The Virginian Federalist

N.Y. Terror Trial Muddle

2009-11-16T08:30:00.001-05:00

The weekend news reports and talk show discussions are full of viewpoints regarding the announced terrorism trials to be held in New York City. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani remarked on the security threats trials in New York would pose as well as the publicity platform which such trials may provide to the defendants. Meanwhile, the AP reports Senator Patrick Leahy D-Vt, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee expressed the opinion, "If someone murders Americans in this country, they should be tried in the U.S" Senator Leahy has apparently missed the Supreme Court interpretation that the prisoners held in Guantanamo are within the U.S. at least for the purposes of access to the federal courts.

Senator Jack Reed, D-R.I., also commented on holding the trials in New York. He mentioned that the terrorists to be tried want to be considered holy warriors or jihadists which could be corroborated by a military commission trial. Reed is quoted as saying: "if we try them before military officers, that image of a soldier will be portrayed by the Islamic community. That's not the image we want."

The real muddle created by pursuing a criminal trial in federal court may be directly connected not to security, or sound bites, but to the legal details of trying the defendants. Senator Reed's comments suggest the desire to see the acts committed by those to be tried as criminal acts amenable to a criminal trial. If we accept that reasoning, we must also consider the due process requirements that a criminal trial requires.

The defendants for the trials in New York are reported to be Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, Walid bin Attash, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali and Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi.

According to the London based Telegraph Mohammed confessed to Yosri Fouda, an al-Jazeera reporter that he took part in the planning for the 9/11 attacks on New York in 2001 (Attacks depicted in the accompanying Pulitzer prize winning photo by Steve Ludlum, New York Times staff photographer). He was captured in March 2003 at a house in Rawalpindi Pakistan. He made his al-Jazeera confession alongside Ramzi bin al-Sibh. Although he allegedly participated in the planning for 9/11, al-Sibh was unable to get a U.S. visa and was unable to directly participate in the attacks. Walid bin Attash is suspected of training some of the 9/11 hijackers while Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi is supsected of organizing the financing for the 9/11 attackers. Ali Abdal Aziz Ali is the maternal nephew of Mohammed and is also believed to have participated in the financing and logistics for the 9/11 attacks. (Analysis of the criminal trial legal muddle continues below the fold.)

18 USC 2331 provides definitions for the following criminal articles relating to terrorism. It appears to be limited in application by the the apparent intent of the participants. The required elements of the definition are that overt acts are intended to coerce a civilian population, or influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping and with the overt acts occuring within United States territory.

Terrorism penalties are prescribed in the following section 2332. The death penalty in this section is allowed only for murdering a U.S. national outside the United States but participation in a conspiracy resulting in murder is not a capital offense.

It would seem that the conspiracy that each of the defendants are accused of participating in cannot result in a death penalty finding. The elements of the offense with regard to intent also would seem difficult to establish and prove. Indeed it is entirely possible that the intent of the attack was simply to cause death and destruction and not necessarily to coerce the population, influence government policy or affect the conduct of the government. It is possible however that the last element, affecting the conduct of the government to withdraw military forces from within the claimed Moslem caliphate may have been a motive.

Before the elements can be proved however, the government will need to establish that the arrests of the defendants took place pursuant to a warrant properly sworn and issued and that the defendants were given the due process protections required under the fourth amendment such as advise of the charges, warnings against self incrimination, access to effective counsel, and opportunity for writ of habeas corpus. During the trial they will also need to be given access to call witnesses and confront all witnesses against them. These may be problematic.

When we look outside the criminal process, we can consider the actions of the defendants in terms of acts of war. If they were acts of war they could be held as prisoners though out the duration of the conflict until properly exchanged. If they were acts of war, and they were combatants, the military forces of the United States would be obliged to kill them whenever or wherever found unless they surrendered or became incapable of defense. If they were acts of war the intent of each individual participant is not subject to review, as each combatant is equally subject to the use of deadly military force against them without regard to their individual circumstances, motives or intent. Violations of the law of war committed during the conduct of war are separately and individually punishable.

Taking all of the above into consideration, it is substantially likely that the criminal prosecutions against these defendants may founder on the legal issues and the administration may come to regret wading into this legal quagmire, especially for the sake of denying jihadist status to the defendants.

Blogs United Conference Nov 21

2009-11-12T22:58:00.002-05:00

The Blogs United Conference will be held at Christopher Newport University, Newport News VA in the Washington Room of the student union Saturday Nov. 21 from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. (doors open at 8 a.m.). Continental Breakfast and Lunch come with registration.

Cost is $15.

Invited guests include Sen. Jim Webb, Rep. Rob Wittman, Rep. Glenn Nye, reporters - Ryan Nobles, Anita Kumar, Julian Walker, and Kimball Payne, as well as Scott Hirons of the House Republican Campaign Committee and Greg Scanlon of the Virginia Democratic Party. There is also the possibility of a very special guest.

Topics during the conference include a lessons-learned discussion on the past campaign, opportunities to cover the General Assembly, the balance between being media and bloggers, and a tech discussion on the newest concepts in blogging.

We also will get a legal brief on some of the legal issues facing bloggers today.

Signup is here. Y'all come.

More charges for Hasan?

2009-11-12T22:12:00.003-05:00

Although Michelle Malkin makes an important case for 14 murder charges not 13 against Major Nidal Hasan (shown in the accompanying UK Telegraph photo composite), the Fort Hood jihadi murder suspect, there does appear to be at least one more charge that should be brought by his command against him.

