The Patriot Post Brief 9-39

[nChrist]

____________________________
The Patriot Post Brief 9-39
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
____________________________

THE FOUNDATION

"No country upon earth ever had it more in its power to attain these blessings than United America. Wondrously strange, then, and much to be regretted indeed would it be, were we to neglect the means and to depart from the road which Providence has pointed us to so plainly." --George Washington
Obama: Smug at the UN

FOR THE RECORD

"Barack Obama took center stage at the United Nations on Wednesday and continued his 'I'm sorry for America' tour. Despite leading a nation that defends others, pays for others, promotes freedom for others, and shelters others, Obama once again talked about the past in order to make himself more accommodating and caring. Word to Obama and other left-wing 'speak softly and carry a wet spaghetti noodle' types.... his message was exactly what other nations want to hear. But it's not because they want a kindler, gentler America to get along with. It's because they want an America that will continue to pay the bills, continue to bail them out of emergencies, and let them run amok with their policies. Obama gave them everything they were looking for. ... Obama echoed previous world speeches by highlighting what he thinks is wrong with America: 'I took office at a time when many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust. Part of this was due to misperceptions and misinformation about my country. Part of this was due to opposition to specific policies, and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others. And this has fed an almost reflexive anti-Americanism, which too often has served as an excuse for collective inaction.' At this time, do you think that he addressed the 'misperceptions and misinformation' about America? Did he describe how America really is? No. Did he explain that America has not acted unilaterally? Of course not. ... When talking about Iraq, Obama did not mention how the Iraqis are now free from an oppressive dictator and holding democratic elections. Instead, he simply said, 'In Iraq, we are responsibly ending a war.' When talking about Afghanistan, he never mentioned the Taliban. Obama did, however, talk tough against one nation: Israel. ... I would be remiss not to mention that Obama did receive some praise for his speech. Cuban dictator Fidel Castro praised Obama for his efforts on 'climate change.' The news story notes that 'the former Cuban leader on Wednesday called the American president's speech at the United Nations "brave" and said no other American head of state would have had the courage to make similar remarks.'" --columnist Bobby Eberle

RE: THE LEFT

"Nearly 62 years ago, the United Nations recognized the right of the Jews, an ancient people 3,500 years-old, to a state of their own in their ancestral homeland. I stand here today as the Prime Minister of Israel, the Jewish state, and I speak to you on behalf of my country and my people. The United Nations was founded after the carnage of World War II and the horrors of the Holocaust. It was charged with preventing the recurrence of such horrendous events. Nothing has undermined that central mission more than the systematic assault on the truth. [Wednesday] the President of Iran stood at this very podium, spewing his latest anti-Semitic rants. Just a few days earlier, he again claimed that the Holocaust is a lie. ... To those who refused to come here and to those who left this room in protest, I commend you. You stood up for moral clarity and you brought honor to your countries. But to those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame? Have you no decency? A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies that the murder of six million Jews took place and pledges to wipe out the Jewish state. What a disgrace! What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations! Perhaps some of you think that this man and his odious regime threaten only the Jews. You're wrong. Dead wrong. ... I speak here today in the hope that we can learn from history -- that we can prevent danger in time. In the spirit of the timeless words spoken to Joshua over 3,000 years ago, let us be strong and of good courage. Let us confront this peril, secure our future and, God willing, forge an enduring peace for generations to come." --Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu

