A Beat Up New Years Baby

I would like to wish everyone a happy new year. I would like to, but realistically, we will still be working on the problems left over from 2014… and 2013… and, well you get the idea. In other words, it’s a new year with the same old problems.

Iraq, ISIS, Afghanistan, the Taliban, Obama Care, GITMO, Illegal immigration, the list goes on, and it keeps getting longer. Depressing? Yes it is. But what positive steps are being take to solve any of these problems?

GITMO: Obama made a campaign promise in 2008 to close the Cuban terrorist prison. He found that promise difficult to keep when no country wanted to take the inmates – not even their home countries. It looks like Obama may have finally twisted enough arms (or greased enough palms) to find new homes for these terrorists.

In one instance, he traded (probably illegally) five high-level terrorists for one Army deserter. In another instance, The Saudis agreed to take some prisoners and detain them at their “rehabilitation center”, a posh resort for wayward terrorists where they can contemplate their evil deeds and learn new ways to terrorize the world. We can look forward to seeing these men back in the game in the not too distant future.

Afghanistan: Well, the end is here. We know that because our Commander-in-Chief said so, although we still have troops stationed there “for training purposes.” After 13 years, the Afghan Army is suddenly declared capable of holding on to their country. And Grandma’s big teeth pose no threat to Little Red Riding Hood. The Afghan Army did prove adept at shooting our “trainers” in the back, though. Is the war finally over? That was what Obama told us about Iraq when he pulled our troops out because there was an X marked on the calendar for that day.

ISIS (or ISIL, or IS, or whatever this scum calls itself these days): This is a graphic example of what happens when we try to set an arbitrary deadline for ending a conflict. The hostilities between Sunni and Shiite Muslims have been ongoing for some 1300 years. Don’t look for it to end in the coming year. We are fighting a perverted religious notion being promoted by murderous zealots in an uneducated and backward country. The situation will get a lot worse before it gets better – if that is even possible.

Obama Care: As Nancy Pelosi (the House Speaker that told congress they need to sign the bill to find out what’s in it) said, “It’s the law.” Unfortunately, it is a bad law. And people are now finding out just how bad it is. Premiums are going up, while coverage is getting worse. Sure, more people now have health coverage. This has been achieved by charging more to those that pay, while giving others a free ride. It should have been no surprise, though. Obama told Joe the Plumber we need to spread the wealth around.

In 2015, both houses of congress will be controlled by Republicans – the same people who tried 41 times to repeal Obamacare. Regardless of which party controls congress, bills require the President’s signature to become law. Head-on confrontation with Obama over the healthcare law will go nowhere. It might be better for the Republicans to try fixing the law – if possible – rather than spinning their wheels trying to dump it.

Illegal Immigration: Okay, Obama unilaterally (and probably illegally) declared amnesty for some 22 million people in the country here illegally. Sure, he threw up some hoops and hurdles for the illegals to jump through. I am sure they won’t be too much hindrance for some slick immigration lawyer to avoid. The Democrats need those votes, so don’t look for that problem to go away this year.

And here is a new problem fresh for the new year, the Imperial Presidency. Obama may have lost his roadblock to Republican bills in the Senate, but as he says, “I have a pen.” We have already seen the damage he can do with that pen, when he unilaterally ordered amnesty for illegal aliens. The fact is the US Constitution says nothing about the President being able to make law through executive orders. It takes the House, Senate, and President to create a law. From day 1, Congress gave the President, as chief executive, the power to issue executive orders to administer the country’s business. They did not give him the power to create laws. Congress needs to better define Presidential authority on this matter.

Okay my friends. Enjoy the New Years celebration. Raise toasts to the brand new year. When the party dies down and reality sets in, remember the ghosts of New Years past. They’re going to haunt us for a long while to come.

Dear “Concerned”

As a columnist, I find it always nice to receive feedback. You know at least someone is reading your stuff. Whether negative or positive, feedback can be interesting if not always constructive. And although I usually don’t respond directly to either type, occasionally something comes across my desk that just begs to be addressed.