Article 104 of the Uniform code of Military Justice defines the crime of Aiding the Enemy. This crime is committed by any person who, without proper authority, communicates or corresponds with the enemy, either directly or indirectly. Those who violate article 104 shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct. (Complete text below the fold)

The Authorization for Use of Military Force passed by the Congress on September 18, 2001 defines the authority to use military force against those nations, organizations, or persons determined to have planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001.

ABC News reports Thursday evening that Hasan "used multiple e-mail addresses and screen names as he contacted several jihadist web sites around the world." ABC News also reports, "In addition to his contacts with suspected al Qaeda recruiter Anwar al Awlaki in Yemen, authorities said there is evidence he contacted other radical sites and individuals, including some in Europe."

Since al Qaeda has been determined to be an organization that planned, authorized, and committed the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001 and it has been reported that Hasan communicated with Anwar al Awlaki, a recruiter for al Qaeda, it would appear that all of there is evidence to prove all of the elements of the offense described in Article 104 of the UCMJ. Is there any reason that Major Nidal Hasan should not be charged with that offense?

904. ART. 104. AIDING THE ENEMY
Any person who--
(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or
(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or [protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly;
shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.

The activities described by ABC News above may also be sufficient for charges of espionage in violation of UCMJ Article 106.:

906a. ART. 106a. ESPIONAGE
(A) (1) Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any entity described in paragraph (2), either directly or indirectly, any thing described in paragraph (3) shall be punished as a court-martial may direct, except that if the accused is found guilty of an offense that directly concerns (A) nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large scale attack, (B) war plans, (C) communications intelligence or cryptographic information, or (D) any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy, the accused shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court- martial may direct.
(2) An entity referred to in paragraph (1) is--
(A) a foreign government;
(B) a faction or party or military force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States
(C) a representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or citizen of such government, faction, party, or force.
(3) A thing refereed to in paragraph (1) is a document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance or information relating to the national defense.
(b) (1) No person may be sentenced by court-martial to suffer death for an offense under this section (article) unless--
(A) the members of the court-martial unanimously find at least one of the aggravating factors set out in subsection (c); and
(B) the members unanimously determine that any extenuating or mitigating circumstances are substantially outweighed by any aggravating circumstances, including the aggravating factors set out under subsection (c).
(2) Findings under this subsection may be based on--
(A) evidence introduced on the issue of guilt or innocence;
(B) evidence introduced during the sentencing proceeding; or
(C) all such evidence.
(3) The accused shall be given broad latitude to present matters in extenuation and mitigation.
(c) A sentence of death may be adjudged by a court-martial for an offense under this section (article) only if the members unanimously find, beyond a reasonable doubt, one or more of the following aggravating factors:
(1) The accused has been convicted of another offense involving espionage or treason for which either a sentence of death or imprisonment for life was authorized by statute.
(2) In the commission of the offense, the accused knowingly created a grave risk of substantial damage to the national security.
(3) In the commission of the offense, the accused knowingly created a grave risk of death to another person.
(4) Any other factor that may be prescribed by the President by regulations under section 836 of this title (Article 36).

Why Bob McDonnell should and will be Governor

2009-10-29T22:45:00.002-04:00

It is really simple. Just click below to see real leadership for Virginia. A vets vet, a citizen's citizen and the epitome of leadership. Hooah.

Master of Political Art

2009-10-29T07:31:00.005-04:00

The final candidate debate in the 93rd House District was scheduled for Wednesday evening at Christopher Newport University. As we noted in our previous post it was expected the Robin Abbott, the Democrat candidate would be a no show and that expectation was fulfilled. Her empty chair spoke pointedly about her unwillingness to discuss public issues in public with the voters she proposed to represent. It also highlighted that a candidate who cannot face her opponent or the public cannot have a claim to be prepared to legislate for that public.

The more important part of the story though is what followed the introductions and notice of the empty chair. On stage was Joel Rubin, long time public affairs interview format host and Delegate Phil Hamilton. One on one, no prepared script, no advance questions, no novices. What the audience received was a tour de force presentation of the art, substance and subtlety of Virginia legislative politics as only Phil Hamilton could deliver it, with clarity, nuance and depth of knowledge.

From health care, to the budget process, to education spending, places to adjust the budget, Hamilton demonstrated effortlessly the value he delivers to his 93rd district constituents, and to the Commonwealth. It is not often that voters get to hear the real truth, that there are no free roads, no easy solutions and no part of the budget is up for grabs. The state budget, all of it, is a sacred cow to some constituency and to some delegate, or the money would not be set aside for that purpose in the budget. The practical art is working with the priorities to fashion a budget bill that can fit within the revenue available and pass both legislative houses. The Phil Hamilton's insight seemed a cake walk.

Robin Abbott should have been there. She missed a master lesson from a legislative master of the political art. The voters of the 93rd should have no doubt that Phil Hamilton should continue to serve as their delegate.

Abbott AWOL from 93rd District Campaign

2009-10-24T04:43:00.003-04:00

In our post more than a week ago, we reported evidence that Robin Abbott, 93rd House District candidate had abandoned her campaign. Now there is more evidence. A press release from Phil Hamilton's (R-Newport News) campaign claims Abbott has refused to participate in a candidate forum at Christopher Newport University scheduled for October 28. That forum, sponsored by the university's Judy Ford Wason Center for Public Policy, and CNU Young Democrats and College Republicans is the third forum in two weeks that Abbott has failed to appear or refused to attend. Compounding Abbott's refusal is the fact that she is a CNU graduate.

