, and it really makes me squirm in my seat a bit. I am never comfortable when the White House gets to pick and choose which news organizations are "fit" to be considered legitimate. That's just too close to a state-sanctioned news source for my taste.
The fact is I watch Fox because it's the only network where I'm guaranteed to get the whole story. I get both points of view on the issues and I appreciate that. I hear the opinions of Beck and Hannity, as well as Alan Colmes, Juan Williams, Bob Beckel and Geraldo Rivera. I appreciate the spirited debate and the opportunity to make up my own mind on any given issue. It's hardly a bastion of conservatism, and anyone who says otherwise probably has never even bothered to watch it. Other networks have a tendency to spoon feed their viewers only the things they want them to hear and see. If you don't watch Fox, then you probably have no idea who Van Jones is, or why ACORN is suddenly in a lot of trouble.
Yes, Fox asks some tough questions. Why is Obama delaying the Afghan troop decision? Why isn't the stimulus package working as promised? Why isn't he giving more guidance on the health care debate? These are the things I want my President to be asked. Bush wasn't given any softer treatment. In fact, I would argue that Beck was just as tough on Bush as he is on Obama.
So I think journalists should take a step back. If you dare disagree with the White House, if you dare ask a difficult question, if you dare try to hold Obama accountable, you may be black-listed as well. If they can go after Fox, there is nothing keeping them from going after any other news outlet. We'll see if Jake Tapper is allowed to ask anymore questions at the White House press conference.
Two stories to comment on today. First, there was announcement today that Congress was attempting to fix the payment gap in Medicare for doctors. For those who don't know, this is an annual problem that Congress has to address. When Congress first established payment schedules for doctors they forgot to adjust these payments for inflation. So every year doctors face a reduction in reimbursement from medicare. What adds to the problem is that fact that if Congress fails to patch the problem from year to year, the payment schedule resorts back to the original payment schedule as determined years ago. So essentially, every year the problem gets bigger and bigger. And instead of actually fixing it once and for all, Congress just patches it year to year.
The problem is so big now that if Congress fails to fix it, then doctors would face as much as a 25% reduction in medicare reimbursement. That's serious. Many doctors would simply stop accepting medicare as a result, thus leaving seniors with fewer health care options. So Congress decides to put in a patch at a cost of $250 billion, which they aren't going to pay for. Yes, this money will just be added to our growing debt. Why? Well, I have a theory.
I have never been a member of the AMA because I think they are a political group who isn't interested in the well-being of our patients. The AMA represents doctors. And the AMA has thrown itself in with the Obama administration, supporting Obamacare. Now, Obama can claim to have the support of America's doctors for his health care reform. The only problem is that America's doctors don't support his reform. The AMA supports it, but if you poll physicians nationwide you'll find they basically reflect the opinion of the general population. My guess is the AMA agreed to get behind Obamacare for a trade-off, and we saw the fruits of that trade-off today. More pay for doctors, more debt on the shoulders of our children.
Now for the next topic. Today Robert Gibbs announced that the White House doesn't consider Fox News a legitimate news organization and it discourages people from getting their news from that network. This announcement was met with little objection from the White House press corps, except for one lone voice, that of ABC news' Jake Tapper. Tapper is a liberal. And he is also a professional journalist in the sense that his own political views rarely interfere with his reporting. He spoke up and pressed Gibbs about the administration's attitude toward Fox News, and I suspect he did so because Tapper recognized something that should disturb any journalist. Anytime the White House declares that a certain news organization should be ignored, it should make any citizen, and certainly any journalist pause.
Gibbs said that Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity were the primary reasons why the administration wants to marginalize Fox. Those shows are commentary, hosted by men who never try to hide their political ideology. Yet, Gibbs feels that's enough to black list the entire network. Meanwhile, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow are always welcome at the White House despite their opinion-based programs. Keep in mind, Fox is really the only major news organization that has bothered to question many of Obama's initiatives, and now the administration wants them ignored, even marginalized. There is something quite disturbing about that. People like Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro do these kinds of things. It should never come from an American president. Even the Liberal commentators on Fox are voicing some legitimate objections to this.
George Bush welcomed dissent, and never tried to bully the media into falling in line with his objectives. Obama is bringing something much different to the table, and it really makes me squirm in my seat a bit. I am never comfortable when the White House gets to pick and choose which news organizations are "fit" to be considered legitimate. That's just too close to a state-sanctioned news source for my taste.
The fact is I watch Fox because it's the only network where I'm guaranteed to get the whole story. I get both points of view on the issues and I appreciate that. I hear the opinions of Beck and Hannity, as well as Alan Colmes, Juan Williams, Bob Beckel and Geraldo Rivera. I appreciate the spirited debate and the opportunity to make up my own mind on any given issue. It's hardly a bastion of conservatism, and anyone who says otherwise probably has never even bothered to watch it. Other networks have a tendency to spoon feed their viewers only the things they want them to hear and see. If you don't watch Fox, then you probably have no idea who Van Jones is, or why ACORN is suddenly in a lot of trouble.
Yes, Fox asks some tough questions. Why is Obama delaying the Afghan troop decision? Why isn't the stimulus package working as promised? Why isn't he giving more guidance on the health care debate? These are the things I want my President to be asked. Bush wasn't given any softer treatment. In fact, I would argue that Beck was just as tough on Bush as he is on Obama.
So I think journalists should take a step back. If you dare disagree with the White House, if you dare ask a difficult question, if you dare try to hold Obama accountable, you may be black-listed as well. If they can go after Fox, there is nothing keeping them from going after any other news outlet. We'll see if Jake Tapper is allowed to ask anymore questions at the White House press conference.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)