Reid Rushes Health Insurance Reform Vote

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead

From Senator John Cornyn (R-TX)on the health insurance reform bill in the Senate:

"What we do know so far, as reported by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), is that this bill will have a wide, negative impact on Americans across the board – from seniors on Medicare to small business owners to future generations of Americans who will be footing the bill. The bill will increase taxes on all Americans by nearly half a trillion dollars and breaks the President’s pledge not to raise taxes on working families earning less than $250,000—at a time that unemployment is at a 26-year high."

"While CBO has not been given time to analyze the Reid bill’s impact on premiums, every other independent analysis to date has found that Reid’s new mandates and taxes will increase health care premiums on American families. The Reid bill increases taxpayer spending and liability for health care over the next ten years—instead of reforming our already insolvent entitlement programs. It will gut the already insolvent Medicare program by $464.6 billion, hurting access to care for seniors. It includes a government-run public option that will, according to CBO, have premiums higher than private plans and cause millions of Americans to lose the coverage they currently have. The largest expansion of Medicaid since it was created means the Medicaid program will be the only coverage option for 60 million Americans. It will also impose $28 billion in punitive taxes on employers who do not comply with Washington’s new job-killing mandates."

CBO has not been given time to analyze the Reid bill's impact on premiums. Wasn't the increasing cost of premiums to American families the reason for health insurance reform? What is the rush to ram this legislation through Congress?

The reason, of course, is that if this terrible legislation is not passed in Congress and signed by the president by the end of the year, the chances of a complete overhaul of our nation's health care system diminishes. The president is losing popularity in the polls and his policies are not at all popular with the majority of voters. Each week it becomes more clear that our country is on the wrong track.

The promises of transparency, of putting bills online 72 hours before votes, have fallen by the wayside. Democrats have shut out Republicans on writing legislation and on offering amendments to bills, particularly on this health care reform. It is their right as the majority in the House and in the Senate, but it is not the path to solid legislation. Nor do the American people like one party dominance when it seems Washington is not listening to the voters.

Democrats have waited decades to be in this powerful position. They intend to use health insurance reform as a new entitlement program, one that will insure voter loyalty and support with generations to come. They just may have misread the public this time. The Democrats may have misread a perceived mandate from the American people.

Radio talk show host and Republican commentator Bill Bennett points to the conclusion that the last presidential election was a cultural one, not a political one. The election of Barack Obama as President of our country was all about culture - about an excited electorate, swept away on a nonsensical blur of slogans and nebulous goals - "hope" and "change", while taking advantage of disillusionment with Republicans in control. Plus, the election of our first bi-racial president was an enticement, too.

President Obama has failed to capture the moment and lead with purpose. He has a pattern of setting fuzzy goals, especially when it comes to the cost of his reforms, and allowing leaders in the House and Senate to write the legislation without hands-on contributions from him. As long Congress is under control by the far left of the party, bad legislation will continue to come up for votes.

Health insurance reform is necessary. Everyone can agree on that simple fact. However, it is not feasible to completely overhaul the health care delivery system and expect it to have positive results. We are talking about 1/6 of our national economy. This is too important to rush through and expect blind votes from our elected officials.

Sphere: Related Content

Layer Upon Layer of Arrogance From Obama Administration

With continued arrogance solidly on display, Attorney General Eric Holder went before the Senate Judiciary Committee and did his best to mask his irritation with being questioned on 'his' decision to bring the GITMO detainees to NYC for trial. His arrogance, in step with President Obama's arrogance, prevented him from awareness that he would be the recipient of the questions. Despite what the mainstream media reports may write, it is not only Republicans who question the wisdom of this decision.

