Is it just me?

Just when you thought that the critics of the Administration couldn't possibly sink any lower, comes this.

In reaction to the selection of John Roberts to the Supreme Court come these intelligent reactions. John Roberts is "obviously" gay because he a)went to a boys boarding school where he studied Latin, participated in drama and choir and (gasp) was a wrestler! Plus he wore plaid pants as a teen in the '60s (didn't we all I hate to admit) and if that weren't damning enough, his children are adopted! He is unacceptable because his wife has "strong" opinions on abortion and she dressed the kids "funny" for the press announcement.

This is all coming out of the same faction of the Democratic Party that thought that "outing" Mary Cheney during the campaign would somehow "hurt" the President. However, aren't these the same people who demand that we accept gays when it comes to issues such as gay marriage?

When did it become ok to attack the families of candidates and appointees? Has the "loyal opposition" sunk so low that they are fine with this? Do they realize what they are opening themselves up to when it is their turn to appoint judges? Do they really want to go down this road?

Saddam/al Qaeda links

I have not seen this getting much coverage so I think I will chime in.

The Weekly Standard has recently run a couple of really good stories summing up the overwhelming preponderance of evidence of the links between Saddam and al Qaeda that were run in the MSM during the Clinton administration. The author, Mr. Stephen Hayes, has related in this series of articles just how cozy Osama and Saddam were in the days leading up to 9/11 and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Vanity Fair columnist Christopher Hitchens, in a recent appearance on MSNBC's Connected program, schooled host Ron Reagan on the numerous connections between Saddam and terrorists like Abu Nidal. Claudia Rosette (of UN Oil-For-Food fame) reminds us in a recent Wall Street Journal column that, thanks to unprecedented access to the regimes files (I guess Saddam was a worse paperwork pack-rat than I am and that takes a lot of doing), we are just beginning to see how deeply intertwined the two (OBL and Saddam) really were.

You can read Mr. Hayes' articles here and here. In addition, the Standard has this enlightening article from Mr. Dan Darling.

When you sift through the gathered research, a large portion coming from European MSM sources (like Le Mond of all places) a logical person can not help but wonder why the willfull blindness of the alphabet soup media (ABC, CBS, MSNBC et al) to the facts. Some of the same sources that today loudly proclaim that there were "NO CONNECTIONS" between Saddam and al Qaeda are the same ones that 10 years ago were forwarning us that Saddam and bin Laden were indeed working together toward the same goal - the destruction of America - the Great Satan.

Reagan's 9 fearful words-revisited

Ronald Reagan said the nine most terrifying words anyone can hear are "I'm from the government and I'm hear to help." I'd like to amend that to "I'm from the government and you can trust me." The TSA (Transportation Security Administration) which is one of the biggest wastes of time and money, decided to illegally gather information on us, Stasi style (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050723/D8BGR5L80.html ) . Now, TSA is the Keystone Cops of security ( www.reason.com/0402/fe.jb.dominate.shtml ) . Even my commercial pilot friends say that we are no safer now than we were 9-11-01.
Don't ever trust anyone from the government. Ever!

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."
-George Washington

MSM AWOL! And why they have no credibility.

I just sent this email off to a friend of mine (I got the link from another friend):

Reeve-

You had a friend at Jeremy’s party who was opposed to the Iraqi war. I had mentioned an article on Fox called “What We’ve Accomplished”. He had never heard of any of what we’d accomplished in Iraq from that article and asked me why he hadn’t heard any of this. I returned the question to him.

Please send the following to him.

The bold italicized emphasis is mine.

From Powerline:

July 22, 2005

Iraqis Stand Against Terrorism

Haider Ajina sends us this translation of an article in yesterday's Kululiraq, an Iraqi newspaper:

Iraqis stood for three minutes of silence yesterday in commemoration of the lives lost in the two attacks in Baghdad Aljadedah and Almusaiyab, which claimed 105 martyrs, 32 of whom were children, and 128 wounded of whom 31 were children.

Traffic of thousand of cars stopped in the Allawi & Tahrier area (central Baghdad) as children (from “Baghdad Aljadedah” area) entered “Tahrier” square (with some of the wounded children) carrying Iraqi flags and displaying victory signs in defiance of the terrorists. These children also stood silent for three minutes to commemorate their relatives and friends who died in the homicide bombing attack last week.