Can Virginia afford a Liar as Attorney General?

2009-10-22T08:41:00.001-04:00

In his attack ad, which his campaign labels Ken Cuccinelli's Crony Politics, Democrat Attorney General nominee Steve Shannon claims "Cuccinelli said Hamilton should stay in Office" and cites the Washington Post 8/24/09 and the Daily Press 9/18/09 as sources for his allegation. In fact, Shannon's claim is a lie, and therefore Shannon is a liar. Here is what the Washington Post actually said:

Del. Steve Shannon of Fairfax County, the Democratic nominee for attorney general, called on Hamilton to resign from the legislature.
Shannon's Republican opponent, state Sen. Ken Cuccinelli, weighed in
too with a comment about wishing the events had unfolded differently.
But like other Republicans who said they were disappointed with
Hamilton, Cuccinelli stopped short of a call for Hamilton's ouster. Hamilton
said he considered resigning but decided against it, and he spent the
weekend knocking on doors, apologizing and otherwise battened down in the interest of weathering the darkest storm of his 21-year career in the House.

Just where in the Washington Post's quote does Sen. Cuccinelli call for Hamilton to stay in office?

and this is what the Daily Press actually reported:

So far, Republican attorney general nominee Ken Cuccinelli is the only
statewide candidate who hasn't called for Hamilton to step down from
the House. But this week while discussing Hamilton's ODU ties,
Cuccinelli said it would be appropriate for Hamilton to be removed from
appropriations because of the pending probes.

Just where in this Daily Press piece is Sen. Cuccinelli quoted as saying Hamilton should stay?

As we noted in our earlier post, it appears that Hamilton's opponent paid Shannon $50,000 to attack Hamilton. The only way to respond to Steve Shannon is to use the words made famous by Rep. Joe Wilson: You Lie.

Virginia cannot afford to elect a liar (and perhaps a hired liar) to be the senior officer of the court for the Commonwealth. If his ads were made as statements in court Shannon would be found to be a perjurer. Shannon should be disqualified from any post of trust or responsibility. Virginia beware.

Watch the Shannon ad for yourself taken directly from Shannon's website. Remember the tag line, I'm Steve Shannon, candidate for Attorney General, and I am a liar.

Have Abbott and West abandoned campaigns?

2009-10-15T21:50:00.005-04:00

The Newport News Southern Christian Leadership Conference held its House of Delegates candidate forum Thursday night at the Newport News City School Administration Building. The forum was to feature the candidates for the 93rd and 94th districts and was a followup to a similar forum held in April 2009. At the April forum all of the candidates agreed to the followup scheduled for Thursday night. To the surprise and consternation of the nearly 100 voters who crowded into the School Board chamber, neither Robin Abbott, Democratic candidate in the 93rd district, nor Gary West, Democratic candidate in the 94th district showed up for the forum. Their incumbent opponents Del. Phil Hamilton and Del. Glenn Oder did appear at the forum and took questions from the moderators, Bill Thomas of Hampton University and Kathy Barnstorff of NASA Langley and from the audience. Also in attendance were members of the Newport News City Council, Dr. Pat Woodbury and Tina Vick.

Given Abbott and West's previous commitment to attend the forum, the large audience and its sponsorship by the SCLC it is difficult to attribute the failure of both Democratic candidates to appear to anything but their abandonment of their election campaigns.

Obama says he will end Don't Ask Don't Tell

2009-10-10T21:59:00.003-04:00

The Wall Street Journal is reporting Saturday night that President Obama has pledged to end the ban on gays serving openly in the armed forces. Speaking at the annual dinner of the Human Rights Campaign, a advocacy group for gay rights, Mr. Obama was quoted as saying: "I will end "don't ask-don't tell.'" No time frame was associated with his promise.

While Mr. Obama made the first person pledge, don't ask-don't tell is not a policy malleable by the president, it is a law which requires action by the Congress to change. Even if done at the request of the president, it would never be accurate to say the president changed the law, only that Congress changed the law. The Whitehouse lists a livestream link to the speech audio but the link does not appear to be working. (Accompanying Getty Image photo of Pres. Obama and TOTUS addressing HRC link from online.WSJ.com)

Treat Juvenile Violent Offenders more leniently?

2009-10-05T08:35:00.003-04:00

Sunday's Daily Press reports on the arrest of two seventeen-year-olds on charges of murder, burglary, grand larceny, conspiracy, and the use of a firearm in the commission of a felony.

During last Thursday's Voices for Children candidate forum, Robin Abbott, Democratic party candidate for delegate in the 93rd district staked out a position that Virginia should not routinely treat juveniles, like the two arrested, as adults because they have statistically different outcomes then those in juvenile facilities. (Her remarks are in the embedded video)

No matter how serious their crimes, young people, who are adjudicated as juveniles, cannot serve sentences past their 21st birthday. For the two arrested today, that would mean a sentence of not more than four years for murder, and the use of a firearm in a felony. Virginia and the 93rd district cannot afford a delegate so out of tune with public safety, favoring holding the two juveniles in the Daily Press story fully accountable for their actions.

Stimulas Working? Not! Unemployment rises to 9.8%

2009-10-02T11:42:00.003-04:00

Although having predicted that unemployment would not increase beyond 8% if the immediately needed $787 billion stimulus package was passed, the Washington Post reports today that the unemployment rate reached 9.8% in September, and the economy lost a further 263,000 jobs in September, more than the revised 201,000 jobs lost in August.