It is just another example of the arrogance of this administration in an ever growing list. This decision was another example of a big decision tossed into a late Friday afternoon news dump to the press, with hopes of an escape from scrutiny by the public. As Karl Rove writes in The Wall Street Journal, "What we are seeing with the White House's timing in releasing its decision on KSM and other terrorists is a presidency clinging to campaign tactics that aim to dominate the 24-hour-news-cycle. The problem is that ploys that work in a campaign don't work nearly as well when you're in charge of the executive branch. Once in office, you have to live with the consequences of a policy decision. The debate now taking place over trying terrorists in civilian courts is showing this White House that it cannot escape the hard realities that come with making presidential decisions. Not even Friday afternoons can offer sanctuary from dangerous or ill-considered policy choices."

As an added bonus, President Obama was conveniently out of the country when this decision was announced.

The bogus numbers being used in touting the success of the stimulus package passed by Congress are coming back to bite this administration. According to the blog posted on the Houston Chronicle site called Texas on the Potomac, "Nationally, the recovery.gov site has mistakenly attributed $6.4 billion in stimulus spending to 440 non-existent districts in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and even four American territories, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan government oversite group, watchdog.org."

Continuing, "The White House's recovery.gov web site declares that Texas' 52nd district received exactly $8,937,289 in stimulus funds, while the 68th district has had precisely $310,963 funneled into it. Trouble is, none of these congressional districts exist."

The Wall Street Journal points to the naked politics of unemployment numbers and 'saved or created' jobs - "The nonexistence of the jobs and places allegedly stimulated by the Recovery Act doesn't necessarily mean the money was misspent or stolen. But it does indicate that the claims made on its behalf are a political illusion. The true jobs measure of an economic recovery is the unemployment rate, which rose to 10.2% last month. No matter how hard or imaginatively the Administration spins, the reality is that the stimulus has been the economic bust that critics predicted it would be."

One wonders if President Obama will ever be capable of setting aside the campaign mode to actually lead our nation. This is the most glaring of problems when a nation elects a person to be commander-in-chief with no executive leadership experience, only experience with running for the next higher office.

President Obama has surrounded himself with like-minded individuals, as all presidents do. In The Washington Post , Carrie Johnson writes about the time Eric Holder spent with time with family members of loved ones lost in the 9/11/01 attacks, after his time spent testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday. The questions he faced from the family members are described as "unexpected queries". The encounter is described as "brief and respectful". It is noted in the article that the Republican members of the committee introduced the family members before Holder's testimony and they stayed until after the hearing to talk to Holder.

While critics of the G.W. Bush administration were fast and loose with the barbs of the arrogance of that administration, those voices are now predictably silent as the arrogance - of a different kind - permeate from the current administration.

Sphere: Related Content

GITMO Detainees To Be Tried in NYC

Attorney General Eric Holder says we must not "cower" from trials for the 9/11 detainees currently in GITMO. This is his justification for bringing the trials to Manhattan, New York City, just a short distance from the terrorist attacks of that day.

What Holder doesn't understand is that no one is "cowering" by voicing objections to the decision of bringing these murdering Islamofacists into our country for trial. The objection is based on the belief that these terrorists are not ordinary criminals, they are captured combatants who deserve to be tried in military tribunals. The purpose of building GITMO in the first place, a multimillion dollar state of the art complex in Cuba, was to house detainees captured overseas on fields of battle and to host military tribunals in the same complex.

Remember that Eric Holder is a former Clinton administration deputy attorney general, serving former Clinton attorney general Janet Reno. This brings us to a renewed awareness of a basic political philosophy difference between Republicans and Democrats. The Clinton administration tried terrorists in civil court - an example being the trial from the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. It is not a stretch to conclude that this procedure decision brought about the bombings on 9/11/01.

Holder uses the deduction that civilians were killed in the attacks of 9/11/01, therefore civil court is the correct venue for the trials. This dismisses the murders of the military members at the Pentagon that day, in particular. It is not a strong premise, anyway, as this goes back to the decision to treat captured detainees as criminals.