Iraqi Prime Minister Dr. Ibrahiem Aljaafary said in a speech regarding this incident: “We will not sway from our path and we will not kneel to those who commit these crimes.” He added, ”We are confident that all nations of this world stand beside us, because to day terrorism does not only affect us Iraqis but the whole world. We Iraqis have the honor of being in the front line in the fight against terrorism."

Haider comments:

Tens of thousands of Iraqis stood silent for three minutes in over 130 Fahrenheit heat to commemorate victims of terror and in a sign of unified defiance of terrorism and I have not seen a single report on this. I waited all day Wednesday and all day today and nothing. The news reported the small anti America demonstration by Alsadar and some Baathists in April but some how missed the whole Iraqi nation standing still in defiance of terrorism.

When was the last time you heard an Arab leader say that his nation was honored to be in the front lines fighting terrorism?

Good question. The terrorists know that Iraq is the front line in the battle against terrorism; the Iraqis agree. Now if only we could convince the Democrats.

Posted by John at 01:53 PM | Permalink

What would NOW say?

The London Telegraph reports that by 2020 there will be 23,000,000 Chinese men that will be unable to find wives as Chinese parents regularly abort unborn female babies ( news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/22/wchina22.xml ).
So, we have "choice" going on, and I wonder what the National Organization of Women would say about this exercise of "choice"?

Of course,the governor still knows best.

Proving again that he's a REAL, not a fake, conservative, Governor Pawlenty is in Washington urging Congress to up ethanol standards ( www.startribune.com/stories/587/5518990.html ) . After all, there is no ethanol market without the government mandating it. He also ignores the fact that ethanol is a horrible fuel for combustion engines, costs much more than petroleum, and is a disaster that requires the government to force us to use it after it forces us to subsidize it.
"This doesn't just benefit farmers,'' he said. "It's good for rural and economic development. It's good environmental policy, and it's good national security policy.'' And who would know better than a guy who can't wait to get to the other side of the Potomac? But, of course, this flies in the face of facts ( www.taxpayersleague.org/issues/legislative_issues_2005.php and scroll down to Ethanol Mandates and Subsidies. The study by Pimentel at Cornell calls ethanol "subsidized food burning" www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/01/8.23.01/Pimentel-ethanol.html ) And yet the Governor goes merrily along extolling ethanol. And always remember, it was state government that brought you the final and fully convincing reason that they should never ever be trusted with decisions involving business: Excelsior-Henderson Motorcycle Company ( http://minneapolisfed.org/pubs/fedgaz/00-01/opinion.cfm .As you read the article, keep substituting "Twins Stadium") .
Crimeny Governor, haven't you done enough damage to your Republican credentials yet?

And we're still waiting.

John Roberts...who? I'm still not convinced. I agree with Ann Coulter in her special column today titled "Souter in Roberts Clothing" ( www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi ).
Here is someone who has a few cases under his belt. And not much else. I also agree with Ann that as we are being told to "trust Roberts" we were also told that we could trust Souter.
Ann goes on to say " If the Senate were in Democrat hands, Roberts would be perfect. But why on earth would Bush waste a nomination on a person who is a complete blank slate when we have a majority in the Senate!
We also have a majority in the House, state legislatures, state governorships, and have won five of the last seven presidential elections ,— seven of the last ten! We're the Harlem Globetrotters now - why do we have to play the Washington Generals every week? Conservatism is sweeping the nation, we have a fully functioning alternative media, we'’re ticked off and ready to avenge Robert Bork . . . and Bush nominates a Rorschach blot. ."
Even Fred Barnes, last night on Fox News Special Report, said that Roberts is NOT a Scalia or Thomas type justice (as Bush promised us during the election) but rather closer to Rehnquist.
Ann finishes her column with " The Democrats’ own polls showed voters are no longer fooled by claims that the Democrats are trying to block “judges who would roll back civil rights.” Borking is over. And Bush responds by nominating a candidate who will allow Democrats to avoid fighting on their weakest ground - substance. He has given us a Supreme Court nomination that will placate no liberals and should please no conservatives. Maybe Roberts will contravene the sordid history of “stealth nominees and be the Scalia or Thomas Bush promised us when he was asking for our votes. Or maybe he won'’t. The Supreme Court shouldn't be a game of Russian roulette."
I'm going to find out what Robert Bork and Andrew Napolitano have to say on this one.
I trust them.

And while we wait...

