MERRY CHRISTMAS

A bright and happy Christmas to you!

Lift up yourselves to the great meaning of the day,

and dare to think of your humanity as something so sublimely precious that it

is worthy of being made an offering to God,

and then go out to the pleasures and duties of your life,

having been truly born anew into His Divinity,

as He was born into our humanity on Christmas Day.

Is Martha Coakley a Socialist?

Oh no, not the Socialist rant again! Sorry dear friends, but if the shoe fits....it must be a duck.

While Martha Coakley may not be a Socialist, she has certainly aligned herself with them by way of a group called Emily's List.

Before Miss Coakley was able to gain their support however she had to flip flop on her death penalty stance, because Emily's list will not support anyone who supports Capital Punishment.

Now who or exactly is Emily's list? To quote their own website they are "dedicated to building a progressive America by electing pro-choice Democratic women to office." They also have stated that their "immediate focus is to make sure President Obama has the strong Democratic majorities he needs to enact his progressive agenda."

So there you have it. Oh, and for those of you who don't know, "Progressive" is just a hipper way of saying "Communist".

House Leaders Order Furloughs for Staff

We wonder if Rep. Steve D'Amico will volunteer to take the five furlough days to help return to the taxpayers the $3000.00 plus raise that was "forced" onto him.
Story from the AP Nov 21, 2009:

House leaders are ordering their staff to take five furlough days, although lawmakers will not have to take them. House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo and minority leader Bradley Jones of North Reading said in a statement yesterday that furloughs for the 540 staff members will save the state $620,000. They also highlighted other recent cuts, including discontinuing reimbursement of Massachusetts bar fees and staff business cards, capping franking privileges, and reducing cleaning costs. But this week lawmakers rejected Governor Deval Patrick’s request for authority so he could cut both legislative and judicial budgets himself. The furloughs do not apply to the 160 House members because their salaries are set by constitutional amendment.

Republicans Second Shot at Redemption

"There exists a limit to the force even the most powerfull may apply without destroying themselves. Judging this limit is the true artistry of government. Misuse of power is the fatal sin. The law cannot be a tool of vengence, never a hostage, nor a fortification against the martyrs it has created. You cannot threaten any individual and escape the consequences" ~Frank Herbert

What did we really see on November 2, 2009? Was it really a reprimand of Barack Obama? Has the country recognized the error of it's ways and returned to it's conservative roots? The answer is yes, and the answer is no.

The American people on 11/2 showed at the very least they are not head-over-heals in love with Obama anymore. They are no longer buying his excuse that the problems we face today are problems that he inherited from Republicans. Because almost a year into it Mr. President; You own it. At the very worst the American people are realizing that Obama is not giving them the government they thought they were getting. Perhaps they are realizing that instead of "change" what they are really getting are "chains".

Republicans have a special moment here. A second chance. A shot at redemption. They way they respond to this opportunity to return to grace will dictate if they succeed, or illustrate how quickly they too can fall.

The American people have not forgotten that the Republicans made some big mistakes over the last decade. To say their hands are clean would be laughable. But theere is a reason that the Republicans were allowed to toil for 8 years, and it seems the democrats barely get 2 years. We are awake now, and we are paying attention. We the People expect to be heard and not ridiculed when we speak to our government.

When the American people voted for Barack Obama they were voting for change yes, but they were voting for change that they wanted. They were not voting for the radical change that Obama, Pelosi, and Reid seem to want. The American people do not want a changed America; they want their old America back.

The American people voted the Democrats into power because the Democrats promised that they would listen. However between the stimulus package, cap and trade, government bailouts and government takeovers of business and healthcare; it has become painfully clear that the Democrats have no intention of listening to the American people.

Republicans will not be voted back into power on their conservatice philosophy alone. The Republicans are being voted back into power because they are being given another chance to listen to the American people.

I hope they do.

Democrats on Beacon Hill are all about standing up for the little guy. Until they aren’t.

At the bidding of public employee unions and some car insurance providers, the party in power is doing its best to kill a pilot program that allows thousands of Massachusetts motorists to renew licenses and car registrations without waiting in endless Registry lines.

The Registry of Motor Vehicles has coped with the fiscal crisis by closing seven branches since July - doubling wait times - but has been operating a pilot program that allowed members of the American Automobile Association to conduct routine business at AAA offices in Newton and Worcester.

So in the same way an auto dealership is equipped to handle your new registration, those AAA branches are allowed to handle your renewal. Easier on the drivers and easier on overburdened Registry offices. Maine and Rhode Island have a similar arrangement, and the RMV had hoped to expand it beyond Newton and Worcester.

But fearful of losing government jobs, the unions have pressured their legislative allies to kill the program. And since AAA also happens to write auto insurance policies for a single provider, pressure also came from that company’s rivals.

The pilot program is to expire on March 31, and Sen. Marc Pacheco (D-Taunton) and his Democratic colleagues last week spiked a Republican effort that would have made it permanent. So the special interests won out over the average harried motorist.

Yep, it’s all about the little guy. Until it isn’t

An Op-Ed by Richard R. Tisei

WITH UNEMPLOYMENT at a 33-year high of 9.3 percent and the state budget tanking because of free-falling tax revenues, you would think that Governor Deval Patrick and the Legislature would be working around the clock doing everything possible to eliminate wasteful spending and make state government run more efficiently.

Instead, the message coming out of the Legislature and the corner office during the last couple of weeks seems to lack any real sense of urgency.

Patrick just announced he is convening an economic summit this month that will focus on jobs creation and getting the state’s economy back on track. What took him so long? Patrick’s wait-and-see-approach to a crisis that has been percolating for the last three budget cycles amounts to a case of too little, too late.

If Patrick has been slow to react to the crisis, the Legislature has been even slower. As the budget continues to bleed red ink, and agencies that service some of the state’s most vulnerable residents brace for additional budget cuts, here are some of the “urgent’’ matters the Legislature has been focused on:

■ We’re debating whether the Fluffernutter should be designated the official state sandwich. Thousands of people are worrying about being able to put food on the table, but we’re determined to make sure Massachusetts is the first state in the nation with an “official’’ sandwich.

■ The governor and some legislators are calling for boycotts of Massachusetts businesses at the same time unemployment is fast approaching double figures and many companies are struggling to remain solvent. Have we forgotten that it is businesses - not government - that are responsible for creating the jobs and generating the tax revenues that help fuel the economy?

■ Some legislators are proposing a bill that could require some dog owners to pay an increase of more than 1,000 percent for a basic license. It’s hardly surprising, considering the Legislature just hiked the sales tax, the meals tax, satellite dish tax, and the hotel tax, and created an alcohol tax. Now they’re talking about an income tax hike - where does it end?

■ For some legislators, the most important issue seems to be passing a bill that would allow 16- and 17-year-olds to preregister to vote before they’re even old enough to legally cast a ballot. Meanwhile, many adults who are old enough to vote are losing their jobs, and the Legislature doesn’t seem to be doing much to get people back to work.

■ We’re even being asked to consider a bill that would require banks and insurance companies that do business with the state to document past profits earned from the slave trade. Meanwhile, those employers are dealing with one of the biggest corporate tax increases in the state’s history, which is driving businesses away from Massachusetts and forcing some companies to close their doors.

September revenues dropped $333 million compared to last year and were $243 million below current benchmarks. For the first quarter of the current fiscal year, the numbers are down $477 million from 2008 and $212 million short of year-to-date benchmarks.

Economists estimate that the state budget is out of balance by as much as $1 billion, and predict that the state could face a deficit at least double that amount in fiscal 2011. State revenues are not expected to rebound to pre-recession levels for another four to five years.