When the August results were announced, the President declared:

"that while lost jobs are still “unacceptable” there are some signs of light.

“For the second straight month, we lost fewer jobs than the month before and it was the fewest jobs lost in a year. So make no mistake. We're moving in the right direction. We're on the road to recovery. Ohio. Don’t let anybody tell you otherwise.”

Now that the loss of jobs has increased from August to September(see accompanying Washington Post chart) and the overall unemployment rate has risen, not fallen, I think we can tell Mr. Obama otherwise. Perhaps we can judge the honesty of the President's remarks using the words now made famous by Representative Joe Wilson: "You Lie."

The American Dream Sunset?

2009-10-02T10:21:00.003-04:00

Sunset on the American Dream? Don't count on it. Over 2000 Defenders of the American Dream are gathering at Arlington Virginia's Crystal Gateway Marriott to make sure it is a rising not a setting sun. They will be storming Capital Hill this afternoon to remind our representatives that we expect them to defend the dream also and not be drawing the curtains.

What is the American Dream? In a word freedom. Freedom for ourselves and our children. Freedom to succeed or learn from our failures. Freedom to achieve, grow and prosper. Freedom to pursue happiness, an inalienable right, which along with life and liberty form the basis of our republican ideals.

The Defending the American Dream Summit will be underway today and tomorrow sponsored by Americans for Prosperity. Following visits to Capital Hill, this evening's highlight is the 'Tribute to Ronald Reagan' Dinner with Laura Ingraham, Congressman Mike Pence (R-IN), Dr. Jim Miller, former Reagan administration budget director, and American's for Prosperity Chairman Art Pope.

The VirginianFederalist is live blogging from the conference's blogger's row. Follow updates here, and on twitter (#dad09).

Defend the American Dream!

Peninsula Candidates Mental Health Forum

2009-09-30T07:30:00.000-04:00

The Colonial Services Board and the Hampton-Newport News Community Services Board hosted a General Assembly candidates forum Tuesday evening at Dozier Middle School in Newport News. The forum attracted candidates from the 64th, 91st, 93rd and 94th House Districts, covering the Peninsula and extending across the James. The forum focused on services for people with mental illness, developmental disabilities and and substance use disorders, and was very timely not only for the upcoming general election but in light of the significant budget cuts announced by Governor Kaine this month.

Del. William Barlow (D-64), Samuel Eure (D) and Gordon Helsel (I) candidates in the 91st district, Del Phil Hamilton (R-93) and candidate Robin Abbott (D), Del. Glenn Oder (R-94) and candidate Gary West (D), and Del. Brenda Pogge (R-94) participated in the forum hosted by David Coe, Executive Director, Colonial Services Board and moderated by Renee Cabral-Daniels of the Williamsburg Community Health Foundation.
Read some interesting opinions and candidate thoughts below the fold.

A recurring theme throughout the forum and among all the candidates was support for shifting treatment resources and responsibility in tandem to community based services like those provided by the Community Services Boards, and support for reducing the number of people waiting for community services funding under the Medicaid MR Waiver program.

In his opening remarks Mr. Eure surprised audience members when he described the purpose of providing services to people with developmental disabilities as "to help as much as possible for the benefit of the state."

Gordon Helsel clearly acknowledged the plight of aging parents with developmentally delayed children who remain unsure who will look after their children when they become to old to do so, or are no longer there.

Del. Hamilton remarked on the appropriateness of having a public policy discussion for a change with only 35 days remaining before the election. He noted that he was the chief sponsor for legislation with created the Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy to ensure an independent voice to protect the vulnerable as well as the creation of an Inspector General within the Department of Behavioral Health and Disability Services. He also mentioned that he was one of only two legislators on the Mental Health Law Commission. (The other is Attorney General Candidate Senator Ken Cuccinelli.) Del. Hamilton also pointed to his efforts to find the funds to modernize and rebuild facilities at Eastern State Hospital, South-East Virginia Training Center, and the Commonwealth Center in Staunton. He stated that he was the only legislator to publicly oppose the Governor's action to cut half of new Medicaid disability waivers out of the FY 2010 budget.

Ms. Abbott recognized that funding for services for those on the MR Waiver waiting list was important but seemed somewhat confused about the actual numbers even though this information was presented by others earlier. Del. Oder remarked on his personal connection to the Sarah Bonwell Hudgins Foundation services for persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Mr. West described his experiences as an attorney seeking assistance for his clients from insurance companies, government bureaucracies, and the courts. Del. Pogge reminded the audience that even before the inception of the United States, Virginia had recognized that the treatment of people with mental illness was a core function of government marked by the establishment in Williamsburg of the first public hospital for the mentally ill.

While all of the participants responding to a question about Drug Courts expressed support for this treatment option, Mr. Eure expressed the view that non-violent drug offenders should not be jailed. He did not mention that the drug treatment courts are effective as an alternative only because they are an alternative to jail. Del. Hamilton noted that the disparity in state support for drug treatment courts which has resulted in only 14 of the 29 courts receiving state funding and recognized that with limited overall state funding the House has traditionally given priority to the funding of MR waivers.

In response to a question about how to fund MR waivers for those critically needing services, Robin Abbott that the funds could be found by reducing the waste, fraud and abuse in the state budget but failed to mention what she considered to be current wasteful, fraudulent or abusive spending. Del. Hamilton respond by noting that this was not a line item in the 400+ page state budget. Mr. Eure expressed his support for keeping all options open for funding services including raising taxes.