This time it is a letter from a “Concerned American Citizen.” This letter stood out because it wasn’t criticizing or praising something I wrote. Actually, it was more of a plea for help with a distinct tone on frustration and despair.

Mister or misses (could not tell the gender) “Concerned” was retired from the Perris School District after thirty-five years of service, owned a home, had a mortgage, and was now being forced out of that home by the loan company. No, this is not unusual; foreclosures are still rampant in the Inland Empire.

What caught my attention in this situation was that the bank had foreclosed on the home and sold then it to illegal immigrants. Although I have no way to corroborate this claim or the immigration status of the buyers, I find this type of action occurring so often that I have no reason to doubt the allegation.

No. Wait. It gets even weirder. “Concerned” had tried to re-finance the home, but was denied – for what reason was not stated. The letter said that “Concerned” was told by the bank that he/she was the “wrong type of Mexican.” That “had [he/she] come from Mexico”, he/she would have been able to keep the home. Presumably, the bank was telling “Concerned” that they would have been able to qualify the re-finance had he/she been in the country illegally!

Bizarre as it sounds, this is probably true. For years, there have been reports that many loan companies are soliciting and giving preference to illegal immigrants for mortgages. Proof of citizenship is not a requirement to own property in this country, and most loan companies will accept the ITIN (taxpayer number) in lieu of a Social Security number for a loan.

“Concerned” blames the situation on Obama, and with Obama’s executive amnesty, it’s tempting to accept this excuse. Unfortunately, this was going on long before Obama officially blessed illegal entry into our country,

The banks like getting money from any source and pushed the government to create the ITIN for those that don’t have a Social Security number. The government likes getting income taxes so they created the ITIN so people could file a tax return in spite of not having legal residency or a legal right to work here. Everyone just gives a blind eye to illegal border crossers saying, “it ain’t my problem; it’s the Border Patrol’s problem.” They just want the money.

Well, “Concerned” is now paying rent while people who have no legal right to be here or even work here are living in what was his home. In the vernacular, that sucks!

During the Great Depression, banks were shown to be heartless beasts driving families from their homes and farms. Almost a century later, the only change seems to be that after taking the family homestead they now give preference to ownership by those who have no right to even be in the country.

I’m no Ann Landers, but my reply to “Concerned” is: I can truly sympathize with your plight, but the near future doesn’t look too rosy with Obama’s illegal executive amnesty. My only suggestion is what the Democrats would tell you – suck it up. Apparently, America is no longer for Americans.

Stay Healthy, My Friend

 The other day I was with a good friend when me to look at a medical bill he had received. He had studied it for days, but still couldn’t figure it out.

“Okay,” I said. “Let’s have a look.”

He handed me a bill from a billing company for a local hospital. The only entry on it was that he owed $170 for a visit to the emergency room. I knew that his son had insisted on taking him there after a scratch on his arm from his dog’s claws would not quit bleeding. At the Emergency Room, they bandaged the arm, gave him a Tetanus shot, and sent him home. The whole visit took about two hours with the actual procedure taking a mere 20 minutes. “Looks about right,” I said. “A hundred-seventy bucks isn’t all that bad for an Emergency Room visit.”

“Look at this.” He said handing me a statement from Medicare.

It turns out the visit had actually cost $2700! Only his share of the bill was $170. A further study of the Medicare statement revealed that Medicare actually only paid $90 of the hospital bill. Who paid the difference?

I’m no CPA, but even I could see something didn’t make sense here. We decided to call the hospital billing company and ask for a detailed statement to see who paid the difference.

“ We don’t have a detailed statement to send.” I was told. Well, we chased our tails for several turns while the person at the billing office kept repeating the same thing.

“You are telling me that the hospital charged my friend $2700 for the ER visit, Medicare paid $90 and you billed my friend for $170.”

“That’s right.”