The Legislature needs to be proactive in dealing with this problem, but instead it is occupying itself with most trivial and frivolous issues. We’re doing everything we can to avoid tackling the real problems facing the Commonwealth when we should be rolling up our sleeves and making the difficult decisions that are required to get us through this economic crisis.

If we’re really serious about getting state spending under control, then we need to implement an immediate hiring and pay freeze, just like many private employers have been forced to do. We also need to consider moving the state’s Medicaid recipients into managed care plans to rein in health care costs, which make up a significant portion of the budget. And while we are at it, we should repeal the anti-privatization Pacheco law, which costs taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.

The Legislature should convene in emergency session to discuss what can be done to jump-start the Massachusetts economy, restructure government, and make service delivery more efficient.

But more importantly, we need to stop debating inconsequential legislation like the Fluffernutter bill and focus on doing everything we can to promote job growth and get the state’s economy back on track.

Richard R. Tisei is minority leader of the Massachusetts Senate.

Job Well Done by Cavaco

I’d like to commend Chairman Francis Cavaco for putting a setting together where Seekonk’s representation on Beacon Hill came down to answer some questions/concerns of the Board of Selectman and those citizens who came to the High School(Wednesday Sept 30 Seekonk High School).

It was obvious after the first question that there has been a lack of communication between Seekonk’s leadership and our “close to home” Rep. Steven D’Amico. It is incumbent; in fact it is the responsibility, of both D’Amico and Timillty to have a continued dialogue with our town leadership, in order to be aware of our towns needs.

Sen. Timilty seemed to be doing his best to say that, “If you had come to me about this issue, I would have been sure to address it.”
Rep. D’Amico took a simple yes or no question on eliminating or lifting the requirements for the local census and blamed the State’s “antiquated computer system” for being a hindrance.

Seekonk’s leadership should continue this dialogue and work with our State representation to serve our town with its best possible interests and commit to getting things done.

Stop all the arguing and embrace 'Oh!BarbaraCare' by Barbera Anderson

Now that I have watched the latest televised presentation by the president on ObamaCare (the one in which he lied), and studied research and suggestions from various organizations and columnists, I am ready to present my "Oh!BarbaraCare" plan.

I realize that I'm no more qualified to have my own health care plan than most citizens. But all citizens of a representative democracy should acquire enough solid information so they can guide their representatives on vital issues. So if you don't like my plan, feel free and competent enough to do your own.

We must first use our rational faculties to challenge assumptions before we begin offering solutions.

Assumption One: All of us are entitled to health care.

Question: At whose expense? We can't be entitled to something that someone else must be forced to provide. Aside from the payments, what if no one wants to be a doctor or a nurse?

Yet: We as a society have decided that we want all Americans (and legal immigrants) to have at least basic and emergency health care. To ensure this, we must be careful not to discourage providers and hospitals by paying them less than the service is worth to them.

Assumption Two: The U.S. health care system is broken.

Reality: The U.S. health care system is the best and the most effective in the world.

However: There are some problems, and it does need to be reformed.

Assumption Three: The U.S. health care system is too expensive.

Consumers, define "too expensive." How much is it worth it to you to be healthy?

However: It's reasonable to assume that health care could cost less if waste, fraud and inefficiency were addressed.

Anyway, President Obama says that HisCare will be funded by addressing these things, so that the cost doesn't add to the deficit.

Oh!BarbaraCare says, address those things now with existing government programs, before adding even more people to a wasteful system. Let's get those legitimate savings, then proceed to address the real problems, which are:

1.) Cost. Some low-income people, not eligible for Medicaid, and many small businesses, really can't afford expensive health insurance.

Oh!BarbaraCare would continue and expand the programs that subsidize basic insurance for the poor. For all of us, the focus should be on insurance for catastrophic health events, requiring almost everyone to pay reasonable deductibles and co-pays (see "not entitled," above).

One big change here: Oh!BarbaraCare would not use business to provide insurance. Business provides the jobs that allow us to afford life's basics. Let's encourage more job creation, not additional expenses that hurt that basic business mission.

If we consumers own our own health insurance, as we own our automobile insurance, then we keep it even if we lose our jobs. Also, our unemployment is less likely if the government doesn't burden businesses with mandated expenses.

There should be tax breaks for buying basic insurance and for health savings accounts, paid for by no longer allowing tax breaks for business-supplied health insurance. Since the latter includes Cadillac plans for executives and unions, the savings should be substantial.

We should be able to choose from many health insurance companies across the nation to maximize competition. And, we should be able to organize in our own groups — small business, baseball fans, redheads — to allow for economy of scale, just as seniors do for AARP services.

Another way to cut costs is to address malpractice insurance — paying patients for avoidable mistakes and clear negligence, but not for the assumption that we are all entitled to every test. And for truly frivolous suits, the loser should pay all court costs.

2.) Pre-existing conditions. Clearly, if insurance companies must cover all pre-existing conditions, then no one would buy insurance until he was sick! No one would pay into the system until it was time for him to take out of the system.

So the only way to cover pre-existing conditions is to mandate that everyone get insurance and that there are companies for everyone to choose from.

When we own our own policies, with Oh!BarbaraCare, anyone who has been paying all along for health insurance will be covered, at the level they originally chose, when they get sick, even if for some reason they have changed policies.

For those who make a case that it is unconstitutional to force citizens to get insurance, Oh!BarbaraCare would allow them to opt out of this requirement if they sign a statement that they will not expect the system to pay for their care. They can self-insure, or when necessary, roll over and die. However, compassionate Oh!BarbaraCare would provide hospice care to make the end easier for them.

Which takes us to the controversial ...

3.) End-of-life counseling. It's true that extraordinary costs accrue during the final months of some patients' lives, when they are kept alive with extraordinary efforts.

Oh!BarbaraCare would advocate living wills and more choice for patients who want to leave peacefully on their own terms. Death is natural, we should learn to accept and embrace it when the time comes.

However, Oh!BarbaraCare would provide legal assistance to elderly patients who were being pressured by family or providers, rather than counseled.

So there it is. Of course, I'm always open to bipartisan negotiation with anyone who doesn't lie.

BAY STATE'S HEALTH CARE FUTURE

State government's potentially dire fiscal prospects, the specter of a national health reform bill that's still taking shape, and tens of thousands of job losses have clouded the progress of Massachusetts's landmark health care programs, as members of the board overseeing it wondered Thursday how their efforts would be affected and how they should proceed.

Massachusetts has seen hundreds of thousands of residents newly insured since the advent of a 2006 law mandating individuals to obtain health insurance and subsidizing coverage for low-income individuals - 97.4 percent of the state's 6 million residents are insured, according to the Patrick administration's latest tally. But a new state report shows that about 15,000 fewer people had health insurance in March than in December 2008, largely the result of losing their jobs, and therefore, their employer-sponsored coverage.

In addition, the removal of 31,000 legal immigrants from Commonwealth Care, a state-subsidized health insurance program for low-income residents, combined with changes to enrollment procedures, renegotiated insurance rates and generally shaky budget conditions have led members of the state Connector Board to question the effect on insurers who rely on enrollees steered to them by the state.

Four "managed care organizations" (MCOs) provide the bulk of coverage to low-income Massachusetts residents who don't receive insurance through their employer - BMC HealthNet Plan, Neighborhood Health Plan, Fallon Community Heaelth Plan and Network Health -- and a new entrant in the market, CeltiCare, is hoping to make inroads.

State leaders recently announced that most of the 31,000 immigrants removed from Commonwealth Care would be eligible for a special CeltiCare plan that provides coverage for most health services, except vision, dental, hospice and skilled nursing, and with some significant co-pay increases. The other MCOs have expressed dismay at CeltiCare's exclusive deal, with the Massachusetts Association of Health Plans arguing that the other four plans weren't given a fair chance to compete.

