via S.F. Business Times: SPECIAL SURVEY

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has set up a committee to recommend how the city can fund health coverage for uninsured city residents. The committee has discussed a plan that would cost about $200 per person for the estimated 82,000 San Franciscans who don’t have health coverage through work or elsewhere. The idea is to call on employers as well as workers, health-care providers and the city to pay for the coverage.

Do you favor taxing businesses and others to fund health care for uninsured San Francisco residents?

Answer here: Si? or No?

AP reports: “The city would offer health care to any adult resident, regardless of immigration or employment status, under a plan announced [last] Tuesday.”

Knowing how Gavin Newsom feels about illegal immigrants, there’s really no surprise. Squandering others’ money and promoting subversive politics is just another day at City Hall in San Francisco.

The plan, which still needs be approved by the city’s Board of Supervisors, is aimed at 82,000 uninsured residents who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, said Mayor Gavin Newsom. San Francisco already provides universal health care for children.

“Rather than lamenting about the fact that we live in a country with 45.8 million Americans that don’t have health insurance … San Francisco is doing something about it,” Newsom said. “San Francisco is moving forward to fulfill its moral obligation.”

Translation: More taxes on those who are already being taxed.

“The city estimates the plan would cost $200 million a year, an expense that would be borne by taxpayers, businesses that don’t already insure all their workers, and participants themselves.
(continue reading post »)

Apparently celebrating its first major victory over the US citizenry (SCOTUS’ Kelo decision to do away with the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution and allow private developers to steal American citizens’ property was only a year ago), on Thursday the US Supreme Court ruled that the President of the United States cannot order terrorist enemy combatants to be tried before a military tribunal. The court wrongly cited the rules according to the Geneva Convention. This unfathomable reasoning, using the Geneva Convention as the basis for its decision, does not apply to this situation.

The Geneva Convention applies to its signatories and those who wear the uniform of a recognized country. Neither of these scenarios is applicable to the current crop of terrorists at Guantanamo. But, the liberal contingent of the US Supreme Court used it anyway. This is simply and clearly yet another instance of courts—and now even the US high court—making up decisions as they go along, in order to justify their own ideologies. Although these decisions fly in the face of the US Constitution, these liberal courts have determined that they are far above the laws of the land.

Several pertinent questions come to mind. If foreign terrorists are now to be afforded all of the rights of US citizens, and will have their cases tried in US domestic courts, will US troops now be required to Mirandize them? Will our soldiers have to “read them their rights” on the battlefield, when taking them “into custody”?

Will we now have attorneys appearing in the combat zones of Iraq and Afghanistan to advise their radical Islamic clients not to say anything to their captors? Do you really believe any of these Ramsey Clarke wannabee terrorist ambulance chasers would go to Iraq in the first place? (continue reading post »)

In a gesture of bipartisanship, GOP candidate Diana Irey welcomed Nancy Pelosi to her campaign team. Here’s Pelosi’s official statement on the Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld ruling:

“Today’s Supreme Court decision reaffirms the American ideal that all are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system. This is a triumph for the rule of law. The rights of due process are among our most cherished liberties, and today’s decision is a reminder of our responsibility to protect both the American people and our Constitutional rights. We cannot allow the values on which our country was founded to become a casualty in the war on terrorism.”

Here’s Ms. Irey’s reaction to Ms. Pelosi’s statement:

I welcome Ms. Pelosi to the Irey Campaign Team, and hereby deputize her as a Colonel in the Irey Army, because in releasing that statement, she rebukes Jack Murtha for his reckless condemnation of U.S. Marines at Haditha and his unilateral decision to deprive them of THEIR rights of due process.

Jack Murtha declared on May 17 that our Marines had “killed innocent civilians in cold blood”, before the first Marine was charged, before the first court-martial was convened, before the first soldier was convicted. When he did that, he deprived our own soldiers of the very rights to due process that Nancy Pelosi extols.

In the spirit of bipartisanship, I’d like to congratulate Ms. Pelosi for her putting a higher priority on the rule of law than on partisanship.