President Obama has weighed in on this subject as he is interviewed during his trip overseas. Remember that we were told, during the presidential campaign, that Obama possesses a brilliant legal mind, that he was an adjunct constitutional professor in Chicago. Why, then, did he compromise the government's prosecution of the detainees by declaring that they would be found guilty and be issued the death penalty? This opens the door for defense attorneys to decry the fact that they will be unable to get a fair trial.

Liberals and conservatives alike, Democrats and Republicans, have weighed in on this decision. Overwhelmingly the opinion is that this is a bad decision. Members from the 9/11 Commission, including Tom Kean, voice opposition.

Why did Holder feel the need to shade the truth about the process he used to come to his conclusion to use the courts in Manhattan for the trials? He claims he made the decision without input from the administration, that he consulted with his wife and sister for their opinions. That he alone made the decision. This is not believable by most, of course. That is not how politics works. And, anyone denying this is a political decision must have his or her head in the clouds. Governor Paterson of New York is now quoted as saying that the White House told him of the decision six months ago. Six months ago? Holder only announced this decision a few days ago. Why the delay - why the announcement while Obama was overseas? Did the administration deliberately wait until after the November elections to make the announcement? You be the judge.

Governor Paterson, by the way, is against the decision, too.

The administration claims America must prove we are the better nation by bringing these detainees through our criminal court process. We must show the world from our federal courts that we will deal with detainees with our rule of law. Here's the thing - most Americans feel no such mandate. Most Americans do not feel that we have to prove anything to the world. This is simply more of the same from Team Obama - those who feel the need to prove to the world that we are worthy of our position as world leader.

Senator Cornyn says of the upcoming trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, "I believe that this decision should be reconsidered by the Attorney General and the President of the United States because of the risk it puts Americans in and because this provides Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, a self-described super-terrorist, this gives him everything he could have ever wanted, which is a platform to spew his hate-filled ideology and one in which he can recruit other like-minded individuals all around the world who will be watching." "He is anything but a common criminal. He is guilty of nothing less than war crimes against innocent Americans. And according to this decision, the Attorney General is going to be providing him the forum that he can use in order to proclaim himself as the super-terrorist and in order to attract like-minded ideologues to his sick and twisted ideas of jihad."

He continues, "Our experience with terrorist trials show that civilian courts are an inappropriate forum for the trial of war crimes. This is one example of why: as a result of information related to the East Africa embassy bombings, Osama bin Laden became aware of cell phone intercepts which prompted his organization to discontinue cell phone conversations because of the evidence disclosed in the trial. They simply realized that they were being eavesdropped on and quit using cell phones, denying us that intelligence." "This will allow al-Queda to detect our means of intelligence gathering and to push forward into areas we know nothing about."

Holder and Obama have not addressed the upcoming problem of the process known as 'discovery' in a criminal trial. This process will leave vulnerable the CIA and any intelligence gathering done as the detainees were captured. Is this all a part of a bigger picture of holding CIA intelligence gatherers for trial, too?

Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) claims bringing detainees to a facility in Illinois when GITMO is closed will be a "dream come true" for the citizens of that state. He claims the jobs created - government jobs and union jobs, not private sector jobs that stimulate the economy - will allow those seeking employment to benefit. Nifty re-election point, no?

President Obama continues with this pattern of allowing others to take the fall for his decisions. He prefers to hover above the sausage-making and feign innocence when all goes wrong. His lack of leadership experience comes though loud and clear.

We, as a nation, and those who suffered personal losses of family and friends that day on 9/11/01 deserve much better.

Sphere: Related Content

Texas Federation of Republican Women 2009 Convention

Texas Federation of Republican Women held the 27th Biennial convention in Galveston last weekend. More than 700 women came together at the Galveston Island Convention Center. The weather was sunny and pleasant and only added to the experience.

An election cycle is approaching and every recognizable name in Texas politics, whether on the local, state or federal level, had a presence.