The forum was civil, well attended and a rare example of political discourse focused on real problems and solutions.

Did Hamilton's Opponent Buy Steve Shannon's call for Resignation?

2009-09-27T12:28:00.004-04:00

Robin Abbott is Phil Hamilton's Democrat opponent in Virginia's 93rd House District race. On August 24, 2009, Steve Shannon (D), nominee for Attorney General called for Phil Hamilton to resign, which would pave the way for Abbott's unopposed election. Abbott's law firm is Consumer Litigation Associates , whose address she lists as her official address on campaign reports.. According to records published by the Virginia Public Access Project, Consumer Litigation Associates made a contribution of $10,000 to Shannon's campaign on March 19, 2009. (The firm is the largest contributor to Abbott's campaign, $75,833 through 8/31) Just seven days after Shannon assisted Abbott in calling for Hamilton's resignation, Consumer Litigation Associates contributed another $40,000 to Shannon's campaign. Consumer Litigation Associates' $50,000 in contributions makes the firm the largest single contributor to his campaign after the Democratic Attorney Generals Association.

Did Robin Abbott simply buy Shannon's opposition to Hamilton for $50,000? Can Virginia afford an Attorney General so easy to buy. Can the citizens of the 93rd House District afford a delegate willing to bribe others to promote her candidacy?

(Accompanying photo of Shannon, 95th District Delegate Mamye BaCote, Abbott and Charlie Stanton (of Senator Webb's Hampton Roads office and Chairman, Newport News City Democratic Committee)from Abbott's public website.

Lies and More Lies

2009-09-09T23:16:00.002-04:00

President Obama spoke to the Congress and the country about health care in a speech Wednesday night. The full text of the speech is available here. I have not witnessed previously any previous forty-eight minutes as crammed packed with lies, falsehoods, and prevarications. If this speech were made under oath it would be almost in its entirety perjurious. Here are some examples (below the fold)

Here are just some examples.

Obama begins by talking about health insurance and those that do not have it. He mentions that "these are middle-class Americans." Yet the ranks of the uninsured is not primarily middle class Americans. One third are not Americans at all. One third are not middle class but those poor enough to be eligible for Medicaid and the children's health insurance plan who do not enroll.

He continues: "Some can’t get insurance on the job. Others are self-employed, and can’t afford it, since buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer." What are we to make of this statement. Buying individual insurance does not cost three times as much as the cost of employer provided insurance. The key to the half-truth here is the you as 'costs you three times as much'. This really is a lie. The employer may not directly charge you for the health insurance the employer is paying for, but you are paying for it in lower wages. The insurance itself does not cost three times as much, in fact if you could buy a policy that provided you the coverage you wanted and allowed you to accept the risks you wanted you could pay substantially less than the employer does.

"Many other Americans who are willing and able to pay are still denied insurance due to previous illnesses or conditions that insurance companies decide are too risky or expensive to cover." Another lie. These denied Americans are simply unwilling to pay the actual cost of the care they wish to purchase. Try buying a $100,000 life insurance policy while waiting for open heart surgery. The premium would be close to $100,000 in order to cover the huge risk that the payout will be required before the ink is dry on the policy. If you have a high risk of incurring large medical bills the cost of insuring that risk will be proportionately high. For it to be less requires that someone else incur the cost either voluntarily or by force.

In berating the country for not having solved the supposed health care crisis until now, Obama notes: "There are now more than thirty million American citizens who cannot get coverage." This statement is patently untrue. All of these thirty million could get coverage, but the cost might be at a price greater than they are willing to pay. The administration claims 46 million or so people without coverage. If we deduct those who are not Americans (12 million) this leaves 34 million. Of these 9 million are now eligible for Medicaid or other entitlements but have not applied. They can get coverage. With this in mind it is not possible for there to be 30 million who cannot get coverage. Mr. Obama is not being truthful.

Mr. Obama mentions that: "More and more Americans worry that if you move, lose your job, or change your job, you’ll lose your health insurance too." The issue is not the level of worry. There are lots of Americans who worry that an asteroid will destroy the earth tomorrow, that some polar bear will drown when the ocean levels rise to cover the Rocky Mountains, that the Yankees will not beat the Red Sox. Their inordinate and uninformed worries are their own. No one moving from house to house loses their life insurance. No one losing their job or changing their job loses their auto insurance. Their worry about losing the health insurance arises from the fact that they don't purchase that insurance with their own money and instead are reliant on someone else to pay for it. If they purchased their own health insurance, suitable to their needs, with their own money, they would not be worrying about the circumstances of their employment or choice of residence.

Mr. Obama describes: "Then there’s the problem of rising costs. We spend one-and-a-half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren’t any healthier for it." Here Obama's sophistry is in the use of the word we. Just who is the we. Many Americans spend money on health care. This includes food supplements, laser eye surgery, botox, massage therapy, aroma therapy, gender reassignment and cosmetic surgery. I am perfectly happy for Americans to spend their own money on any of these services if that makes those individuals happy, whether they are healthier for it or not. If they spend their own money on what they desire, it does not cost we anything. In those other advanced democracies much admired by the president, the we there does not have those costs because the we their refuses to pay for it, along with advanced medications, modern technology and if the British newspapers are correct even food or water for those who might die.

Further along Mr. Obama claims: "And it’s why those of us with health insurance are also paying a hidden and growing tax for those without it – about $1000 per year that pays for somebody else’s emergency room and charitable care. " He also asserts, "There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false – the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally."
If there is a hidden cost of $1,000 per year paying for 'somebody else's emergency room and charitable care' and those 12 million illegal immigrants will not be covered, won't that $1,000 per year hidden tax still exist unless illegal immigrants are to be denied any health care they don't pay for themselves?