Technorati Tags: Pelosi, Irey, Murtha, Due Process

Cross-posted at Murtha Must Go

That’s what Larry Sabato and David Wasserman think will determine who controls the House after this November’s elections. Here’s what they think the “4 Ts” are: Terrain, Top-of-the-Ticket Influences, Treasuries of Campaigns and Traits of Candidates.

Noticeably missing from those T’s is Turnout. Considering how much has been made of demoralized conservatives the past 6 months, you’d think that’d have to be on their ‘T List’. That’s just part of the shoddy analysis found in this article. Her’s another shoddy bit of analysis:

In February, we rated only 11 races as “toss-ups,” and only 8 of those races were in Republican-held seats. Additionally, as we have rotated some districts in to the Dirty Thirty and others out, we now estimate that Democrats will only need to win 22 of the 30 most competitive races to win control of the House, down from 24 in February and 26 in October, still a tall mountain to climb, but more surmountable than ever.

How any political analyst could say with a straight face that “Democrats will only need to win 22 of the 30 most competitive races to win control of the House” is beyond me. The rule of thumb is that, whether it’s a wave election or not, the best a party can expect to do is win 50 percent of the vulnerable seats. (continue reading post »)

That’s the question that Rosa Brooks asks in this morning’s LA Times. Here’s the basis for her ‘case’:

The provisions of the Geneva Convention were intended to protect noncombatants, including prisoners, in times of armed conflict. But as the administration has repeatedly noted, most of these protections apply only to conflicts between states.

That’s true as far as it goes; unfortunately, it doesn’t go far enough. While it’s true that part of the Geneva Convention meant to protect citizens as much as is possible in war, it didn’t stop there. Ms. Brooks either intentionally or incompetently stopped there. That blockquote above is part of Article 3 of the Convention. Let’s see what Article 4 has to say:

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. (continue reading post »)

Of course that isn’t how Democrats see it but that’s what the Georgia legislature has done. Here’s the details:

Georgia voters must present government-issued photo identification to cast a ballot in the primary election, which is less than three weeks away, the State Election Board said Thursday. The U.S. Department of Justice cleared the law Wednesday, and the elections board decided to require IDs for the July 18 primary despite concerns about whether there was time to educate voters.

Of course, Democrats wasted no time to get on the wrong side of this issue:

The board’s lone Democrat blasted the decision to move forward without an education outreach targeting those who lack a photo ID issued by the Georgia Department of Drivers Services. “It’s a shame and it’s an embarrassment to this state,” David Worley said.

Mr. Worley, it isn’t a shame or embarrassment to require a valid ID to vote. It’s a shame and an embarrassment to let voter fraud go unchecked. Democrats are using this legislation to rally support in the African American community. In the end, it won’t matter because more people are on the GOP’s side on this.

Technorati Tags: Election Fraud, DNC

Cross-post at LetFreedomRingBlog

That’s essentially what this Washington Times article is about. Here’s what’s at issue:

Republican leaders in Congress said yesterday that they will draft legislation to grant the Bush administration the authority to try prisoners at Guantánamo Bay before a military tribunal, a move that sets up a contentious debate between Republicans and Democrats on a hot-potato national-security issue just four months before midterm elections.

Here’s what Republicans are proposing:

“Following the July Fourth recess, I will introduce legislation, in consultation with the administration and my colleagues, that authorizes military commissions and appropriate due-process procedures for trials of terrorist combatants,” Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said yesterday after the court’s decision.

Here’s the Democrats’ non-plan:

Democrats, meanwhile, staked out territory on the other side of the issue. Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, (D-VT), and ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee, said the administration’s handling of the Guantánamo detainees had eroded its ability to fight a vigorous war on terror. “For five years, the Bush-Cheney administration has violated fundamental American values, tarnished our standing in the world and hindered the partnerships we need with our allies,” he said. “This arrogance and incompetence have delayed and weakened the handling of the war on terror, not because of any coherent strategic view it had, but because of its stubborn unilateralism and dangerous theory of unfettered power.”

It seems to me that this decision should trigger a no-brainer solution: Congress should pass a law that grants the President the proper authority. That’s precisely what Bill Frist and Lindsey Graham intend to do.