And so we hear that we are days,perhaps hours away from a Supreme Court nominee. I came across this from the Joseph Sobran archives of May, 2000:

"Those of us who urge conservatives to leave the
Republican Party are often charged with ensuring the election
of Al Gore and especially with helping see to it that Gore
will name the next few Supreme Court justices. But recent
Republican nominees to the Court -- Souter, Kennedy, and
O'Connor -- have saved Roe v. Wade; worse yet, Republicans in
the Senate have voted overwhelmingly to confirm Clinton's
nominees, Ginzburg and Breyer, and would no doubt do the same
for Gore's picks. Both parties show approximately equal
respect for constitutional law. That is, approximately none.
Put otherwise, both parties -- and both candidates -- would
support a continuation of lawless government. A moment of
peace and prosperity is the ideal time to build a new party."
And I reflect on this leaving the Republican Party  when we have a "conservative" governor who
supports spending still more, not eliminating a single program or giving a tax cut in the face of rising revenues,
talks about what a good idea it is that only Hennepin County  pay for a stadium for billionaires
so millionaires can play baseball and then is stunned that there's wrinkle called  a "referendum" that would
kill the stadium deal (note to the Guv: Trust me, if there is a referendum on the stadium  in Hennepin county,
there ain't no deal to kill as there won't be a stadium. Get it?)
Any how, just a few thoughts as we wait. 

And Congressman, there's a cell with your name on it too

I started writing this the day I heard Bernie Ebbers (of WorldCom fame) was sentenced to 25 years in prison. Now, it's well proven that he was the head of an organization that perpetrated the largest private financial fraud in U.S. history. What he and WorldCom did was use liabilities as assets to improve the financial picture of WorldCom. And the resultant fraud collapsed WorldCom. Amount? About $11,000,000,000. Now, if any of you know how Social Security is truly run, that is exactly how monies from you to "fund" the trust fund are used.
The Social Security Administration lends its "contributions" (FICA [aka Social Security] on your paycheck stands for Federal Insurance Contributions Act) to the U.S. Treasury, which then includes them in the General Fund as assets. And they are then spent (see below). This is the same as you or me getting a $1,000,000 loan from the bank, putting it in our savings account, which we then spend, and then go around telling everyone that we're millionaires. Uh, no, we OWE $1,000,000. We are in DEBT $1,000,000. And yet, the Treasury and Congress and the President have been doing this for over 40 years. To the tune of trillions (not mere billions) of dollars.
So, when I saw the WorldCom executives being led out of their offices in handcuffs (picture above), I thought : "Are the Feds on their way to Congress to arrest all the Congress?"
A multi-trillion dollar fraud. And they keep being elected.

"Do you know where your Social Security taxes are? Some of them went to pay for the National Cowgirl Hall of Fame and Museum in Fort Worth, Texas. The same monies helped the State Historical Society of Iowa in Des Moines pay for the development of exhibits for the World Food Prize. And we should all be happy that some of our Social Security surplus funded a study of mariachi music for the Clark County (Nevada) School District. As we know by now, Social Security is facing many problems that will require long-term, comprehensive reform. But before a doctor operates on a patient, the first step is to stop the bleeding. And the first step toward Social Security reform should be to stop Congress from spending Social Security money on anything except workers' retirement." --Michael Tanner
However, the only real reform is to end Social Security (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42013 )(which by the way, is unconstitutional) so the people in Washington can not fool with it. At all.

If I turn blue...

I've written my Congressman, John Kline. I've written Senator Coleman. I've heard back from both.
I urged them both, if they have the ear of the President, to urge him to nominate a Supreme Court candidate in the mold of Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas. I wrote the Senator and Congressman that we worked hard to win Minnesota for the President. That we worked for him as we believed him when he campaigned against judicial activism. When he campaigned for a Senate that would pass his judicial nominees. That he wanted justices in the form of a Scalia or Thomas. But, that was then.
Now, I hear the President say, regarding a Supreme appointment that he intends to appoint a "fair-minded individual who represents the mainstream of American law and American values." Now, I get real nervous whenever I hear the terms "fair" and "mainstream" in regards to an appointee.
I'm holding my breath on this appointee (remembering his Dad appointed David Souter).
By the way,having turned red, not blue, I've already exhaled on Tim Pawlenty.

IF a crime was indeed committed (Valerie Plame part II)

IF a crime was indeed committed (in the outing of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative) it is becoming more and more likely that Karl Rove was not the perpetrator. From the same Washington Times article that I referred to below (and linked here) it is reported that Mrs Wilson had not been on a covert assignment since her transfer to DC.