“Well this must have something to do with the new math because my figures show about $2440 floating around somewhere that still remains to be paid.” I said.

For the third time she said, “There was an adjustment.”

This time it dawned on me what she meant. “Do you mean the hospital ate the difference?”

“Yes.” She said in relief. “The hospital has a contract with Medicare that allows them to make an adjustment.”

I told my friend, and he still didn’t understand. “What was the two-thousand dollars for?”

I looked at the Medicare statement again. They had charged $1073 for bandaging the arm (actually applying one large bandage), $1136 for just putting his nose through the Emergency Room door,  $197 for a Tetanus vaccine, and $300 just to “administer” the shot.

It looks to me like the government tells hospitals they can charge whatever they like for services but will only receive a set amount from Medicare. That’s great! But if the original charges are valid, how can the hospital afford to eat $2440 in this case? And what do they do with other Medicare cases?

Questions? Yeah, I still have a few. Like is it valid to charge a thousand dollars for a band-aid? Why does it cost $300 just to give a shot, when they give them free at most pharmacies? Then why does it cost $1000 just to set foot in the Emergency room?

Well folks, here’s the bottom-line. If you don’t have Medicare or health care insurance, you are paying for the hospital to eat the difference on every visit of this nature. If you are fortunate enough to actually have healthcare insurance, you are still paying with your inflated premiums.

Oh, but you have Obama care? Well check out your premiums and compare them to those who are paying little or no premiums. Yep, you are making up the difference.

Is there a reason health care has to be so expensive? That is the question we should be asking. Not who will pay for health care.

Working the Con

There are famous con men, people who swindle for a living. Frank Abagnale kited some 2.5 million dollars worth of bad checks while posing as an airline pilot, doctor, and eventually a lawyer and a teacher. Abagnale’s life story was made into the movie Catch Me If You Can. Then there is the infamous Charles Ponzi – the one they named the Pyramid Scheme after. One modern day practitioner of this scheme was Bernie Madoff, the ex-NASDAQ chief who bilked investors out of an estimated 68 billion dollars.

You might recall the movie The Sting where con men were portrayed as heroes who bilked the mob out of a pile of money. That may make for a great Hollywood story. In real life, though, these people are merely thieves who pull the wool over the eyes of trusting and unsuspecting individuals. Although many people admire the way these con men gain the trust of their victims, the practice is in fact a despicable and highly illegal practice that leaves the victims with a traumatic sense of being violated.

Now comes Professor Jonathan Gruber, who, along with his accomplices Nancy Pelosi and Barrack Obama, may have pulled the greatest con in America’s history.

Let’s examine Gruber. He is currently a professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he has taught since 1992. He is also the director of the Health Care Program at the National Bureau of Economic Research, where he is a research associate. An associate editor of the Journal of Public Economics and the Journal of Health Economics, Gruber has been heavily involved in crafting public health policy, including the Massachusetts healthcare policy aka. “Romneycare.”

Why is Gruber important? Well, it turns out the good professor helped write and promote the 905-page Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare that President Obama signed into Law in 2010.

Yes 905 pages of “tortured language” that very few in Congress bothered to read, let alone understood. The then Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, stood at the podium of the House and told Congress they will have to “pass the bill to find out what’s in it.”

Well we did find out – the hard way. As the newly minted law began to be implemented, the American public found out they had been scammed. “If you like your doctor, you can keep it -- if you like your healthcare plan you can keep it” soon became the lie Obama could not overcome or explain away. As insurance premiums began to grow and the official Web Site rollout proved to be a disaster, Americans started to wonder just what the government had gotten us into.

Well we found out what those 905 pages were all about when the well-paid consultant, Gruber, appeared on television and explained that the bill was intentionally written in a way to deceive the “stupid voters.” Even more significant was the revelation that the law was written to avoid the appearance of it being a tax – one of the first controversial points that went before the Supreme Court.

Of course, the White House and Nancy Pelosi denied even knowing Jonathan Gruber. Another co-conspirator HHS secretary, Kathleen Sebelius denied knowing the professor, even though they both sat on the same committee, and she signed his paycheck for several hundred thousand dollars.