"I have very serious concerns about what this is doing to the margins and the service levels of the MCOs," said Ian Duncan, a member of the Connector Board.

Duncan, along with a handful of other board members, asked for a more thorough briefing about the "cumulative effect" of all the recent changes on the ability of MCOs to provide coverage.

The changes in service are playing out against a backdrop of questions about state government finances. Secretary of Administration and Finance Leslie Kirwan, who chairs the Connector board, said September revenue intake could have a significant impact on whether the administration seeks expanded powers to cut government budgets.

"Through the first two months of this year, we're just about on budget," she said. "That appears to be something that will be reversed in September."

As board members expressed dismay about the cuts to health benefits for legal immigrants, Kirwan emphasized that although their decisions are often made solely in the realm of health and human services, whose budget is constantly expanding, her job is to balance competing interests in programs across government, many of which have been scaled back and are facing severe cuts.

"We don't have information about what the impacts of all those choices would be," she said. "In a revenue decline, other parts of state government ... are declining in order to accommodate growth in health care and human services. We recognize why there is growth. We have more people depending on the commonwealth for programs. It does sort of mask the fact that there are bigger choices and in some cases much bigger budget cuts elsewhere ... If we're in this sort of pattern for a very long time, the challenge is going to be different than if we are in this for a short time."

The discussion also came as the Connector Board undergoes some of the most significant changes in its three-year history. Two members - Tom Dehner, who heads the one-million-member state Medicaid program, and Nonnie Burnes, the state insurance commissioner - are leaving their posts and will vacate their seats on the ten-member board.

Members of the board expressed renewed optimism that a national health plan would pass, offering a generally positive review of President Obama's speech to Congress Wednesday night. In his speech, Obama touted a proposal for a health insurance "exchange" that would help consumers shop for the most appropriate health plan for them, a program, not coincidentally, akin to the Connector. Connector Executive Director Jon Kingsdale said there had been discussions with the Obama administration about a Commonwealth Care member being recognized during his speech.

During testimony to the Committee on Election Laws Wednesday, Sen. John Kerry also emphasized the proposed health exchange, telling members of the Legislature that it's "your plan" that the Obama administration is pushing for national consideration.

Arguing for a change in state Senate succession laws to allow for an interim successor to Sen. Edward Kennedy, who passed away last month, Kerry said the absence of a second Massachusetts senator could lead to the demise of a national health plan.

"[Without a second vote] we don't build a health care system similar to what a vast majority of you here in this body voted for," he said. "The Connector ... we're going to build what's called an exchange that's based on the Connector. We're going to vote that everybody has to sign up. We're going to do it like you did."

Worrying that some iterations of a national health reform proposal could leave Massachusetts worse off, board member Nancy Turnbull wondered if the Connector could help influence the national reform debate to "create a protective bubble around ourselves."

Kirwan agreed, arguing, "We want to be helped for going first, not hurt. I think we need to keep that drumbeat."

"That may be a good reason to appoint a replacement for our senior senator," Kingsdale remarked, referring to the debate over a potential successor for Kennedy.

During the meeting, board members gave unanimous approval to emergency regulations, first adopted in June, permitting Connector staff to cancel auto-enrollment for the lowest-income members of Commonwealth Care, those earning below the federal poverty level. Auto-enrollment is a process that places those deemed eligible for Commonwealth Care into a health plan. By nixing auto-enrollment, the Connector, which over the years has sought to boost enrollment, hopes to curb the growth in enrollment, although members worried that it would lead to gaps in coverage.

Also Thursday, the U.S. Census Bureau released updated information about rates of insurance around the country, providing national context for the health reform debate.

In 2008, 46.3 million people around the country went without any health insurance, about 15 percent of an estimated 301 million U.S. residents. The total is up from 38.4 million people who went without insurance in 2000. Of the 255 million insured Americans, 176 million have employer-sponsored insurance and 87.4 million have a government-sponsored plan, according to the new data.

State-by-state numbers showed Massachusetts had a combined 5.4 percent uninsurance rate in 2007 and 2008, as the state's health reform plan took hold.

"We're about a third of the national average and the lowest in the country," said Brian Rosman, research director for Health Care for All, a Massachusetts consumer advocacy organization. Rosman noted the Massachusetts uninsurance rate dropped in the 2007-2008 time period by 4.4 percent compared to the previous two years, beating a national 2 percent drop in that time.

An August report by the state Division of Health Care Finance and Policy found that the ranks of privately insured dropped by 45,000 between December 2008 and March 2009, reflecting rising unemployment. The losses came as government programs, MassHealth and Commonwealth Care, grew by about 7,000 members. Overall, 5,484,000 Massachusetts residents were insured in March 2009.

Harvard Pilgrim Health Care saw the steepest enrollment decline since the advent of Massachusetts's landmark health plan, dropping by 46,000 members since June 2006, according to the DHCFP report. BMC HealthNet Plan grew by 89,000, the most of any plan in that interim, followed closely by the other three original Commonwealth Care MCOs.

Families USA, a national advocate for consumers, said the number of individuals uninsured nationwide exceeds the collective population of 24 states: Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Opponents of national health reform plans argue that government involvement in health care will hinder care, place bureaucrats in charge of important medical decisions and limit coverage levels. President Obama has vowed that people who already have health insurance can keep it and maintain their current doctor; however their insurers would be forbidden from dropping them due to preexisting conditions or sudden serious illnesses.

A Rasmussen Reports poll out Wednesday found that 44 percent of Americans support Obama's plan while 53 percent oppose it.

Whole Foods CEO Has It Right On Health Care Reform

Finally...someone has published some common sense solutions to reform our current health care system, instead of radically remaking it in a socialist image. I always thought Whole Foods was a commie lib company (even though I do shop there quite a bit). Boy, was I wrong!

Health Care Letter to Congressman McGovern

Dear Congressman McGovern,

I have viewed the "Common Health Care Myth's Rebutted" linked to your website, and I still find H.R. 3200 very scary even though you have uncovered some myths and falsehoods (your party does it too!). I have a few questions I would like answered directly.

1. What authority does Congress have in the Constitution to radically overhaul our nation's health care system? You may find this question inconvenient and irritating, but I would like to remind you that you have taken an oath 6-7 times to preserve, protect, and defend it. Please do not cite Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid or these other bankrupt disasters either. You did not vote to create those programs. Just because previous members during the so-called New Deal and Great Society violated their oath, it does not give you the precedent to do the same.

2. Why does this legislation assume that more government regulation, interference, and oversight will bring costs down? I do not know of any modern government social program in the history of the Western world that had brought costs down. Could you name one and cite documented proof that would support your claim?

3. If the rebuttal document claims that certain things such as doctor choice, end-of-life counseling, and plan approval does not mean rationing, government denial of end-of-life care, or pricing out private plans, why are they mentioned in the legislation at all? You know as well as I know that once regulators get to add hundreds of thousands of pages to the Federal Register, they will write rules that will distort the so-called intent of the legislation. How can Congress insure that the scores of rebuttals that are "misunderstandings" will not be misunderstood by the scores of unaccountable bureaucrats and "Czars" that escape Congressional oversight?

4. Are you a doctor? Is anyone who drafted this legislation a doctor? Why is it that the two physicians I am aware of in the United States Senate vehemently oppose this legislation or any form of it being drafted in the Senate?