"She made no bones about the fact that she was an agency employee and her husband was a diplomat," Fred Rustmann, a covert agent from 1966 to 1990, told The Washington Times. "

This Mr. Rustmann was Mrs. Wilson's supervisor in her early career. He also reiterated that it was common knowledge that Mrs. Wilson was employed by the Agency at it's Langley VA headquarters.

"Her neighbors knew this, her friends knew this, his friends knew this. A lot of blame could be put on to central cover staff and the agency because they weren't minding the store here. ... The agency never changed her cover status."

And over at the National Review, Clifford May suggests that the person who is responsible for "outing" Mrs. Wilson may have been her own husband. In an interview with David Corn (for the Nation) Mr. Wilson first raises the idea that his wife was "outed" as revenge for his speaking out against the Bush Administration, however, if you go back and read the Robert Novak column (that sparked the investigation to begin with) you will see that not once does Mr. Novak refer to Mrs. Wilson as an "undercover"operative.

Every day, new information is coming out on this case. Therefore, I think it is wise that we (in the words of the White House) wait until the grand jury has finished their investigation before we put anyone in jail.

THIS is the "world's greatest deliberative body"?

From today's Washington Post comes this little gem about a floor fight on whether or not to strip Karl Rove, Harry Reid and Dick Durban of their respective security clearances. The Republicans who proposed that Senators Reid and Durban be stripped of their security clearances (Reid for revealing on the Senate floor the contents of a classified CIA document on a Bush nominee and Durban for his abject stupidity in comparing US troops to Nazi's and Stalinists) have a certain point, the fact that this was even debated on the floor is a travesty! Don't our Senators have anything better to do, like passing a budget or voting on Presidential appointees? Don't the American people deserve a break from the partisan insanity? Come on people. You are supposed to be adults. Why don't you act the part?

Brutus and the Court

I read Joseph Sobran's column from Drudge. I don't always agree with him but I do much more often than not.
His recent column takes us from the Supreme Court vacancy, the Supremes decisions, and how we've arrived at a nation that the Founders would find absolutely foreign.
I've taken the liberty of posting it here in it's entirety (Brutus is the pseudonym from the Anti-Federalists.They were a group of men concerned about powers being given over to a central government and what they perceived as weaknesses in the Constitution. The Supreme Court was one. And the Anti-Federalists concerns were quite well founded):

BRUTUS AND THE COURT
June 30, 2005

by Joe Sobran

The U.S. Supreme Court has lately reminded us, in its decisions about government seizures of private property and about displays of the Ten Commandments, that it wields enormous powers that (1) are not found in the U.S. Constitution, and (2) may be abused with impunity. It’s high time we reopened the old controversy about judicial review.

Many controversies end prematurely not because one side is necessarily right, but because it wins elections, or a war, or just manages to get its view established as conventional wisdom. Eventually, people just stop debating very debatable things, and judicial review is one of these.

The argument over secession ended when the North won the Civil War; the argument over the New Deal ended because its programs were too popular to resist; Pearl Harbor suddenly put a stop to the debate over whether the United States should get involved in World War II. Yet the losers in these issues had strong points that were never adequately answered.

In the same way, mere custom has settled the debate over judicial review. Nearly all Americans have long taken for granted that the U.S. Supreme Court has a virtual veto over all legislation, Federal, state, and local. The Court has been claiming and exercising this power for nearly two centuries, and few Americans see anything questionable about it.

This means that one branch of government, unelected, unaccountable to the people, and appointed for life, may, at its whim, effectively change the meaning of the U.S. Constitution. The president can veto any act of Congress, and Congress may override his veto; but neither of the other branches has a similar control over the Court’s rulings, however wrong or even downright batty they may be.

The concept of “checks and balances,” parroted in civics classes, doesn’t apply to the Supreme Court. The justices are appointed for life “during good behavior,” and once appointed they are out of control. Furthermore, most of the laws they strike down are state laws, not Federal ones, and the state legislatures have no defense against them. So much for “checks and balances.”

The Court is often accused of “legislating from the bench”; but the power to edit the Constitution itself is far, far beyond any legislative power. In order to correct the Court’s mistakes, under the current system, it’s necessary to undertake the huge effort of adding amendments to the Constitution (or hoping that as the current justices die or retire, they may be succeeded by others who will reverse their decisions—slim chance of that!).