Deception upon deception, this fraud was foisted upon the American public – many of whom bought into it in good faith – just to learn that it was a scam promoted by unrepentant con men, including the Speaker of the House and President of the United States.

Do you feel violated and taken advantage of? I do. But then again, I never believed any of Obama’s lies. This bill passed without a single Republican vote and was signed into law by a Democratic President. Since the Republicans gained control of the House, they have tried some 40 times to repeal this fraudulent law only to be thwarted by Democrats in the Senate. It’s apparent that it will take a Republican controlled Congress and Republican President to set the Affordable Care Act right. Until then folks, you will just have to put up with being taken for a ride by the Democrats, and being the victim of the Great American con called Obamacare.

Trial By Media

I am writing this before the Saint Louis County, Missouri Grand Jury decides whether to indict police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. It really doesn’t matter which way this goes, though. The news media have already indicted Officer Wilson and judged him guilty of murder.

Every mainstream newspaper and Television News program has told the story of a poor angelic black boy with his hands raised being shot in the back by a vicious racist police officer for no reason other than the boy was black. Whenever pictures of victim Michael Brown are shown, they are of a much younger Brown – before he became a low-life street thug.

Wilson is the latest victim of “Trial by media.” We may as well dismiss every criminal court and let the media decide a person’s guilt or innocence. As an added bonus, we won’t even need criminal attorneys.

The hapless Darren Wilson is not the first person to be tried and destroyed in the media. Recent high-profile cases include George Zimmerman (Trayvon Martin case), O.J. Simpson, and the officers in the Rodney King case. It seems the media aren’t happy without at least one every month or so.

I remember a woman (can’t remember her name, though) who drove her car into the ocean and drowned her three young children. The media did all but draw horns and a tail on her picture. It’s been a while, but I seem to recall that she was eventually convicted in a real court and received a relatively light sentence. When she got out of prison recently, she had to change her name and appearance then move to another state to keep from being hounded by people with hatred in their hearts. Of course, the media finally found her and publicized her location, new name, and even her picture. After all, they wouldn’t want the public to think she had paid for her crime.

By now, you might be thinking that I am trying to justify people getting away with crimes. Nothing could be further from the truth. I simply don’t believe that people should be tried in the media even before a crime has actually been determined. Especially by the left leaning media – which is most of them.

In the Wilson/Brown case, there are two radically differing stories being told of the occurrences that day. Each report of the happenings is slanted to one side or the other but mostly toward Brown’s side. What is the truth? Does it matter? A Grand Jury panel was convened August 20 to determine if there is enough evidence to try Officer Wilson for killing Brown. A decision was announced as forthcoming on November 24. It took that long to weigh all the evidence.

Nearly every day that this Grand Jury worked on the case, the news media had to shove the case in the face of the public. “Any day now the Saint Louis County Grand Jury will release its findings.” Every day this case festered and kept the protesters in Ferguson, Missouri in the front of the news. Every day some new “community organizer” would put his face out there and tell the crowd to be peaceful – wink, wink.

Ain’t riots grand? The rioters get free stuff, the print media sell more newspapers, contractors get paid to repair the burned and looted stores, more people watch TV news, Al and Jessie get more air time, talk shows have something to talk about, everyone makes money off them except the poor store owners that will take a big hit on their insurance premiums.

I have to wonder just how many other killings – Black-on-Black, White-on-White, or Black-on-White – have occurred during this time without the media stirring the pot of discontent. Maybe the news media didn’t think there would be enough emotion to stir up a good riot.

As I said, why even bother having courts? We could simply let the news media decide who is innocent or guilty. After that, vigilante justice could take over and lynch whomever the media decides is to blame.

Maybe I missed something when I read the first Amendment. Is there anything in it that gives the news media authority to try people for perceived crimes?