5. Many increases in health care costs have been directly linked to the high cost of malpractice insurance. It has been documented and proven that in many states or federal court districts stacked with former trial lawyers that malpractice case awards are extremely high. This cost is passed on to the health care consumer, which drives costs up. Why isn't this addressed in the legislation? Is your party bought and paid by the "slip and fall" lawyers of America? You could very well be, because your VP nominee in 2004 made his fortune on some bogus lawsuits. Could it be said then that the public option plans will be subsidizing slip and fall lawyers, since they can still have open season on our doctors, nurses, and other health care providers?

6. When are you going to be scheduling public appearances throughout the 3rd Congressional district to discuss these matters before you vote? There are a lot of questions and not enough answers, and frankly I would bet that a majority your constituents do not want the federal government calling all of the shots in health care.

7. Lastly, why are members of Congress exempt from this legislation? Are all of you too good for this plan? If it is so critical to reforming our health care insurance system, why don't you and your family sign on?

Just so you are very clear...I am not part of an angry mob, even though I am angry. I am not paid by K Street lobbyists, even though it would be nice. I also have not been given marching orders from the GOP, because they take marching orders from me. If you agree with the leadership of your party's contention that our anger is "manufactured", you have made a serious error in judgment and frankly you insult my intelligence. The American people are not stupid; they are generally disengaged from beltway politics. They have been awakened, and they do not like one bit what is going on in Washington.

Please do not claim that the GOP has not offered any alternatives. Most of their amendments have been denied or voted down by party line. I also understand that they have not even been consulted in the House of Representatives negotiations and mark-ups. Most Republicans are providing alternatives that are consumer based and free-market based, and that philosophy seems to have escaped your political party. HR 3200 is pro-government and controlled-market based.

So, I hope you will be courageous and do the right things ... engage your constituents even though you have been unopposed for most of you career. It will not be courageous to defy the people you represent and vote for this legislation. There will be severe consequences at the ballot box. At the least you will be a member of the minority in January 2011, and at the most you will be added to the unemployment rate cited by experts in our "jobless recovery."

Thank you for your time and patience. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me anytime.

Obama's Patriotism

Senator Timilty gets it!

Senator Timilty is right-on about this...while D'Amico fights Hollywood!

Touting the creation of new jobs and spending on hotels and restaurants, the Senate voted unanimously Tuesday afternoon to begin state regulation of mixed martial arts events. The bill passed 35-0 after a state senator from Walpole urged his colleagues to pass the bill and attract so-called ultimate fighting bouts. "This is a good thing for the Commonwealth," said bill sponsor Sen. James Timilty, noting the potential for new state revenues without raising taxes. "It is much safer than the sport of boxing," Timilty said, noting only 6 percent of mixed martial arts fights end in knockouts.

Timilty acknowledged the changing times during floor remarks, noting he grew up following Brockton boxing champ Marvin Hagler while many of today's fight fans are following Kenny Florian, a Boston College grad who has excelled in mixed martial arts competitions. Sen. Robert Hedlund (R-Weymouth) also urged passage of the bill.

Before adopting the bill, the Senate agreed to a Sen. Marc Pacheco amendment allowing cities and towns, by local option, to choose not to host mixed martial arts events. The bill clarifies that promoters, physicians, referees, judges and contestants must be licensed by the State Boxing Commission and directs the commission to establish minimum skill requirements for licensure of contestants.

The bill also expands the commission from three to five members, increases the amount of accident insurance event holders must acquire for each contestant ($5,000 for medical expenses and $50,000 in case of death). It establishes a 4 percent fee on ticket sales and a 2 percent fee on revenues from TV, pay-per-view and other broadcast rights, to be paid to the commission. The bill also limits mixed martial arts matches to five rounds, except for championship matches. Rounds may last no longer than five minutes and the gloves worn by competitors must weigh at least four ounces, according to a bill summary.

On Revolution

In early June of this year I had the privilege of watching the 3rd grade class at the George R. Martin school in Seekonk put on a play about the American Revolution.

As I watched the kids dance around on stage I couldnt help but wonder if these kids really undertsood the significance of what they were performing. Did the teachers even understand or was the concept of the events that sparked the American Revolution just empty words and stories from a long ago?

It really is amazing, when you think about it, how quickly America has squandered it's good fortune, killed it republic, and turned it in to the very thing we faught to vanquish.

233 years since our forefathers declared their independence from tyrany; if America fell tommorrow it would probably not even register more than a footnote in history as an expiremental nation that failed in such a short period of time. It was not defeated by a foriegn enemy. No missles touched it's soil. Instead it collapse in on itself to the delight and glea of all freedom hating nations accross the world.

"They tax our tea, our iron, our cotton!" those 3rd graders sang. What did King George have on our current government? In 2009 the government will have spent almost 40% of our GDP. They spend barely 3% before the Geat Depression. People earning over the 100 thousand dollar a year threshold are losing almost 40% of their income to state and federal taxes. Then factor in the sales tax, the excise tax, the property tax, the sin tax, and then the variouse fees and surcharges that local governments collect. New York City residence are estimated to lose over 60% of their income to taxes.

This is far from the America we would have known has we been alive a meer 233 years ago. This America is not what the founding fathers envisioned for us when they framed the constitution. To quote Jeff Schreiber of Americas Right, "Our framers founded this nation knowing less about what they wanted America to be than what they never wanted her to become."

The time has come for a new American Revolution. We don't need to march in the streets with guns to achieve this. All we need is our voices shouting loud and clear and in unison to "Get Out!" We need to write to the papers and let the masses know that we are here, and we are mad as hell! We need to call our Senators, the White House, Post Signs in our front yard. We need to vote, we need to show up where these lunatics give their 50 thousand dollar speeched and heckle them. We need to run for office. We need to donate money to the candidates that run on freedom and liberty as their message. We need to organize.

"It seemed to me that all over the world intelligent people were waking up to the indignity and absurdity of being endangered, restrained, and impoverished, by a mere uncritical adhesion to traditional governments, traditional ideas of economic life, and traditional forms of behaviour, and that these awaking intelligent people must constitute first a protest and then a creative resistance to the inertia that was stifling and threatening us. These people I imagined would say first, "We are drifting; we are doing nothing worth while with our lives. Our lives are dull and stupid and not good enough."

It seemed to me that as, one after another, we woke up, that is what we would be saying. It amounted to a protest, first mental and then practical, it amounted to a sort of unpremeditated and unorganized conspiracy, against the fragmentary and insufficient governments and the wide-spread greed, appropriation, clumsiness, and waste that are now going on. But unlike conspiracies in general this widening protest and conspiracy against established things would, by its very nature, go on in the daylight, and it would be willing to accept participation and help from every quarter. It would, in fact, become an "Open Conspiracy," a necessary, naturally evolved conspiracy, to adjust our dislocated world."

How Government Health Care Will Take Over Your Life

Maybe you have seen that email that has been floating around for years. It involves a guy who is trying to order a pizza and have it delivered. The person taking the order at the other end already has all of his personal information, and after advising him on menu and topping choices that have been cleared by his health program, he is informed that he cannot place the order because he only has 2.75 in his bank account.

Seemed pretty funny the first time I read it about 5 years ago, but then it was a far off future fantasy. Today, it could very well be reality.

Giving government control of health care is the first step in giving them control over every aspect of your life. Wait until you go to the movies and try to order those nacho grande, and are told that nacho cheese is loaded with trans fat and has been banned by the government because trans fat raises cholesterol which causes heart disease wich raised the cost of health care per person. Try the toffu instead.

Health care gives the government the keys to the kingdom, what you eat, how you drive, where you vacation, what sports you play. President Obama wants control of everything.

It should be fun living in a perfectly sterile environment.

"We shall abolish the orgasm. Our neurologists are at work upon it now. There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no art, no literature, no science.