The opening session brought speeches by Debra Medina and current Texas Governor Rick Perry, both now running for the Republican nomination in the primary. State Senator Dan Patrick spoke and volunteered to travel to any spot in the state, at his own expense, to speak to Republican Women's clubs. Dr. Robin Armstrong, Vice Chair of the Republican Party of Texas, spoke about the issues in Congress now. As a black physician with a young family and a busy career, he had a perspective to offer on health care reform and the effects it will have on families in Texas, if the current House bill passes into law.

Friday evening, a reception was hosted by Lt Gov David Dewhurst. Also speaking again was Gov Rick Perry. State Sen Dan Patrick was working the crowd, as were candidates for judgeships and others.

Saturday's general session was opened with our speaker, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. She broke the news that she will not resign her senate seat until after the March primary. Her thinking is sound on this - she doesn't want to leave her seat to an appointed rookie senator who doesn't know the workings of the body. She has solid seniority on committees and leads the fight against the health care reform and cap and trade legislation. She is upholding her commitment to Texans in Washington and she is doing her job. A really nice touch was after her speech, upon exiting the room, she returned and stood in a receiving line to shake hands will all of the Republican club presidents as they were acknowledged. It was an unexpected gesture to those of us in the audience. She graciously stood for pictures and was accessible to everyone.

Lt Gov Dewhurst spoke, as did Susan Combs, Comptroller of Public Accounts of Texas, and Michael Williams, Railroad Commissioner of Texas. State Senator Joan Huffman spoke and so did Dick Weekley, Co-founder and Chairman of Texans for Lawsuit Reform.

The keynote address was given by Attorney General Greg Abbott at the awards luncheon. His twelve year old daughter introduced him.

Saturday afternoon was spent in workshops. I attended "Health Care Reform and What It Means to You", presented by Arlene Wohlgemuth, a Senior Fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation's Center for Health Care Policy. A former state representative, she also spoke about the politics of the reform - actually a power grab that will not truly bring reforms or lower costs.

My second workshop was "Beating the Dems at Their Own Game: Using Education and Social Media", presented by Eric Golub. Golub is a Brooklyn born, Long Island raised Republican Jew living now in Los Angeles. He is the author of "Ideological Bigotry" and was selling his book, too. A career stock broker, received an MBA from USC and he blogs. His presentation is filled with humor, as his philosophy is that it is the best tool to win over an audience. He promotes disagreement without personal attacks.

The award banquet Saturday night brought a speech from State Senator Florence Shapiro, running in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate (as is Michael Williams) and the keynote address was by actress and author, Janine Turner.

Sunday's closing session was filled with speakers Senator John Cornyn, U.S. Representatives Michael McCaul and Pete Olson, Texas Rep Larry Taylor, and Ted Cruz, former Solicitor General of Tx and current candidate for Attorney General of Texas. Cruz made a commitment to support the re-election of current Attorney General Greg Abbott should Senator Hutchison not resign from the Senate.

While shopping in the vendor's hall, I purchased a button stating, "I think, therefore I vote Republican." Camaraderie from a range of Republicans from across the state was inspiring. Republican women in Texas are working hard to keep Texas a red state and motivated by the current atmosphere ripe for a new Republican comeback wave.

Sphere: Related Content

Senator Hutchison's Veteran's Day Message

For Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison's web page displaying some links to her work on behalf of our Texas veterans : http://texans.forkay.com/pages/veterans .

Her campaign released this Veteran's Day statement:

“Veterans Day is a day we set aside as a nation to honor those who have served their nation in war and peace. It is a day to reflect on the deeds of these heroes and stand united in gratitude for their service and sacrifice. We also take this opportunity to honor the enduring service of our active soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen. This year, our recognition of veterans and troops is tinged with pain as we mourn the tragic loss of life and injuries of some of our bravest at Fort Hood on November 5. Their ultimate sacrifice reminds us of how much we owe our men and women in uniform.