We may also appropriately ask just how will payments for health care for illegal immigrants be denied? Under current law, patients cannot be denied necessary emergency room treatment because they cannot pay. Hospitals may not even ask how the service will be paid for before providing it. the 'reforms I'm proposing' will not apply to those here illegally, hospitals would be required to demand up front payment or deny the care all while trying to sift out the issue of which patient is here legally and which is not. Mr. Obama is not telling the whole truth here either.

If the only way Mr. Obama has to overcome the well-founded objections of the American people is to offer lies and more lies, than his proposals should receive the reception they deserve. Those who plan to vote for these proposals should be counted by the people as among the liars and enemies of the nation. As for me and my house we will not support them.

(Accompanying AP/Chalres Dharapak photo from the Wall Street Journal)

U.K. Political Correctness run Amok

2009-09-06T07:51:00.007-04:00

Headline and lead in the U.K. Daily Telegraph Sunday morning: Riot Police arrest 20 as right-wing protest in Birmingham ends in violence. Lead: At least 20 men have been arrested after violent clashes between right-wing protesters and anti-fascist campaigners in Birmingham city centre.

The story goes on to describe only one side of the disturbance participants as members of the English Defense League and quotes from an EDL statement:
"As many people are now aware, we at the English Defence League are holding a demonstration in Birmingham on Saturday 5th September to oppose Islamic Extremists.

"We would like to state that anyone who wishes to cause trouble, or use this demonstration to voice any other issues other than Islamic Fundamentalists, Radical Islam and Sharia will be turned away.

"We are not a Fascist organisation, and urge anyone who knows of anybody who is intent on causing trouble on the day to contact us."

Since the lead defines the two sides as a) right-wing protesters and b) anti-fascist campaigners which of these terms is the Telegraph applying to the English Defense League? By their own statements they are demonstrating to oppose Islamic Extremists, are not a Fascist organization and organized the event. It would seem that they would be the anti-fascist campaigners. If so, the right-wing protesters would be the Islamic extremists although there is no mention of them in the balance of the article.

I suspect though that the Telegraph meant this the other way around, meaning to identify the English Defense League as the right-wing protesters and "persons of South Asian origin" as the anti-fascist campaigners, but not being able to mention the actions or even participation of one of the two sides due to political correctness, has left us with an entirely confused impression and bereft of understanding what exactly the story was about. After all the persons of South Asian origin who are Islamic extremists cannot possibly be fascist or protesters, but freedom loving campaigners.

Contrast this with the treatment given the same story in the New York Times:

The clashes erupted Saturday when a rally by the English Defense League ran into counter-demonstrators including anti-fascists and youths of South Asian descent, West Midlands Police said.

For the first time we get the identification of the unnamed counter protester as anti-fascists and youths of South Asian descent. (That would be your Isalmic extemists). We also learn something of the background that did not appear in the Telegraph:

Clashes also erupted last month at a similar demonstration in Birmingham, a diverse city of about 1 million where nearly a third of the population is nonwhite.

[As an aside, in the photo background is a sign offering 1900 square feet for rent. I thought England had adopted the metric system and criminalized transactions in unapproved measurement systems.]

(Accompanying PA photo from Telegraph Co. U.K.)

Van Jones, Obama Green Jobs Czar out

2009-09-06T01:24:00.002-04:00

The Wall Street Journal is reporting early this morning,
that Van Jones, White House advisor for 'green jobs' has resigned. Jones and the White House had come under pressure when it was discovered that Jones had signed a 2004 petition for congressional hearing on "whether high-level government officers had allowed the attacks to occur" on September 11, 2001. A number of egregious comments made by Jones were aired on Fox News' Glen Beck Show on September 1, 2009.

On September 4, White House spokesperson Robert Gibbs declined to state that Jones enjoyed the confidence of President Obama.
(Accompanying AP photo)

UK NHS Adopts Patient Murder Protocol

2009-09-03T07:21:00.003-04:00

An extraordinarily alarming story in the UK Daily Telegraph describes the adoption by Britain's National Health Service of a protocol to end the life of patients considered terminal by withdrawing food and water and other care. The denial of care decisions are made without consultation or notice to the patient or the patients family. The policy, the Liverpool Care Pathway, was recommended by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice). Nice is the model for the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research established in the Department of Health and Human Services under the stimulus act.

While the comparative effectiveness research council would do research and make clinical recommendations, Americans receiving their health care at government expense could expect to have that care conform to the recommendations developed by the council, just as the Liverpool Care Pathway was adopted by National Health Service hospitals on recommendation by Nice.

When we begin to describe health care as costing the nation too much money, instead of recognizing the costs are borne by individuals with individual, personal rights and decision making capability we are on the same path which led to the adoption of this policy by the National Health Service.

No private health care plan, doctor of organization in the United States could adopt a policy of purposeful death of patients today without criminal and civil penalties. The fifth amendment to the Constitution states no person shall... be deprived of life...without due process of law. The current proposals to move more of the management and control of health care expenditures and decision making from individuals to government will inevitably lead to adoption of the same type of death protocols as now adopted in Britain. Government decisions to end the life of citizens without criminal conviction and without due process can have no other name than tyranny. Sic Semper Tyrannis is a proper motto for opposing the health care proposals now before the Congress. Read the story, read the accompanying comments. Who has a pike.