The power to strike down laws isn’t mentioned, or even hinted at, in the Constitution. The Court’s few powers are set forth in a couple of paragraphs. Judicial review isn’t among them.

So where did this sweeping power come from? In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton, after assuring readers that the Supreme Court would be the “weakest” and “least dangerous” of the three branches, argued that it must necessarily have the power to nullify acts of Congress that violate the Constitution. This view has prevailed, but Hamilton didn’t face the problems that might arise if such a power were abused.

Others did, though. The pseudonymous “Brutus,” arguing against ratification of the Constitution, saw the danger of the judiciary very precisely and presciently: the justices’ power would be “altogether unprecedented in a free country. They are to be rendered totally independent, both of the people and the legislature, both with respect to their offices and salaries. No errors they may commit can be corrected by any power above them, if any such power there be, nor can they be removed from office for making ever so many erroneous adjudications.”

Brutus further warned that the Federal judiciary might overpower state courts and legislatures. And he saw nothing to prevent the Supreme Court from expanding its own power.

All Brutus’s dire prophecies have been fulfilled. Yet his arguments have never been refuted. Today we are paying the price for ignoring them.

The Court is out of control, and the only solution conservatives can think of is to appoint more conservatives, who will use their power with restraint. But that power itself is the problem. Giving it to “better” justices won’t solve it.

What will? Only, perhaps, a serious threat of impeachment would make the Court think twice before abusing its power. But this raises further problems, which I’ll address in a future column.

Read this column on-line at

“http://www.sobran.com/columns/2005/050630.shtml”.

Copyright © 2005 by the Griffin Internet Syndicate, www.griffnews.com. This column may not be published in print or Internet publications without express permission of Griffin Internet Syndicate. You may forward it to interested individuals if you use this entire page, including the following disclaimer:

“SOBRAN’S and Joe Sobran’s columns are available by subscription. For details and samples, see http://www.sobran.com/e-mail.shtml, write PR@griffnews.com, or call 800-513-5053.”

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Was there are crime committed here?

OK - there has been much said in recent days about Karl Rove's supposed "outing" of Valerie Plame (as an undercover CIA operative). However as the USA Today reports, according to Joseph Wilson (the aggreived husband) Ms. Plame had not been working as a covery operative for quite some time. From the article:

"In The Politics of Truth, former ambassador Joseph Wilson writes that he and his future wife both returned from overseas assignments in June 1997. Neither spouse, a reading of the book indicates, was again stationed overseas. They appear to have remained in Washington, D.C., where they married and became parents of twins. "

Andrea Mitchell of NBC News, grudgingly admitted on one of the Sunday shows that it was well known (in DC cocktail circles) that Ms. Plame was CIA and that she and Mr. Wilson were married. Mr. Wilson, himself, admitted today (in an interview with Wolf Blitzer of CNN) that it was no secret that his wife was CIA.

All of which leads a reasonable person to ask, why all the fuss over what Karl Rove supposedly told Matt Cooper of Time Magazine. If it was "well known in DC circles" that Mrs Wilson was CIA and Mr. Wilson admits that she was not covert (how covert can you be working at CIA headquarters in Langley VA?) what harm was really done? Or could this possibly not be about Valerie Plame and Joseph Wilson. Could it possibly be yet another attempt, by our friends on the far left, to "get" President Bush?

I'm sorry, which party again?

So, according to the Prairie Pravda, the Governor touts K-12 in the recent budget?
"Pawlenty signed a K-12 funding bill he said is "the best the state has seen in 10 to 15 years.' "
Which party is the Governor from again?
See what happens when you refer to the gridlocking Metrocrat Senate obstructionists as "The Legislature".
And even Jason Lewis weighed in on how the state K-12 education was being starved at over $10,000 per student per year http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/5503334.html

Tax cuts lead to record revenue increases!

The AP is reporting (here) that surging revenue has lead to a $162 billion reduction in the deficit. "We're ahead of projections now," President Bush is quoted (in the article) as saying. What caused this surge in revenue, you might ask? The increase in revenue came from those "evil" corporations that don't pay their "fair share". It seems that those unfair "tax cuts for the rich" actually cause the rich to pay MORE in taxes this year, not less! Sigh....what is it going to take for our esteemed friends on the left to learn this simple truth!

India 59, America, ZERO!