“Ours is a great nation of free people, and this legacy has endured because, throughout our history, our finest men and women have stood guard and protected the liberty that all Americans enjoy. In peacetime or during conflict, at home or abroad, their service has been characterized by selflessness and a sense of greater purpose. Throughout our history, our nation’s veterans have answered the call, and they have served with dignity and honor.”

Senator Hutchison has been a stalwart advocate for our military and military veterans in Washington, D.C.

Sphere: Related Content

Freedom of Speech In Politics Is Not Pretty

Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Michael Steele released the following statement today:

“Since the founding of our nation, generations of brave Americans have answered the call to service. On this Veterans Day the Republican National Committee pauses to extend our heartfelt gratitude for their brave and valiant service in... Read More our Armed Forces. We honor them for their extraordinary sacrifice in defense of our country. Today I join all Americans in expressing my heartfelt gratitude to our veterans for preserving the freedoms we hold dear.”

One sacred freedom we Americans cherish is our freedom of speech. Our freedom of speech, our First Amendment right, is a part of living in a free country. All speech, nasty or pleasant, is protected. Take, for instance, speech involved in political talk. Have you noticed a continuance of the nasty language used in political settings lately?

We all endured eight years of constant Bush Derangement Syndrome - the continual personal and political bashing of every aspect of George W. Bush's very existance. Conveniently, current Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, has forgotten the daily utterances that President Bush equalled Hitler - even the name calling of "Bushitler". The language could not devolve far enough for some of the far left in our country. They were emboldened, some say, by the years of criticism of former President Clinton, and so on. Year after year it escalates.

Now, we are at the point of civil discourse where the President of the United States uses a sexual slur, a sexual term used in the gay community, as he describes the participants within the Tea Party movement. By doing so, President Obama strengthens the criticism that he is a man without grace in his personal speech. When he is speaking off the cuff, he is not a well-spoken leader. He comes off as just another political hack. He is not dignified in his personal conduct when the teleprompter is not rolling.

According to a blog post written by Kathryn Jean Lopez for the Corner at National Review "According to Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, who supports the health care bill, the president asked, "Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down health care? All it will do is confuse and dispirit" Democratic voters "and encourage the extremists." Tea bag people. Extremists. All this spoken at a closed door, private pep talk to Democrats before the vote on health insurance reform last Saturday during Obama's visit to Capitol Hill - the sole purpose to twist arms of Democrats for the votes.

Then, former President Bill Clinton, not to be outdone, visited Democrats in the Senate to demand they vote for the legislation - "Just pass the bill, even if it's not exactly what you want." When you try and fail, the other guys write history." Senator Whitehouse (D-RI) said "The reason the tea-baggers are so inflamed is because we are winning." Teabaggers. That's the term.

It doesn't matter that the bill is being rushed through without due diligence. It doesn't matter that it is the worst piece of legislation ever written, according to The Wall Street Journal. It doesn't matter that it is not as advertised by the Democrats. It is all about the politics, not the benefits to Americans. It is all about Barack Obama, his legacy, and the power grab for the Democratic party.

It is all about a permanent Democratic majority in Congress.

Never mind the people don't want it.

Sphere: Related Content

Domestic Terror Within Our Own Country - Ft Hood

I only heard the very end of President Obama's address to the ceremony today at Fort Hood, the memorial service for the victims of the shootings of last week. In fairness to a President for whom I have very little respect or accolades, I must say he did a respectable job. He seemed to be honestly trying to offer comfort to the families and the victims present.

President Obama was able to make the distinction between the enlisted Muslims and the "twisted" Muslim ideologue who killed his fellow soldiers and a civilian. "No faith justifies murderous and craven acts."

The glaringly obvious fact in all of this press coverage is the fact that no one in the military or in elected office, except for a precious few, is able to utter the truth - this was an act of terrorism and as more facts emerge, this is a Muslim member of our military hell bent on jihad. This was a domestic act of terrorism. Period.