POLITICAL FUTURES

"Interesting that many of us thought the election of Barack Obama might signal the end of American Independence as we surrendered sovereignty to the United Nations. Imagine my surprise, then, to find that Obama has decided to give up American power to a group that doesn't even officially exist: The Group of 20, which is shorthanded to the G-20. In an example of governmental inflation at its most dangerous, the G-20 was originally the G-6, then Canada was allowed to sit at the grownups table and it became the G-7. When the Soviet Union returned to being good old Russia, they were invited in and it became the G-8. The G-20 is supposed to be a meeting of the finance ministers and central bankers of the 20 largest economies. But these G-X meetings have now become summits. The meeting in Pittsburgh last week, included a significant number of the heads of states who had been in New York a few days earlier for the opening of the UN and who decided to make the trek along the Pennsylvania Turnpike to spend a day or two in the Steel City. ... Obama knows he can never cede sovereignty to the UN, but he may be able to get away with the G-20 as the international Board of Directors dealing with everything from banking regs to global warming to human rights to labor law to ... whatever. Obama knows America -- even Air America -- would never sit still for letting the United Nations make decisions for us. ... However, sharing sovereignty with the 20 largest economies on the planet is a potentially saleable deal as long as Obama doesn't say 'We are sharing sovereignty with the 20 largest economies on the planet.' You say things like, 'We are establishing new rules for international banking which will avoid the problems of last September.' One of those new rules will be an international reserve currency which does not have 'UNITED STATES OF AMERICA' printed anywhere on it. ... And we've been wasting our time worrying about Obama's relationship with ACORN." --political analyst Rich Galen

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

(To submit reader comments visit our Letters to the Editor page.)

"As I was reading Mark Alexander's essay, 'Too Big to Fail?,' I was listening to the Israeli PM Netanyahu educate the United Nation members with the history of the holocaust and Israel's attempts to gain security for its people. I mention it only because I wanted to note that there are a few good men who will stand up for the truth. Mark Alexander is certainly one of them. Our politicians in Washington are not." --Badger, Minnesota

[nChrist]

____________________________
The Patriot Post Brief 9-39
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
____________________________

"As always, Alexander's essay was well written, informative, and most of all, inspiring. After reading The Patriot Post, I'm once again proud to call myself an American, a Constitutionalist, and a Patriot. Sometimes I get teary-eyed after reading the essays; partly because I know what a great country we have been in the past and partly because I know what a great country we WILL once again be in the future, regardless of how many politicians would like to make sure that does not happen. May God bless you for all you do for Him and His country!" --Rock Hill, South Carolina

"My son has been in Baghdad since May and because of his specialty, he has pretty good Internet access. I subscribed him to The Patriot Post, and he told me that for him and his colleagues, The Patriot is the highlight of their week. They tell us your weekday editions have become their window on what's going on back home. Couldn't ask for a better source! I've been a subscriber since you started publishing back in the 1990s, and rely on The Patriot's voice of sanity and reason as a reminder of our first principles. Thanks for all you do." --Westminster, Massachusetts

LIBERTY

"Most of our country's serious problems can be laid at the feet of Congress and the White House and not at capitalism. Take the financial crisis. One-third of the $15 trillion of mortgages in existence in 2008 are owned, or securitized by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae, the Federal Housing and the Veterans Administration. Banks didn't mind making risky loans and Wall Street buyers didn't mind buying these repackaged loans because they assumed that they would be guaranteed by the federal government: read bailout by taxpayers. Under a capitalist system, financial institutions would not have been intimidated or encouraged into making risky loans and neither would they have been bailed out if they did so. Social Security, Medicare and its coverage of prescription drugs have an unfunded liability that exceeds $100 trillion. When those roosters come home to roost, they will make the financial meltdown we've been though look like child's play. Not withstanding all of the demagoguery, it is capitalism not socialism that made us a great country and it's socialism that will be our undoing." --economist Walter Williams

INSIGHT

"I am one of those who do not believe that a national debt is a national blessing, but rather a curse to a republic; inasmuch as it is calculated to raise around the administration a moneyed aristocracy dangerous to the liberties of the country." --President Andrew Jackson (1767-1845)