The Fifth Amendment says, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury…” Then again, the Forth Amendment is quite clear on the issue: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”

I guess the constitution only applies in cases that don’t pique the attention of the Liberal media. Then again, Mr. Obama seems to think the Constitution is just a suggestion for the current ruler anyway. But I digress.

Emperor Obama the Not So Great

 I watched Obama’s address to the American people trying to justify his illegal executive action giving some five million illegal aliens amnesty. I have to say he did look regal with the red carpet and opulent furniture in the hall behind him. The only thing missing was his crown. Let’s face it, he is not just our country’s first black President, he also acts like America’s first Emperor.

When George Washington was asked how he should be addressed, he had to think about it. The country had just fought a hard and costly war for freedom from monarchical rule. Washington decided it would not do to have any trappings of royalty. He said simply refer to the holder of the presidential office as Mr. President.

Such has been the address of 43 Presidents. Will we now need to refer to Obama as Your Highness or Excellency? I’m sure he would like that.

Okay, nearly every President has used executive orders and executive actions. Why is this action by Obama special? Even Obama has on several occasions stated that he did not have authority to take immigration actions of this nature.

This is not the first time Obama has ignored the law and acted on his own. This June he traded five high-level terrorists being held in Guantanamo for an Army deserter being held by the Taliban without the consent of congress. The law says he has to confer with congress before he can make such a trade.

Now he has circumvented congress and taken illegal actions to give illegal aliens immunity from deportation, i.e. amnesty.

He then told Congress they could submit their own bill to reform immigration. In other words, Obama has flipped the bird to congress and dared them to do something about it. This, my fellow Americans, is the act of an emperor. When a tyrant wants to strengthen his position, he dismisses peoples’ representatives. Caesar did it. Hitler did it, and Stalin did it.

Even if the new Republican controlled congress does manage to pass an immigration reform bill, without any language giving current illegal immigrants amnesty and an easy path to citizenship, Obama is certain to veto it.

Why are Obama and the Democrats so keen on amnesty? Votes! Sure, we know there are some illegal aliens voting in elections – and prosecution has been unbelievably lax – but by giving these people amnesty and a easy path to citizenship the Democrats can instantly get millions of legal votes. This would give the Democrats single party rule in our country.

So, Obama has given the finger to congress and the incoming Republicans. According to polls that I have seen, he may even be giving the finger to the majority of citizens in the country. What can be done about it?

The obvious solution would be to simply impeach this wannabe emperor. Would there be enough votes in the house and senate to get it done? Probably. Will they do it? I don’t see any movement in that direction. Even if the House votes to impeach, getting two-thirds votes for impeachment in the Senate is a very unlikely possibility. Would it make a difference? Think about it. The next in line is Joe Biden. Even if he could get his foot out of his mouth long enough to take the oath of office, there would be little hope the man with sub-room temperature IQ would ever sign any bills from a Republican controlled congress.

The ace-in-the hole for congress may be to overrule Obama’s executive order. Can this be done? It not only can be done, it must be done. Whether Obama likes it or not, ours is a constitutional republic. Obama needs to learn that there are three branches of our government. No matter how narcissistic this man is the people of this country will not stand for imperial rule.

One Joyous Occasion

 It has been 25 years since the notorious Berlin Wall fell and Germany became one country again. The media reports of joy and relief of the former East Germans doesn’t begin to tell the story. And those living in other countries cannot fully understand the ramifications of this action.

In the beginning, the NAZI regime managed to turn the suffering and starvation the of German people were experiencing at the end of WWI into a time of prosperity for most of the citizenry. This came at a horrendous price, however. Many of the German people were forced into what is today called the Holocaust. While ordinary Germans went about their lives giving little thought to what their government was up to, the Nazis, led by a dictator and his fanatics, consolidated control and undertook expansion of the borders. The result was WWII – an alliance of nations against the collection of fascist nations named the Axis.