Senator Lieberman was the only politician brave enough to point to the obvious on the Sunday morning talk shows. He named this tragedy for what it is - a Muslim blinded by his own extreme ideology, committed to not carrying out his impending deployment overseas and voicing his distress over America being at war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This was no starry-eyed kid. This is a 39 year old man who is being handled with kid gloves solely because of his religion. How is that any more justifiable than the people who arrived at the correct conclusion - that his crime was committed because of his religious beliefs?

Evan Thomas of Newsweek says he "cringed that he (the shooter) is a Muslim" and that it would inflame the "right-wing". So much for journalistic professionalism. It is standard knee-jerk response of the left in this country to go to the stereotype of those on the right side of the political aisle. To the left, conservatives are all knuckle dragging hillbillies without educations or common sense. The knuckle draggers will go berserk and take matters into their own hands. Only the left elites would continue to coddle those most in need of help and intervention.

And, blame ordinary Americans, not the criminal.

President Obama, as candidate Obama, went out of his way to tell Muslim voters that he would always "stand with you" in the event of any backlash within the community. President Bush was the same way. After the attacks of 9/11/01, he went out of his way to embrace Muslims, which is so conveniently forgotten by the left. The left truly believes they have the market on compassion.

The disturbing part of the whole event also points to the coldness in the President's personality. He has a stony lack of empathy that is expressed in speeches. Immediately after the tragic event at Fort Hood, Obama was speaking at the Department of Interior to a group of Native Americans. He began his speech with a full two minutes of banter with the audience, even giving a "shout out" to a member of the audience. It was surreal. Instead of immediately opening with comments about the shootings, he chose to be Mister campaigner-in-chief. It was undignified and offensive.

It is a relief to be able to compliment President Obama on his words delivered today. He is not a warm man. He had his ever present teleprompter. After eight years of the emotions of George W. Bush, it is a stark contrast. Obama is not smooth or sophisticated in his off the cuff remarks.

The first sentences out of the mouths of elected officials and military officers was the plea that no one jump to any conclusions. All the touchy-feely elites were too busy giving cover to the fact that this was brought on by a different kind of extremist - not the 'right wing' conservative Republican. Apparently there are good extremists and bad extremists and those on television interviews get to choose sides.

David Brooks writes in The New York Times, "The conversation in the first few days after the massacre was well intentioned, but it suggested a willful flight from reality. It ignored the fact that the war narrative of the struggle against Islam is the central feature of American foreign policy. It ignored the fact that this narrative can be embraced by a self-radicalizing individual in the U.S. as much as by groups in Tehran, Gaza or Kandahar. If denied, before the evidence was in, the possibility of evil. It sought to reduce a heinous act to social maladjustment. It wasn't the reaction of a morally or politically serious nation."

General Casey said on a Sunday show, "You know there's been a lot of speculation going on, and probably the curiosity is a good thing, but we have to be careful, because we can't jump to conclusions no based on little snippets of information that come out." Jump to conclusions? It's called connecting the dots, General Casey. And, there is plenty of evidence growing that the Army superiors of the murderer chose to turn their collective heads away when folks like Army doctor Val Finnell alerted higher-ups about the murderer's anti-American rants.

Dorothy Rabinowitz wrote a thoughtful piece for The Wall Street Journal: "What is hard to ignore, now, is the growing derangement on all matters involving terrorism and Muslim sensitivities. Its chief symptoms: a palpitating fear of discomfiting facts and a willingness to discard those facts and embrace the richest possible variety of ludicrous theories as to the motives behind an act of Islamic terrorism. All this we have seen before but never in such naked form. The days following the Fort Hood rampage have told us more than we want to know, perhaps, about the depth and reach of this epidemic."

Rabinowitz points to another quote from General Casey: "This terrible event would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty." Stunning.