There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always— do not forget this, Winston— always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever."

-George Orwell (1984)

Your New Health Care System

This is legit. This was published by the GOP on their website.

Todays Required Reading: The Ilagitamacy of Barack Obama

It's back in the news again....my favorite topic about regarding "Americas Numbers One Communist" and his birth. Each and every time a new lawsuit comes out against BHO more and more mainstream media outletts begin to pick it up. Finally Fox News has given legitimacy to the argument my running the latest story about Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook. Maj. Cook has been ordered to Aghanistan. He is challenging that order in court saying that because BHO is not a natural born citizen, deploying would be following an illegal order as BHO is not quallified to be Commander in Chief .

This is not the first case that has been filed questioning BHO's Presidential eligibility. The fact they have been dismissed does not (as the Main Stream Media would like you to believe) mean that they have been debuncted. What it means is that no court is willing to state that a voter, or an average citizen can bring those charges. While the constitution states that one must be a "natural born citizen" to hold the office of the Presidency. It fails to outline who in fact is supposed to enforce that.

People can cry "conspiracy theory" all they want, but the fact remains that this has to be the easiest conspiracy in the world to uncover. This is not a potential 9/11 cover-up, this is not Roswell or Area 51, this isn't even a magic bullet. This is as easy as producing the vault copy of your birth cirtificate from the state of Hawaii. Not the PDF that is "fact Check" that looks like it was issued last year as it does not show any evidence that it is over 40 years old. I am talking about the master copy that sits in the basement of whatever city's hospital or town hall that you were born in that they use to verify your information when you request a copy of your birth cirtificate. Piece of cake!

That fact that Obama has blocked all access to this reaks of giult. Not even the press can obtain it under the freedom of information act because the state of Hawaii has bared any access to it by anyone but Obama.

Read the Latest story hear.

PICTURES FROM BREAKFAST

Still the Reel Deal

An Editorial By the Boston Herald Editorial Staff:

Thursday, July 9, 2009

Massachusetts is lousy with film crews and big stars this summer but leave it to the usual critics to try and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Yes, critics of the state’s film tax credit program are waving a new Department of Revenue report around to argue that the film tax credits, now in their fourth year, are a net drag on the state’s economy.

The study, they note, concludes that for every dollar the state laid out in tax credits over the first three years, it realized only 16 cents in return. And they whine that the benefits are accruing to Hollywood A-listers and out-of-state crew members at the expense of taxpayers.

But the critics ignore the fact that the film credits were designed as much as a stimulus program for the private sector as they were to boost the state treasury. Production companies have to spend big in order to qualify for any credits - and over the last three years that has translated to a whopping $676 million, DOR estimates.

The naysayers cite the finding that only 18 percent of wages eligible for tax credits were paid to Massachusetts residents (a “mere” $63 million) - the rest to out-of-staters.

But the report also found that more than 40 percent of the nearly 2,000 new jobs directly tied to the industry were held by Massachusetts residents. And as the report itself suggests, more Bay Staters will lay claim to more jobs as the local film industry matures.

Finally, the report doesn’t estimate the impact of two new planned sound stages, which will generate construction and permanent jobs, nor does it consider the impact of film-related tourism or state savings on, say, unemployment or health care thanks to industry employment.

In a dismal economy, tax incentives like these are an easy target, especially for those who hate to see anyone’s tax burden reduced (never mind Leonardo DiCaprio’s) if it means fewer dollars for the government program du jour. And the cost-benefit analysis must tip heavily in the Bay State’s favor to justify the continuation of these credits.

But this program is in its infancy. The outcry is a bit like writing a bad review without bothering to watch the end of the movie.

Hey Mel, Seekonk Loves you anyway!

Our star legislator, Steven D'Amico, seems to have lost his self-centered and personal battle with his leadership, other members of the General Assembly and the Governor.


http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1182077

In an Article in the June 30th edition of the Boston Herald, Rep D’Amico criticized the Governor for green lighting the renewal of a tax credit that is meant as an incentive to draw filmmakers to Massachusetts. Amid the ongoing fiscal crisis, legislators wanted to cap star salaries that could count toward the credit at $2 million per actor.

“This is money for nothing,” said Rep D’Amico. “Mel Gibson doesn’t need our tax dollars.”
Senate President Therese Murray, whose Plymouth district could be home to a new studio, also supported maintaining the full tax credit for movies.

As you heard before from Mr. D’Amico, our "tax credit foe" and “any and all tax advocate”, has been working hard to keep Mel Gibson and all his actor friends from visiting Massachusetts. Mr. D’Amico has time and again criticized businessmen, businesses and any other entity that did not fall into his personal little box of worthwhile endeavors or beliefs. Last July, D'Amico said it was simply a scam by "Hollywood hucksters" to ensure that existing film production credits are already in place. So, I guess the Governor and Senate Leader Murray are part of this scam. They must be part of those that “kowtow to rich celebrities”, as he once stated.

Is Mr. D’Amico working to secure future bacon for Seekonk and the rest of his district? Or is he trying to show us how he can be a Maverick to all the Hollywood hucksters?

We need a Rep. who is smart enough to know when and where to pick his fights and who is willing to work to make allies and bring back promised monies.

Well Mr. Rep, if this is money for nothing, than making friends on Beacon Hill will not be free.

ANNUAL BREAKFAST A SUCCESS

The Seekonk Republican Town Committee's Annual Breakfast held
at the brand new 1149 East Restaurant June 20, 2009 was a smashing success!

The Hospitality of the Owner Thomas Wright and the Function Supervisor Amanda Marcello was far exceeding expectations of the committee. While still in construction mode, they were able to get one room completed for the event. They gave tours of the restaurant to most of the participants and invited us all back for a VIP night coming July 2, 2009.

After coffee and juice, a fine selection of breads and fruits were offered. Next, the chef's made a cavalcade of Omelets to order. The line beamed of curiosity as the ingredients were displayed about the stations. The waiters and waitresses were right there being as cordial as you would expect.

The speakers were top notch and full of energy. A line up that brought great in site to the happenings on Beacon Hill and what it means to be a Republican in Massachusetts. You could have not asked more a broad perspective of the issues that affect Massachusetts families today.

I would like to thank all those who came. It was a great turnout with local and state officials attending. And we hope to being seeing you for the 2010 election year for an even greater event!

Jim Hand bows to D’Amico

Regarding Jim Hand’s article, Making a Case For Beacon Hill reform, there seems to be a biased reporter who applauds like a kid at a circus when Rep. Steven D’Amico does his tightrope act.

What kind of journalism is this? How can Jim Hand just sit back and let D’Amico come up with juvenile excuses without being challenged? Tilting at Windmills? What is that? D’Amico was “worried about the speaker taking things personally”? Where is his integrity as to doing what he believes is right? What about his constituency who question why they have been constantly told “I will not be able to do anything for my district”? Will Mr. D’Amico continue to make excuses for his votes that fall in line with his party? They are his votes, aren’t they?

Well, Mr. Hand, what has he done? D’Amico voted to approve a 1.25% sales tax as well as a 2% meals tax. He requires the taxpayers to sacrifice while he keeps his 5% raise and his son gets a free ride to Brown. He votes to keep two Boston Hack Holidays (Evacuation and Bunker Hill days) instead of voting for a Tax Holiday for constitutes.

D’Amico is nothing more than a clown. He can stand up at a Board of Selectman or Town meeting and think that what he sells is as beautiful as a bouquet of balloons. He honks his horn and squeezes his nose while spewing gumbo rhetoric. He stands up, does his act on the floor of the town meeting and exits before any respectable taxpayer or reporter could ask some real questions. Which brings me to Mr. Hand…he is like a young boy awestruck by D’Amico’s Jelly Fish act. One moment the spine is there..the next it has vanished.