I was listening to Bill Bennett this morning on AM1280 The Patriot and heard about an editorial in the NY Times. It was written by an Indian ex-pat (his parents moved to America in 1977). What was quoted was how, at 14, in India he was near the bottom of his class in mathematics. But when he arrived in America, much to his parents surprise, he was at the top of his American school class in math. Same for English. And shockingly, the same for American history, especially the American Revolution!
The specific paragraph:
"When I moved to Queens, in New York City, at the age of 14, I found myself, for the first time in my life, considered good at math. In Bombay, math was my worst subject, and I regularly found my place near the bottom of the class rankings in that rigorous subject. But in my American school, so low were their standards that I was - to my parents' disbelief - near the top of the class. It was the same in English and, unexpectedly, in American history, for my school in Bombay included a detailed study of the American Revolution. My American school curriculum had, of course, almost nothing on the subcontinent's freedom struggle. I was mercilessly bullied during the 1979-80 hostage crisis, because my classmates couldn't tell the difference between Iran and India. If I were now to move with my family to India, my children - who go to one of the best private schools in New York - would have to take remedial math and science courses to get into a good school in Bombay." ( www.nytimes.com/pages/opinion/text/index.html then "A Passage From India" [registration required]).
And as I wrote yesterday, MN education gets a huge spending boost.
And to achieve what?
Go to www.edwatch.org/ and get involved. This is something you really can do "for" the children ,not "to" the children.

What a winner - MN Care

I can't tell you how thrilled I am that MN Care is getting more money - ok I am being very sarcastic.....Let me tell you about my turn with MN Care.

Two years ago, during the height of the scandal driven telecom downturn, my husband lost his job with the local Bell Operating Company. No worries, we said - I still had my job with one of Ma Bell's comeptitors and as long as I have my job we have benefits. Well, last year I lost my job. I was downsized. The problem was my husband had still not been able to find a full time telecom job. Oh he was getting temporary and part time jobs, but nothing with benefits and my new job wasa 3/4 time working for one of those "evil" small business owners that makes over $200k a year. My new job was due to the extra money that he got due to those nasty Bush tax cuts (another rant for another day). However, he can not offer benefits. No worry we said - we are making enough to buy our own (or so we thought). Now my husband and I are both in good health, but due to family histories we are not the "prime" candidates so our rates were much higher than the sales rep quoted. After 6 months of scraping and barely making it, we decided to swallow our pride and apply for MN Care. There was one problem. In order to be eligible for MN Care, you had to have existing health insurance and if you can afford to buy your own insurance you obviously don't need MN Care!!!!! In other words, even though doing the responsible thing (having our own insurance) was bankrupting us, we could not get into this program for "those in need" because we were already buying our own insurance. HUH?????

Thankfully, due to God's grace and mercy my husband did get a new job in telecom with full benefits so we are ok but my close call with the bureaucracy was more than enough to get me to realize that these programs are nothing more than an employment project for the inept. MN Care needs to be cut drastically as it is not helping the citizens of Minnesota. I know from experience. Instead we need to work on bringing insurance rates down so that everyone can afford insurance. A key part of that is tort reform. Capping the amount of rewards that a jury can issue will help the insurance companies cut their costs. It will also help bring the costs of health care down by reducing hospitals costs and doctors costs and drug manufactures costs and...get the idea. If we help the medical industry reduce their costs of doing business, then our out of pocket costs for having insurance will go down making health care more affordable for all!

How it's supposed to be-

When we moved to the suburbs when I was 4, I remember going back to Minneapolis to visit Grandpa and Grandma. I remember on one visit looking south down Bryant Avenue from 24th Street and seeing that the elms on both sides made an arching tunnel across the street as far as I could see. And when I visited my grandparents over the years, I noticed the tunnel on all the city streets. And then Dutch Elm Disease struck. And the battle was on. But after much success, the battle waned until recently.
Today, I read this story www.startribune.com/stories/484/5499641.html . I noticed that this was true neighborhood activism. That the players went door to door to alert and inform their neighbors. They didn't go to the Feds. They didn't go to the state. They did it themselves. They did go to the Mpls. Park Board to encourage them to make a statement, but didn't hit them up for money.
Good for them for what they're doing and how they're doing it.
Now, if we could get people to stop stealing from their neighbors by force of law to promote state welfare and all attendant ills and go about true welfare reform through truly compassionate means...

You obviously don't give or care enough. (or the Reds have become Green)

In case you thought the G8 was a waste of the attendees time, and your money:
www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=7030