This attitude is what silences people, people who witness suspicious looking behavior, or hear utterances that are disturbing. We are no better off in this aspect than we were before 9/11/01. Political correctness tied the hands of our military and the unbelievable event of mass murder by a U.S. soldier - a trained psychiatrist who didn't see deployment himself - on the largest military installation in the world. The mass murder that was the worst domestic terror attack on our soil since 9/11/01 happened right before their eyes. This guy wasn't even the usual "gosh, he was so quiet" type who shocks others with an unexpected attack on others. This guy ranted about attacks on fellow Muslims, about the wars being fought overseas, about perceived harassment because of his faith. He hired a lawyer and was trying to be discharged. Red flags, anyone?

We Americans don't want to believe the ever increasing threats on our country right here in our everyday life. The Bush administration was successful for seven years in keeping us safe at home, for breaking up developing plots at home. The tide has turned. Will we allow our current leaders to do anything short of the same?

Sphere: Related Content

After the Berlin Wall - 20 Years Later

"General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" --Ronald Reagan

Today marks the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. From then until today, a political debate runs between those who credit President Ronald Reagan with bringing about that fall and those who cannot remove ideological blinders. Regardless of which political party you call home, today Reagan is mostly given the credit he is due. Twenty years of reflection can do that to a nation.

In an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal by Anthony Dolan today, he wrote, "Reagan had the carefully arrived at view that criminal regimes were different, that their whole way of looking at the world was inverted, that they saw acts of conciliation as weakness, and that rather than making nice in return they felt an inner compulsion to exploit this perceived weakness by engaging in more acts of aggression. All this confirmed the criminal mind's abiding conviction in its own omniscience and sovereignty, and its right to rule and victimize others."

Dolan was chief speechwriter for President Reagan for eight years.

At the time, a debate raged from the White House to the State Department, between those wanting the line "tear down this wall" in the Reagan speech and those that thought it went too far. Those brave enough to speak the truth are encouraged to not delve into good versus evil, right versus wrong. We still are in the midst of such arguments. President George W. Bush outraged the left with his axis of evil and President Obama outrages the right with his talk of appeasing brutal dictators with direct talks.

Reagan used the line.

On the night of November 9, 1989 I was watching the events on television, as were most of this nation. A proud member of the Baby Boom generation, I grew up with a constant reference to a cold war between our nation and the Soviet Union. My only child was born in September 1989 and I couldn't help but think of what a completely different world my son would be growing up in. He would not know of Civil Defense drills and bomb shelters.

Remember the line used by President George W. Bush - "the soft bigotry of low expectations"? Some of that was evident within the thoughts of the Cold War, too. Just two years before the fall of the Berlin Wall, CBS newsman Dan Rather said, "Despite what many Americans think, most Soviets do not yearn for capitalism or Western-style democracy." That quote was used in a different piece in today's Wall Street Journal. It shows a tendency of the far left to be on the wrong side of history, in foreign affairs. True, many Soviets suffered terribly once the Soviet Union became Russia and more personal freedoms arrived. Going from a life completely state-run to making your own way in life is a mind boggling concept.

Today former President George H.W. Bush and Barbara are in Berlin for the anniversary celebrations. Former Secretary of State James Baker is there, too. European leaders all have converged on Berlin to celebrate and show a gesture of friendship with current German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Except for President Obama, the free world nations are well represented. Obama sent Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and provided a congratulatory video to be shown. For many of us, the fact that our current President didn't bother to attend the celebration is embarrassing. And, that he used a video in which he does his riff on 'who'd of thought there would be an American president of African descent' is especially troubling. This is not the time for classic Obama narcissism.

The collapse of Soviet communism was monumental in scope for the people of eastern Europe. The fall of the Berlin Wall changed our world.

Sphere: Related Content

Health Insurance Passes In The House

By a vote of 220 - 215, a $1 trillion bill passed in the House of Representatives just before midnight CST. The bill will be substantially changed after a Senate vote and conference reconciliation, but it is a victory for President Obama and the Democrat leadership in the House.