We will not Forget

The Sun Chronicle Editorial team is disappointed in Steven D'Amico for voting against a bill that would have eliminated "hack" holidays in Suffolk County.

http://www.thesunchronicle.com/articles/2009/06/08/opinion/5081086.txt

While Mr. D'Amico continues his tite rope act with the leadership, the Seekonk Republican Committee will not forget this and many future votes that do nothing more than tow the line of those who fills his pockets.

Hypocrite

What a phony:
Mr. D'amico is such a bag of hot air. As one can see from his voting record he has no regard for anyone other than himself. After lying to the town meetings of Seekonk and Rehoboth, about how we all must sacrifice, his hypocrisy surfaces once again. He could have been the deciding vote to do away with 2 holidays that are questionable and save many dollars. He voted to keep them. This comes the day after him whining in the Sun Chronicle about his vote for the Leader of the House Sal Dimasi, now he is trying to alienate himself from the way he voted. He blamed the Republicans for the fiscal mess ( Republicans have not controlled govt in Mass since 1946) and now the speaker for him voting for him. It is never his fault! Should he blame the new speaker for his vote to keep 2 useless holidays? All his votes to raise our taxes to bail out Boston, helps the people of his representation how? It s very funny in the article in the chronicle they sympathize with him, they should have just advised him to vote the right way and change his pooh pooh undies later. What an embarresment, what a weak individual, and you wonder why we are in the trouble were in. Vote him out, he is a disgrace.

One Party Government Responsible for Abuse of Power, Corruption

House Minority Leader Bradley H. Jones, Jr. released the following statement today in reaction to the announcement of the indictment of former Speaker Sal DiMasi.

Situations like these are one of the many direct results of the one party government that has ruled our state for far too long. When one party controls the Legislature by such a vast majority, the door is left wide open for corruption, abuse of power and scandal.

I am disappointed the dark shadow continues to hover over Beacon Hill due to ethical improprieties and illegal behavior. I am hopeful this matter will be resolved expeditiously so that we can focus on important issues of public policy, specifically the dire economic times we are facing.

Unafraid In Greenwich Connecticut (Open Letter to Barak Obama)

Clifford S. Asness
Managing and Founding Principal
AQR Capital Management, LLC

The President has just harshly castigated hedge fund managers for being unwilling to take his administration’s bid for their Chrysler bonds. He called them “speculators” who were “refusing to sacrifice like everyone else” and who wanted “to hold out for the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout.”

The responses of hedge fund managers have been, appropriately, outrage, but generally have been anonymous for fear of going on the record against a powerful President (an exception, though still in the form of a “group letter”, was the superb note from “The Committee of Chrysler Non-TARP Lenders” some of the points of which I echo here, and a relatively few firms, like Oppenheimer, that have publicly defended themselves). Furthermore, one by one the managers and banks are said to be caving to the President’s wishes out of justifiable fear.

I run an approximately twenty billion dollar money management firm that offers hedge funds as well as public mutual funds and unhedged traditional investments. My company is not involved in the Chrysler situation, but I am still aghast at the President's comments (of course these are my own views not those of my company). Furthermore, for some reason I was not born with the common sense to keep it to myself, though my title should more accurately be called "Not Afraid Enough" as I am indeed fearful writing this... It’s really a bad idea to speak out. Angering the President is a mistake and, my views will annoy half my clients. I hope my clients will understand that I’m entitled to my voice and to speak it loudly, just as they are in this great country. I hope they will also like that I do not think I have the right to intentionally “sacrifice” their money without their permission.

Here's a shock. When hedge funds, pension funds, mutual funds, and individuals, including very sweet grandmothers, lend their money they expect to get it back. However, they know, or should know, they take the risk of not being paid back. But if such a bad event happens it usually does not result in a complete loss. A firm in bankruptcy still has assets. It’s not always a pretty process. Bankruptcy court is about figuring out how to most fairly divvy up the remaining assets based on who is owed what and whose contracts come first. The process already has built-in partial protections for employees and pensions, and can set lenders' contracts aside in order to help the company survive, all of which are the rules of the game lenders know before they lend. But, without this recovery process nobody would lend to risky borrowers. Essentially, lenders accept less than shareholders (means bonds return less than stocks) in good times only because they get more than shareholders in bad times.

The above is how it works in America, or how it’s supposed to work. The President and his team sought to avoid having Chrysler go through this process, proposing their own plan for re-organizing the company and partially paying off Chrysler’s creditors. Some bond holders thought this plan unfair. Specifically, they thought it unfairly favored the United Auto Workers, and unfairly paid bondholders less than they would get in bankruptcy court. So, they said no to the plan and decided, as is their right, to take their chances in the bankruptcy process. But, as his quotes above show, the President thought they were being unpatriotic or worse.

Let’s be clear, it is the job and obligation of all investment managers, including hedge fund managers, to get their clients the most return they can. They are allowed to be charitable with their own money, and many are spectacularly so, but if they give away their clients’ money to share in the “sacrifice”, they are stealing. Clients of hedge funds include, among others, pension funds of all kinds of workers, unionized and not. The managers have a fiduciary obligation to look after their clients’ money as best they can, not to support the President, nor to oppose him, nor otherwise advance their personal political views. That’s how the system works. If you hired an investment professional and he could preserve more of your money in a financial disaster, but instead he decided to spend it on the UAW so you could “share in the sacrifice”, you would not be happy.

Let’s quickly review a few side issues.

The President's attempted diktat takes money from bondholders and gives it to a labor union that delivers money and votes for him. Why is he not calling on his party to "sacrifice" some campaign contributions, and votes, for the greater good? Shaking down lenders for the benefit of political donors is recycled corruption and abuse of power.

Let’s also mention only in passing the irony of this same President begging hedge funds to borrow more to purchase other troubled securities. That he expects them to do so when he has already shown what happens if they ask for their money to be repaid fairly would be amusing if not so dangerous. That hedge funds might not participate in these programs because of fear of getting sucked into some toxic demagoguery that ends in arbitrary punishment for trying to work with the Treasury is distressing. Some useful programs, like those designed to help finance consumer loans, won't work because of this irresponsible hectoring.

Last but not least, the President screaming that the hedge funds are looking for an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout is the big lie writ large. Find me a hedge fund that has been bailed out. Find me a hedge fund, even a failed one, that has asked for one. In fact, it was only because hedge funds have not taken government funds that they could stand up to this bullying. The TARP recipients had no choice but to go along. The hedge funds were singled out only because they are unpopular, not because they behaved any differently from any other ethical manager of other people's money. The President’s comments here are backwards and libelous. Yet, somehow I don’t think the hedge funds will be following ACORN’s lead and trucking in a bunch of paid professional protestors soon. Hedge funds really need a community organizer.

This is America. We have a free enterprise system that has worked spectacularly for us for two hundred plus years. When it fails it fixes itself. Most importantly, it is not an owned lackey of the oval office to be scolded for disobedience by the President.

I am ready for my “personalized” tax rate now.

Businessinsider.com

We need another D'Amico Legislative Update

Rep. D'Amico recently produced and aired a program on local cable called "A legislative update" starring Massachusetts’s Tax Foundation's Michael Widmer and Jeffrey B. Mullen, Undersecretary of the Executive Office of Transportation. While thinking this was going to be a show about what our Representative is doing for his constituents, it was propaganda for a tax hike and putting blame on the last Republican Administrations.