Roanoke Times Anti-Cuccinelli Screed

2009-08-30T08:42:00.003-04:00

Dan Case, metro columnist for the Roanoke Times, has an anti-concealed carry permit screed up this morning attacking Attorney General candidate Ken Cuccinelli for his work on the concealed carry permit law. If Case was telling the whole truth his article could almost comprise an argument, but he did not go that far. Let's look at the facts.

Case complains that he was able to obtain a concealed carry permit after taking an online course and passing a test about gun safety, without having handled a gun, but he does not indicate exactly what he is complaining about except to say that "makes as much sense as the General Assembly giving blind people permit to drive." The omission Case makes is that no permit is required to carry a gun without concealing it. How does the act of concealing the gun require more safety instruction than carrying the same gun in plain view?

Case attacks Cuccinelli for championing the bill and infers that his motive was a $1,000 campaign contribution from Robert Marcus, owner of the Concealed Carry Institute which offers the on line test Case took to qualify for his permit. What Case fails to mention is that the Virginia law is not specific to the Concealed Carry Institute or Marcus. Instead it permits as one of eight other options "Completing any firearms training or safety course or class, including an electronic, video, or on-line course, conducted by a state-certified or National Rifle Association-certified firearms instructor." Marcus may have been happy to have this section in the law, but it left him to compete with any other certified instructor in any state who had such a course. In addition the law prior to this amendment recognized any hunter education or safety course approved by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries or of any other state, or completion of "any National Rifle Association firearms safety or training course" whether it required actual contact with a gun of any sort or not.

Perhaps Case would like to share the rest of the story with his readers instead of the partial truth he has offered.

VA Dem AG Candidate favors higher spending and lower spending?

2009-07-31T20:08:00.003-04:00

The Roanoke Times at its roanoke.com website reports on a visit Wednesday by Steve Shannon who the report indicates is running for Attorney General as the Democratic party nominee.

The article notes that Shannon said he wanted to keep taxes low but increase expenditures for public and higher education, safe communities, and transportation infrastructure. Since Virginia must have a balanced budget, and is currently running a deficit, his proposals presume either increasing taxes or cutting other spending. He did not say which spending he wished to reduce. He also did not mention that other than the budget for his own office, the Attorney General has no constitutional role to play in the budget process or spending priorities.

Shannon listed his priorities for his campaign as:

a. Issues emerging from Virginia's shift from an industrial to a technological economy, including Internet-based crimes such as child pornography.

b. Gangs and drug problems, especially those that span across local jurisdictions.

c. Economic crimes, including market frauds and scams.

For priority a, I am not sure if Shannon thinks moving from industry to information based economic services is a good or bad thing, but he does apparently think Virginia has a child pornography based internet crime industry and he can either encourage or suppress it by talking about it in his campaign.

For priority b and c, it appears that market frauds and scams as well as gangs and drug problems are crimes that are beyond the capability of the commonwealth attorneys charged with prosecuting crimes defined in the Code of Virginia and that Shannon can effect these issues positively or negatively by campaigning for office.

Perhaps he meant to say he was going to propose taking some undefined action concerning these issues if elected but failed to say that or define the actions.

In the article Shannon is also quoted as saying:

"Every time I start feeling like things are getting way too partisan in Richmond, I try to think back to those kids, those kids I represented in the courtroom," Shannon said. "I try to think back of what they expected of me as a prosecutor. That's been the way I try to conduct myself in Richmond, and that's going to be the way I'll conduct myself should I be elected your next attorney general."

I am not sure exactly how to interpret this remark except to understand that, if elected Attorney General, Shannon will behave as children would expect, whatever that is. Possible option shown in accompanying photo.

Economy Mending?

2009-07-31T07:24:00.000-04:00

The Money section of USA Today's Thursday print edition was headlined, Reports show economy mending. Obama sees 'beginning of the end of the recession'. I do not know what story USA Today's editors were reading when they wrote that headline. The story by Matt Krantz which followed made the following points:
1. Five federal reserve regions were reporting economies which were subdued or weak while the Minneapolis region was faltering.
2. The Federal Reserve beige book report indicated concern about the demand for office buildings, retail space, and manufacturing facilities.
3. Jim Paulsen of Wells Capital Management was quoted as saying, "There's a lot of information that supports the idea we've turned a corner, but there's still a lot of doubt.
On the same page we also learned:
4. Orders to U.s. factories for big-ticket durable goods fell in June by the most in five months, 2.5%, much larger than the .6% decline economist had expected.
5. Unemployment rates rose from May to June in 348 of 370 metropolitan areas.
6. Oil prices fell almost 6% on Wednesday alone.
7. In trading on Wednesday the Nasdaq composite index, the Standard & Poor's 500 index and the Dow Jones Industrial Average each lost 1% of their value.
The online edition also reported
8. Banks increased borrowing from the Federal Reserve's emergency lending facility over the past week.
9. Mortgage rates rose a second week in a row which does not help the housing industry.
and
10. Even the headline quote from President Obama was not quite as positive as it appeared. The more accurate rendition provided in the article from a comment made at a town hall meeting in Raleigh, North Carolina was, "We may be seeing the beginning of the end of the recession." Or not.

Cash for Clunkers Clunks Out

2009-07-30T21:11:00.002-04:00

Bloomberg News reports Thursday evening that six days into the Cash for Clunkers program, established in the Iraq and Afghanistan War funding bill, the program is being closed because all of the $1 Billion budget has been spent. The program offered rebates of up to $4,500 per clunker. At that rate something just over 222,000 vehicles would be turned in for destruction as the program was designed. Bloomberg quotes an unnamed congressional official as saying the demand for the rebate "proved greater than expected."