OPINION IN BRIEF

"The real reason Obama insists upon making the young and healthy buy insurance they don't want is not the relatively minor free-rider problem, but the potentially ruinous adverse selection problem: The most expensive patients are the ones who are most likely to sign up for coverage. To keep the official 10-year price tag of his plan below that magical $1 trillion threshold, he needs to balance sick people who rack up big bills with healthy people who pay for insurance but don't use it. Instead of acknowledging this reality, Obama portrays the healthy uninsured as irresponsible leeches. Even if Obama could make a plausible moral argument for the unprecedented step of demanding that all Americans buy insurance -- not in exchange for a particular privilege, such as driving on public roads, but simply by virtue of being alive -- he would be hard pressed to cite the constitutional authority for such a mandate. ... Obama might be on firmer ground if he portrayed the levy imposed on people who decline to buy insurance as an exercise of the congressional tax power. But he does not want to admit he is forsaking his campaign promise to refrain from raising taxes on households earning less than $250,000 a year. That's why ... he insisted that the 'excise tax' imposed on the uninsured by the Senate health care bill he supports is not really a tax. How so? After Obama signed a bill raising the federal cigarette tax, his press secretary explained that the tax pledge was still intact because 'people make a decision to smoke.' Likewise, Obama might argue, people make a decision not to buy health insurance. The lesson is clear: If you don't want to pay higher taxes, don't make any decisions." --columnist Jacob Sullum

GOVERNMENT

"There has been a sudden disclosure that, in the influential Senate Finance Committee's health care bill, there is a dangerous provision that could deny crucial health treatments for Medicare patients. This is ... a section that penalizes doctors for Medicare patients who, for at least five years (from 2015 to 2020), authorize total treatments that wind up in the top 10 percent of national annual Medicare costs per patient. The 1 in 10 Medicare doctors who spend beyond this limit will themselves lose 5 percent of their own total Medicare reimbursements. Considering the already low rates Medicare doctors get -- and the president pledges they will get lower -- this could be a heavy penalty. As Burke Balch, director of the National Right to Life's Center for Medical Ethics, says: 'This ... means that all doctors treating older people will constantly be driven to try to order the least-expensive tests and treatments for fear they will be caught in that top 10 percent. Note that this feature operates independently of any considerations of quality, efficiency or waste....' Medicare doctors will not be the only losers. As the doctors struggle to keep abreast of the continually falling limit of the money they can authorize for their contingent of patients, consider what those patients will lose in the quality of their treatment. ... Even if this insidious provision does not survive in the eventual Senate bill, or is excluded from the subsequent House-Senate Conference Committee report on what President Obama will eventually enact into law, its actual existence is a further warning to all of us to pay very close attention to all the health care 'reform' bills before any of them becomes law." --columnist Nat Hentoff

THE LAST WORD

"'Democrats lost Congress in 1994 because President Clinton failed to pass national health care.' I'm not sure if this is another example of the left's wishful-thinking method of analysis or if they're seriously trying to trick the Blue Dog Democrats into believing it. But I gather liberals consider the 1994 argument an important point because it was on the front page of The New York Times a few weeks ago in place of a story about Van Jones or ACORN. According to a news story by Jackie Calmes: 'In 1994, Democrats' dysfunction over fulfilling a new president's campaign promise contributed to the party's loss of its 40-year dominance of Congress.' That's not the way I remember it. The way I remember it, Republicans swept Congress in 1994 not because Clinton failed to nationalize health care, but because he tried to nationalize health care. HillaryCare failed because most Americans didn't want it. ... But just to check my recollection, I looked up the Times' own coverage of the 1994 congressional races. Republicans won a landslide election in 1994 based largely on the 'Contract With America,' which, according to the Times, promised 'tax cuts, more military spending and a balanced-budget amendment.' Far from complaining about Clinton incompetently failing to pass health care, the Times reported that Republicans were 'unabashedly claiming credit for tying Congress up in knots.' These claims were immediately followed by ... oh, what was that word again? Now I remember ... LANDSLIDE!" --columnist Ann Coulter

*****

Veritas vos Liberabit -- Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus, et Fidelis! Mark Alexander, Publisher, for The Patriot's editors and staff.

(Please pray for our Armed Forces standing in harm's way around the world, and for their families -- especially families of those fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, who granted their lives in defense of American liberty.)