With our Rep. reading his questions from a queue card, Mr. Widmer answered like the "conservative watchdog" D'Amico claims his organization to be. "The past administrations mortgaged our future and now we have to pay for it" says Widmer. "The bonding arrangements for the Big Dig in the early years were low, now we have to pay."


With D'Amico poised, "Boston is the economic engine to the State". "If Boston falters, the whole state does…the benefits of a gas tax is to spread throughout the state." Widmer agrees that the 19 gas tax could correct all the wrongs of the past and get this state on sound footing again.


Then D'Amico brings on Mullen...I figure because Jim Aloisi, the transportation secretary who is suddenly no longer the state's most imperiled transportation official, could not make it. It was time to layer on the tax gas and bash the MBTA and The Turnpike Authority. “The benefits that the MBTA receives are unheard of." "The two agencies should be combined and overlooked by a new Ombudsman." “We inherited this mess.”

Well, my first reaction to all this…is Boston the problem? D’Amico being the devil advocate says, ‘why should my constituents care about Boston?” The devil is right!
The economy is faltering right now because of overspending. It has nothing to do with the city of Boston. D’Amico’s predecessors in the legislature are the ones to blame.

The mismanagement of the MBTA and the Turnpike Authority were the results of decisions by this legislature. The Big Dig was a small part of the economic engine providing jobs for workers across the state, with the blessings of our representation in Washington. Now that the monies are dried up from the Fed, the Turnpike Authority owes $15.5 Billion. So, they argue the gas tax is to help the Turnpike Authority. Which then in combining MBTA/ Turnpike with the other agencies would bring all of the debt to Boston?

We now learn the House (led by D’Amico with his Hollywood amendment) passed an increase of the sales tax from 5% to 6.25%. Next week the plan for the gas tax, bailing out the Turnpike Authority/MBTA is to vote yes by D’Amico. Also, as we all knew, the Speaker of the House Democrat Robert DeLeo spoke at the 76th Anniversary of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. I guess he thanked them for all these years for being the fiscal watchdog for the Democrats. So, let’s be clear…D’Amico is for Boston, not for Seekonk, Norton, Rehoboth, or Swansea. We need another update from Rep. D’Amico to explain how he will be voting to spend our tax dollars at home.

A Timid Advocate of Freedom

By Mitt Romney
National Review

At last week’s Summit of the Americas, President Obama acquiesced to a 50-minute attack on America as terroristic, expansionist, and interventionist from Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega. His response to Ortega’s denunciation of our effort to free Cuba from Castro’s dictatorship was that he shouldn’t be blamed “for things that happened when I was three months old.” Blamed? Hundreds of men, including Americans, bravely fought and died for Cuba’s freedom, heeding the call from newly elected president John F. Kennedy. But last week, even as American soldiers sacrificed blood in Afghanistan and Iraq to defend liberty, President Obama shrank from defending liberty here in the Americas.

In his first press interview as president, he confessed to Arabic television that America had “dictated” to other nations. No, Mr. President, America has fought to free other nations from dictators. And in Strasbourg, the president further claimed that America has “showed arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” London’s Daily Telegraph observed that President Obama “went further than any United States president in history in criticizing his own country’s action while standing on foreign soil.” Of course, it was not just the Daily Telegraph that was listening: People around the world who yearn for freedom, who count on America’s resolve and support, heard him as well. He was heard in China, in Tibet, in Sudan, in Burma, and, yes, in Cuba.


The words spoken by the leader of the free world can expand the frontiers of freedom or shrink them. When Ronald Reagan called on Gorbachev to “tear down this wall,” a surge of confidence rose that would ultimately breach the bounds of the evil empire. It was the same confidence that had been ignited decades earlier when John F. Kennedy declared to a people surrounded by Communism that they were not alone. “We are all Berliners,” he said, because “freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free.” Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s confident commitment, spoken as he led us into the war that would free millions in Europe, inspired not only Americans but freedom fighters around the globe: “The American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.” Such words of solidarity, of confidence, and of unwavering conviction that America is indeed “the last best hope on earth” are what freedom’s friends would have expected to hear from our president when our nation was slandered. Instead he offered silence, smiles, and a handshake.

Even more troubling than what he has or has not said is what he has not done. Kim Jong Il launched a long-range missile on the very day President Obama addressed the world about the peril of nuclear proliferation. As one of the world’s most oppressive and tyrannical regimes is on the brink of securing the “game changing” capability to reach American shores with a nuclear weapon, the president shrinks from action: no seizure of North Korean funds, no severance of banking access, no blockade.

Not to be outdone by Kim Jong Il, President Ahmadinejad announced that his nation has successfully mastered every step necessary to enrich uranium, violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty it has signed. So, like North Korea, Iran will have changed the world’s equation for peace and security: It will be capable of devastating Europe and America, and of annihilating Israel. And as with North Korea, the Obama administration chooses inaction — no new severe sanctions, no hint of military options. Ahmadinejad can act with confidence that the forceful options once on our proverbial table have been shelved.

Vice President Biden was right that the new president would be tested early in his administration. What the world learned was not good news for freedom and democracy. The leader of the free world has been a timid advocate of freedom at best. And bold action to blunt the advances of tyrants has been wholly lacking. We are still very early in the Obama years — the president will have ample opportunity to defend America and freedom, and to deter nuclear brinkmanship. I am hoping for change.

Officials: Agency involved in ‘overcollection’ of communication by Americans

By Eric Lichtblau and James Risen

updated 2:24 a.m. ET, Thurs., April 16, 2009
WASHINGTON - The National Security Agency intercepted private e-mail messages and phone calls of Americans in recent months on a scale that went beyond the broad legal limits established by Congress last year, government officials said in recent interviews.

Several intelligence officials, as well as lawyers briefed about the matter, said the N.S.A. had been engaged in “overcollection” of domestic communications of Americans. They described the practice as significant and systemic, although one official said it was believed to have been unintentional.

The legal and operational problems surrounding the N.S.A.’s surveillance activities have come under scrutiny from the Obama administration, Congressional intelligence committees and a secret national security court, said the intelligence officials, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because N.S.A. activities are classified. Classified government briefings have been held in recent weeks in response to a brewing controversy that some officials worry could damage the credibility of legitimate intelligence-gathering efforts.

Full Story at MSNBC

Georgetown Says It Covered Over Name of Jesus to Comply With White House Request

(CNSNews.com) - Georgetown University says it covered over the monogram “IHS”--symbolizing the name of Jesus Christ—because it was inscribed on a pediment on the stage where President Obama spoke at the university on Tuesday and the White House had asked Georgetown to cover up all signs and symbols there.

As of Wednesday afternoon, the “IHS” monogram that had previously adorned the stage at Georgetown’s Gaston Hall was still covered up--when the pediment where it had appeared was photographed by CNSNews.com.

“In coordinating the logistical arrangements for yesterday’s event, Georgetown honored the White House staff’s request to cover all of the Georgetown University signage and symbols behind Gaston Hall stage,” Julie Green Bataille, associate vice president for communications at Georgetown, told CNSNews.com.

“The White House wanted a simple backdrop of flags and pipe and drape for the speech, consistent with what they’ve done for other policy speeches,” she added. “Frankly, the pipe and drape wasn’t high enough by itself to fully cover the IHS and cross above the GU seal and it seemed most respectful to have them covered so as not to be seen out of context.”

On Wednesday, CNSNews.com inspected the pediment embedded in the wall at the back of the stage in Gaston Hall, where Obama delivered his speech. The letters “IHS” were not to be found. They appeared to be shrouded with a triangle of black-painted plywood.

Pictures of the wooden pediment prior to Obama’s speech show the letters “IHS" in gold. Many photos posted on the Internet of other events at Gaston Hall show the letters clearly.