Elections have consequences. This is a bill written and pushed through without transparency as has been promised for over a year by the Democrats. The days of expecting Democrats to live up to their pledge to put legislation online for all to read for 72 hours before a vote are long gone. I doubt even President Obama knows the details in this legislation. He left it all up to Congress, as is his way.

This is a bill that will not decrease insurance premiums, as touted by the proponents. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) came to the conclusion, while 'scoring' the bill's costs, that premiums will rise as will the deficit. Fines and fees will be abundant. The cost is guesstimated at $1.052 trillion, greater than what is being claimed by the Democrats. It is a bill described by The Wall Street Journal as the "worst bill ever" because it is so poorly written.

There is no tort reform in this bill. Even Howard Dean said this is not true reform without tort reform. As a physician he supports tort reform and the discontinuing of trial lawyers becoming wealthy on the backs of practicing physicians. It was ironic to watch House Democrats on the floor chastising insurance companies as the enemy of all, even though it is exactly through payment from insurance companies after trials that these lawyers became wealthy. Irony was rampant throughout the debate.

There were great leaps of logic during the hours of heated debate. There was a time when cancer was placed in the same category as an unwanted pregnancy. Babies and young children were paraded before the audience as props for whichever side was speaking. Wheeling and dealing from the White House was evident all the way up to voting time.

Much rode on this passage, especially for President Obama. His standard line to guilt members into voting is that if health insurance reform isn't passed, his presidency is in jeopardy. With a narcissist in the Oval Office, it is common knowledge that every action is all about him. He released a written statement from Camp David after the vote was taken.

The run up to the final vote included a vote on a GOP alternative - one that was much less wordy than the 2,000 page Democrat bill - and included tort reform, buying insurance across state lines, Medicare reform, and other more effective common sense solutions. It was voted down on a party line vote.

An amendment stating that no federal funds be used for payment of abortions passed. This freed up Blue Dog Democrats to vote for the final bill. It also freed up the lone Republican voting for the final bill. Rep. Joseph Cao was of the last to vote and he cast his with those voting in favor of it.

Why did Cao vote for the bill? Let's remember which district he represents. He took office as the successor of William "Dollar Bill" Jefferson - the corrupt, convicted Democrat from New Orleans who was caught with a freezer full of money. He brought new meaning to the expression "hard, cold cash". The District is 75% Democrat and Cao was lobbied hard by the White House. He has been promised all kinds of future goodies for his District, still recovering from Hurricane Katrina due to the corruption already in place there.

Cao had only one objection to the House bill that he repeatedly voiced - the refusal to vote in support of the final bill if federal monies were allowed for abortion services. That was eliminated in the Stupak amendment. Cao agreed to cast his vote after the 218 threshold was met of yes votes. He abided by his word - he voted on a bill that didn't include money for abortions and he waited to vote as one of the last three votes. He quickly left the House floor after voting and didn't stop to answer questions from the press. He later issued a statement: "Today, I obtained a commitment form President Obama that he and I will work together to address the critical health care issues of Louisiana including the FMAP crisis and community disaster loan forgiveness, as well as issues related to Charity and Methodist Hospitals."

No Democrat in leadership has guaranteed the amendment concerning abortion funding will survive in the reconciliation process. It would be a surprise if it did. It will be interesting to observe the response from Cao if and when it is abandoned in the legislation signed into law by the President. Many pro-choice women do not support federal funding of abortion, myself included.

No doubt Rep. Cao will feel the wrath of conservatives from both sides of the aisle. Thirty-nine Blue Dog Democrats voted against the final bill. Cao is said to have been deeply conflicted as he decided on his vote. His primary objection was resolved and he was promised additional support for his district. His District is 75% Democrat and he is a conservative Republican. He will probably not be re-elected but he appears to have responded with what he thought was best for the district.

Elections have consequences. One party rule in Washington - regardless of which party - is not good for legislation. This bill is a shining example of that.

Sphere: Related Content