My preliminary numbers would suggest that in addition to the $1 billion of additional U.S. government debt created by the program, federal highway tax revenue will decline by approximately $5 million in the first year, and the total wealth of the United States represented by the automobiles destroyed would be a further $500 million, a total cost to the nation of over $1.5 billion.
(photo from bigfatcars.com)

A district in Michigan's idiot has been found in Washington

2009-07-28T00:30:00.004-04:00

With a hat tip to Netrightnation, we consider the curious statement of Representative John Conyers (D-MI) on exercising the duties of congressman. Mr. Conyers avers:

"What good is reading the bill if it's a thousand pages and you don't have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?"

What good indeed. Mr. Conyers might well ask this of his constituents except put slightly differently. What good is having a representative that does not read or understand the legislation being considered. Just hand the voting keys to Ms. Pelosi and enjoy the perks of a health care plan your constituents will not be provided with.

If there are any readers in Mr. Conyers district please tell me this will be his final term in office.

Newport News Mayor Joe Frank will not seek Reelection

2009-07-21T22:56:00.004-04:00

Newport News Mayor Joe Frank announced Tuesday night that he would not seek reelection as Mayor in May 2010. The Mayor's announcement is provided in full below.

JOE S. FRANK

NEWPORT NEWS, VIRGINIA 23606

July 21, 2009

Letter to the Editor

It has been my honor and privilege to serve the citizens of Newport News as a Councilman and Mayor for over 21 years. It has been one of the most rewarding and fulfilling experiences of my life. I have met people that I would have never known, and learned about things that I never would have been exposed to, but for this remarkable journey. I have been welcomed into countless homes and businesses. I have shared the joys and sorrows of families from every part of the City and every walk-of-life. I have watched our young people grow and thrive in our schools and on our athletic fields, in our museums and our parks. I have heard the voices of our elderly as they reminisced and told their life stories, and learned from the richness of their experiences.

In my efforts to improve the lives of our citizens, I have been blessed to have the support, encouragement, and help of countless numbers of people: governors and senators, congressional representatives, members of the legislature and elected officials, business and civic leaders, educators, City staff, and colleagues on City Council. But the most valued support and encouragement has come from my family, friends, and the citizens of this wonderful City that I call home. These are the things that I treasure every day. I will always be proud of what we have accomplished together. As meaningful and rewarding as these experiences have been, my time and life have not been my own and it is time for me to regain that.

As I look to the years ahead, it is time for me to pave the way for a new generation of leadership for our community. So with some regret, but with absolute confidence that I have made the right decision, I have decided not to seek re-election in May. I do this now so that others who might seek the office will have ample time to organize and prepare—and more importantly—so that our citizens will have full opportunity to consider what they expect from our next Mayor and who will best meet those expectations. Personally I look forward to spending more time with my wife, children, and grandchildren, and to pursuing other opportunities.

The years ahead hold great promise for our City. A leader with clear vision and purpose will seize the many opportunities that will surely arise and continue to take us down the path of progress and assure our future success. Cities that stagnate, fail. The examples of that are all too abundant. So we are challenged to look forward; to take advantage of our many assets and build upon them, and to make this City a place of excellence, where truly, people will want to live, work, and raise a family. I wish us well!

Joe S. Frank

Mayor

McDonnell - Deeds Blogs United Debate -Not Yet

2009-07-21T22:40:00.004-04:00

Blogs United was my coming out to the world of blogging. Soon after I joined my esteemed colleagues at the Virginian Federalist. The candidates who attended that initial conference at Christopher Newport University were aware of the potential influence of the blogosphere and the value of personal contact with a wide spectrum of bloggers. Recently Blogs United invited Bob McDonnell and Creigh Deeds to a live in person debate at Christopher Newport University. The McDonnell campaign accepted. Today the Deeds campaign announced some events they would attend, but the Blogs United Debate was not one of them. ,

Jim Hoeft from Bearing Drift offered the following statement on behalf of Blogs United:

As some of you are aware, Blogs United has partnered with the Virginian-Pilot, Daily Press, WHRO, and Virginia Talks to provide citizens of the commonwealth a chance to engage with the gubernatorial candidates, Creigh Deeds and Bob McDonnell, in a forum at Christopher Newport University in late September.

Approximately two weeks ago, the McDonnell campaign accepted our offer to participate. Today, the Deeds campaign listed ten debates they would participate in, and ours was not one of them.

As vice chairman, Vivian Paige, notes on her blog, Blogs United is not out of the mix yet because the campaigns could agree to do more than the five mutually agreed to today, and ours could be one of the ones chosen in this "tussle."

I would note that Blogs United is not the only on-line venue that the Deeds campaign did not accept. They also declined to participate in the YouTube/Politico proposed debate.

Regardless, while I am initially disappointed that the Deeds campaign has turned away from the online community, and its increasingly growing readership, I am confident that other campaigns and speakers will be interested in participating at our venue.

I also remain hopeful that the Deeds campaign will reconsider their decision.

We know that the McDonnell campaign, at least, is still interested:

"We still want to do this debate," wrote Tucker Martin, McDonnell spokesman to the Deeds campaign and the Board of Directors via email.
Posted by J.R.Hoeft at 12:28 PM

(Accompanying photo from Fairfax Chamber of Commerce)