Furthermore, I’d laugh at Sen. Leahy’s statement that “This arrogance and incompetence have delayed and weakened the handling of the war on terror…” Ask Zarqawi if “this arrogance” has weakened the handling of the GWOT. That is, if they can raise him at their next seance.

If Democrats want to fight Frist’s and Graham’s legislation, then expect them to lose more seats this November. That’s a fight they can’t win.

Technorati Tags: SCOTUS, GWOT, Gitmo, Hamdan

Cross-post at LetFreedomRingBlog

That’s what I thoguht when I read this Pelosi statement:

“Today’s Supreme Court decision reaffirms the American ideal that all are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system. This is a triumph for the rule of law. The rights of due process are among our most cherished liberties, and today’s decision is a rebuke of the Bush Administration’s detainee policies and a reminder of our responsibility to protect both the American people and our Constitutional rights. We cannot allow the values on which our country was founded to become a casualty in the war on terrorism.”

That self-serving statement is intellectually dishonest. If due process is “among our most cherished liberties,” then where was Ms. Pelosi when John Murtha was playing judge, jury & executioner before the invevstigation was even completed? Has Ms. Pelosi backed up her commitment to this “cherished” liberty by demanding John Murtha retract all his judgmental statements and issuing a formal apology? I watch a ton of news articles each day and I don’t recall her demanding that.

Whenever I read a Pelosi statement like that, I get an urge that I’ve never acted on, namely to slap her senseful. I wouldn’t say that I’d beat her senseless because it’s obvious that someone’s beaten me to that long ago.

Technorati Tags: Hamdan, Pelosi, Murtha, Haditha

Cross-post at LetFreedomRingBlog

The Hill magazine’s Patrick O’Connor and Jonathan Allen are reporting that the House GOP is putting the heat on the NY Times for their reporting of the SWIFT counterterrorist program. Here’s how they’re doing it:

House Republican leaders are expected to introduce a resolution today condemning The New York Times for publishing a story last week that exposed government monitoring of banking records. The resolution is expected to condemn the leak and publication of classified documents, said one Republican aide with knowledge of the impending legislation.

This is an easy decision on the GOP’s part. Not only do they condemn the NY Times’ revealing an effective counterterrorism program but they put the Democrats in the position of either voting against the NY Times’ reporting or of saying that the leaking, and reporting, of this and similar types of programs is ok with them. That’s hardly the position they want to be in.

Expect Democrats to whine about the GOP ‘playing politics with national security and First Amendment issues.’ That’s a surefire sign that they’re caught betwixt and between on a thorny issue for them. Don’t be fooled by their caterwauling. It’s just their attempt to distract from expressing their opinion on the issue of leaking vital national security programs.

Technorati Tags: NY Times, SWIFT, GOP

Cross-post at LetFreedomRingBlog

The Commerce Department revised upward their forecast for first quarter GDP. Here’s how the AP is reporting that:

The economy sprang out of a year-end rut and zipped ahead in the opening quarter of this year at a 5.6 percent pace, the fastest in 2 1/2 years and even stronger than previously thought.
The new snapshot of GDP for the January-to-March period exceeded the 5.3 percent growth rat estimated a month ago, the Commerce Department reported Thursday. The upgraded reading, based on more complete information, matched economists’ forecasts.
The stronger GDP figure mostly reflected an improvement in the country’s trade deficit, which was much less of a drag than previously estimated. Gross domestic product measures the value of all goods and services produced within the United States and is considered the best barometer of the country’s economic fitness.

You’d think that that’d be pretty good news for Americans, a cause for celebrating. It is. Unfortunately, the AP couldn’t resist throwing its obligatory bucket of cold water onto the good news:

Fresher barometers, however, suggest the economy is shifting into a lower gear in the current quarter.

There isn’t a sane economist who’s expect back-to-back quarters with 5+ percent growth rates. That it’s “shifting into a lower gear” is a no-brainer. If it fell 2 points to 3.5 percent, that’d be the average quarter during economic recoveries.

Technorati Tags: Economy, President Bush

Cross-post at LetFreedomRingBlog