As the Axis nations sought to expand into neighboring countries, many horrors were wrought upon the unfortunate population of their targets. When Hitler set his covetous eyes on the Eastern European countries and Russia, he set in motion a military action that he could not win. As the German army consolidated eastern territory, the fanatical aims of the Nazi party wrought havoc on the concurred people.

Inevitably, Germany simply ran out of resources and manpower to support Hitler’s drug-induced unrealistic plans. As the eastern front collapsed and began to shrink back on Germany, the Russian dictator, Stalin incited the Russian army to inflict horrors on the German civilians and captured prisoners. As the Russian army advanced into Germany, many of the civilians tried to head west into the arms of the Americans or British troops.

The German people, especially the women and girls, had good reason to fear the onslaught of the Russian army. Various accounts of the number of rapes exist, but most figures put it in the millions. The Russians would not just rape a women they would subject her to repeated rapes by gangs of men, then shoot her when they had to move on. In a small village of Strasburg, in the Ukermark, 175 women and young girls gathered in the town square and slit their wrists rather than be taken by the approaching Russians. Babies were killed by smashing their little heads on walls and concrete. Huge numbers of townspeople were simply rounded up and shot to death.

After the war, the Allies, of which Russia was a member, divided Germany into various sectors. Germany’s capital, Berlin, had also been divided into controlling sectors. The Russian dictator, Stalin stripped the Russian sector in the east of Germany of any useful industrial facilities and left the people to the devices of devout communists.

Although the Russian communists were convinced that communism would one day cover the world, they shut off their German sector from the “corrupting” influence of the West. Not content with controlling only the eastern portion of Germany, Stalin gobbled up most of the countries in eastern Europe that Germany had occupied, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria, Moldova, the Ukraine, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and the newly minted East Germany. The result was named the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Although rebuilding Germany was not high on the Soviet list of priorities, the German people dug themselves out of the rubble and by the ‘60s had become the most productive country within the Soviet sphere of influence.

In 1948, Stalin decided that since Berlin was completely enclosed within the Russian sector, that the entire city should be part of East Germany. He closed the borders in an attempt to starve the western sectors into submitting to his will. It didn’t work. The Americans airlifted food and supplies to the western sectors of Berlin.

In 1961, Stalin’s successor, Khrushchev got a bug up his rear, and decided to put a stop to the bleeding of young, productive people in East Germany to the West. Overnight, he closed all borders and erected barbed-wire barriers surrounding West Berlin. Not to keep the West Berliners out, but the keep the East Germans in. Eventually the fence was replaced with a fortified concrete wall. Mines and machine gun emplacements formed a kill-zone demarcation up to the wall on the East German side. All doors and windows along the border were cemented shut with concrete blocks.

Although the face of the East German government was that of Germans, the power behind it originated in Moscow. East Germans would dance to the communist tune of the Soviet Union until 1989. In that year, communism collapsed of its own repressive policies. The Soviet Union died along with the communist governments of its satellite nations.

The immediate events leading up to the fall of the Berlin Wall saw huge streams of people leaving East Germany for the West. Realizing the acute loss of manpower on the east would leave East Germany in tatters, the government collapsed and capitulated to form a unified Germany.

At last, families on both sides of the border – and there were thousands, maybe millions – could once more be united. It was a joyous time.

But how do you reconcile the unification of a prosperous modern nation with a depressed and relatively poor one. The infrastructure, industry, and total government had to be rebuilt in the East. The wage and income disparities had to be addressed.

Now that Germany was one nation, the people were now free to move wherever they liked. And they did. Today the lands of the former East Germany are all but devoid of young people. They crowd the cities of the west where education and employment opportunities abound.

Reconciliation would not be easy, but if any people could do it, the Germans would. And they have.

The anniversary of the fall of the wall may not be celebrated worldwide, but it should. That day symbolizes the death of failed Marxist-Leninist communist doctrine. It is a day the remaining communist leaning countries should take good notes on. Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, communism, socialism – whatever you prefer to call it – can not and will not work.

The people of Germany have good reason to rejoice on this day.