The White House did not respond to a request from CNSNews.com to comment on the covering up of Jesus’ name at Gaston Hall.

Georgetown, which is run by the Jesuit order, is one of the most prestigious Catholic institutions of higher education in the United States.

Roman Catholics traditionally use “IHS” as an abbreviation for Jesus’ name. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, “St. Ignatius of Loyola adopted the monogram in his seal as general of the Society of Jesus (1541) and thus became the emblem of his institute.” The Society of Jesus is the formal name for the Jesuits.

Although the monogram was covered over on the wooden pediment at the back of the Gaston Hall stage where it would have been directly above and behind President Obama as he spoke, the letters “IHS” are posted elsewhere around the hall approximately 26 times on shields representing different parts of the United States and the world.

Obama did not mention the name of Jesus during his address. However, he did mention Christ’s Sermon on the Mount.

“There is a parable at the end of the Sermon on the Mount that tells a story of two men…‘the rain descended and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house…it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock,’” Obama said.

“We cannot rebuild this economy on the same pile of sand,” he added. “We must build our house upon a rock.”

The Crisis: December 23, 1776

THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER" and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God.

......

'Tis surprising to see how rapidly a panic will sometimes run through a country. All nations and ages have been subject to them. Britain has trembled like an ague at the report of a French fleet of flat-bottomed boats; and in the fourteenth [fifteenth] century the whole English army, after ravaging the kingdom of France, was driven back like men petrified with fear; and this brave exploit was performed by a few broken forces collected and headed by a woman, Joan of Arc. Would that heaven might inspire some Jersey maid to spirit up her countrymen, and save her fair fellow sufferers from ravage and ravishment! Yet panics, in some cases, have their uses; they produce as much good as hurt. Their duration is always short; the mind soon grows through them, and acquires a firmer habit than before. But their peculiar advantage is, that they are the touchstones of sincerity and hypocrisy, and bring things and men to light, which might otherwise have lain forever undiscovered. In fact, they have the same effect on secret traitors, which an imaginary apparition would have upon a private murderer. They sift out the hidden thoughts of man, and hold them up in public to the world. Many a disguised Tory has lately shown his head, that shall penitentially solemnize with curses the day on which Howe arrived upon the Delaware.

.....

I once felt all that kind of anger, which a man ought to feel, against the mean principles that are held by the Tories: a noted one, who kept a tavern at Amboy, was standing at his door, with as pretty a child in his hand, about eight or nine years old, as I ever saw, and after speaking his mind as freely as he thought was prudent, finished with this unfatherly expression, "Well! give me peace in my day." Not a man lives on the continent but fully believes that a separation must some time or other finally take place, and a generous parent should have said, "If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace;" and this single reflection, well applied, is sufficient to awaken every man to duty. Not a place upon earth might be so happy as America. Her situation is remote from all the wrangling world, and she has nothing to do but to trade with them. A man can distinguish himself between temper and principle, and I am as confident, as I am that God governs the world, that America will never be happy till she gets clear of foreign dominion. Wars, without ceasing, will break out till that period arrives, and the continent must in the end be conqueror; for though the flame of liberty may sometimes cease to shine, the coal can never expire.

....

Quitting this class of men, I turn with the warm ardor of a friend to those who have nobly stood, and are yet determined to stand the matter out: I call not upon a few, but upon all: not on this state or that state, but on every state: up and help us; lay your shoulders to the wheel; better have too much force than too little, when so great an object is at stake. Let it be told to the future world, that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive, that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet and to repulse it. Say not that thousands are gone, turn out your tens of thousands; throw not the burden of the day upon Providence, but "show your faith by your works," that God may bless you. It matters not where you live, or what rank of life you hold, the evil or the blessing will reach you all. The far and the near, the home counties and the back, the rich and the poor, will suffer or rejoice alike. The heart that feels not now is dead; the blood of his children will curse his cowardice, who shrinks back at a time when a little might have saved the whole, and made them happy. I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death. My own line of reasoning is to myself as straight and clear as a ray of light. Not all the treasures of the world, so far as I believe, could have induced me to support an offensive war, for I think it murder; but if a thief breaks into my house, burns and destroys my property, and kills or threatens to kill me, or those that are in it, and to "bind me in all cases whatsoever" to his absolute will, am I to suffer it? What signifies it to me, whether he who does it is a king or a common man; my countryman or not my countryman; whether it be done by an individual villain, or an army of them? If we reason to the root of things we shall find no difference; neither can any just cause be assigned why we should punish in the one case and pardon in the other. Let them call me rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul by swearing allegiance to one whose character is that of a sottish, stupid, stubborn, worthless, brutish man. I conceive likewise a horrid idea in receiving mercy from a being, who at the last day shall be shrieking to the rocks and mountains to cover him, and fleeing with terror from the orphan, the widow, and the slain of America.

There are cases which cannot be overdone by language, and this is one. There are persons, too, who see not the full extent of the evil which threatens them; they solace themselves with hopes that the enemy, if he succeed, will be merciful. It is the madness of folly, to expect mercy from those who have refused to do justice; and even mercy, where conquest is the object, is only a trick of war; the cunning of the fox is as murderous as the violence of the wolf, and we ought to guard equally against both. Howe's first object is, partly by threats and partly by promises, to terrify or seduce the people to deliver up their arms and receive mercy. The ministry recommended the same plan to Gage, and this is what the tories call making their peace, "a peace which passeth all understanding" indeed! A peace which would be the immediate forerunner of a worse ruin than any we have yet thought of. Ye men of Pennsylvania, do reason upon these things! Were the back counties to give up their arms, they would fall an easy prey to the Indians, who are all armed: this perhaps is what some Tories would not be sorry for. Were the home counties to deliver up their arms, they would be exposed to the resentment of the back counties who would then have it in their power to chastise their defection at pleasure. And were any one state to give up its arms, that state must be garrisoned by all Howe's army of Britons and Hessians to preserve it from the anger of the rest. Mutual fear is the principal link in the chain of mutual love, and woe be to that state that breaks the compact. Howe is mercifully inviting you to barbarous destruction, and men must be either rogues or fools that will not see it. I dwell not upon the vapors of imagination; I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as A, B, C, hold up truth to your eyes.

I thank God, that I fear not. I see no real cause for fear. I know our situation well, and can see the way out of it. While our army was collected, Howe dared not risk a battle; and it is no credit to him that he decamped from the White Plains, and waited a mean opportunity to ravage the defenceless Jerseys; but it is great credit to us, that, with a handful of men, we sustained an orderly retreat for near an hundred miles, brought off our ammunition, all our field pieces, the greatest part of our stores, and had four rivers to pass. None can say that our retreat was precipitate, for we were near three weeks in performing it, that the country might have time to come in. Twice we marched back to meet the enemy, and remained out till dark. The sign of fear was not seen in our camp, and had not some of the cowardly and disaffected inhabitants spread false alarms through the country, the Jerseys had never been ravaged. Once more we are again collected and collecting; our new army at both ends of the continent is recruiting fast, and we shall be able to open the next campaign with sixty thousand men, well armed and clothed. This is our situation, and who will may know it. By perseverance and fortitude we have the prospect of a glorious issue; by cowardice and submission, the sad choice of a variety of evils — a ravaged country — a depopulated city — habitations without safety, and slavery without hope — our homes turned into barracks and bawdy-houses for Hessians, and a future race to provide for, whose fathers we shall doubt of. Look on this picture and weep over it! and if there yet remains one thoughtless wretch who believes it not, let him suffer it unlamented.

~ Thomas Paine
December 23, 1776