I cannot believe it has been a month since I have posted. I guess just letting the mid season election settle in before the 2012 campaign start gearing up next year.

Never the less, this has been a lovely Christmas day. Soft snow is steadily streaming down. I hope everyone out there has a safe, warm, and love fill day.


Palin & Quantitative Easing (QE2)

Palin's recent criticism of Fed's Chairman Bernanke plan to inject $600 billions into the US economy have gotten some notice. Her timing was impeccable.

Firstly, she was ahead of any other Anti-Obama politician to publicly voice opposition. A leader rather than a follower.

Secondly, she made this ahead of the G20 meeting, where Bernanke's, and thus Obama's as well, plan was panned. Her vocal opposition nicely planted a seed of her economic philosophy in international minds.


Medal of Honor

from today's WSJ:
At one o'clock today in the East Room of the White House, an Iowa-born soldier will receive the nation's highest decoration for valor in combat. In our nine-year war in Afghanistan and Iraq, this is only the eighth Medal of Honor. Even more rare, the man who has earned it is the first from this war to live to see the president place it around his neck.

The soldier is Army Staff Sgt. Salvatore Giunta. On Oct. 25, 2007, then-Specialist Giunta and his team were on a mountain ridge in Afghanistan's violent Korengal Valley when they were ambushed by the Taliban. He took a bullet stopped by a protective vest as he helped pull one soldier to safety.

Then he went forward to help the sergeant, Joshua Brennan, who had been walking point. Two Taliban were carrying Sgt. Brennan away. Spec. Giunta shot the Taliban and brought Sgt. Brennan back.

Here we are reminded that in war there are few storybook endings: Sgt. Brennan would soon die of his wounds.

* * *

What kind of man is that? When we think of military heroism, we may think of Rambos decorated for great damage inflicted on the enemy. In fact, the opposite is true. Every Medal of Honor from these wars has been for an effort to save life. Even more telling, each specifically recognizes bravery that cannot be commanded.

Of the eight who have earned it, three—Army Pfc. Ross McGinniss, Navy Petty Officer Michael Monsoor, Marine Cpl. Jason Dunham—threw themselves on grenades to protect their comrades. Navy Lt. Michael Murphy knowingly exposed himself to enemy fire so he could call in help for his team.

Army Staff Sgt. Jared Monti died trying to rescue a fellow soldier. Army Staff Sgt. Robert Miller was killed while diverting gunfire from Taliban forces so his team could carry their commander to safety. Army Sgt. First Class Paul Ray Smith—the first from these wars to earn the Medal—took on an overwhelming Iraqi force from a machine gun atop a disabled armored personnel carrier, allowing the safe withdrawal of many wounded American soldiers.

On that ridge in Afghanistan, Salvatore Giunta could not save his sergeant. But he did deprive the enemy of its victory—and death of some of its sting. In that same "60 Minutes" segment, a fellow soldier (who earned a Silver Star in the same firefight) put it this way. "The last thing Brennan ever saw was us," says Sgt. Erick Gallardo. "You know, he saw us fighting for him. . . . We fought for him and he's home with his family now because of that." It's a soldier's gift. Because of Sgt. Giunta, the family of Josh Brennan know that when their loved one breathed his last, he did so knowing he was among friends willing to put their own lives at risk for him.


2010 MidTerm Election

Best wishes to all the Tea Party candidates.

Warm wishes to all the remainder Republican candidates.

If you want to change Washington VOTE!


Dr. Donna Campbell: Hannity's Q&A

Q1. What is your position on National Security, the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, our military and the dignity of our veterans?

The strength of our national security efforts determines the strength -- and longevity -- of our Democracy.
As the Declaration of Independence and Revolutionary War attest, peace can be declared by words but is often ultimately gained by war, and war in Iraq was necessary.
While the Patriot Act would not be needed in a Utopian world, here in the real world, ever-present and ever-increasing threats demand the resources made available by the Act.
I support our troops defending our freedoms at home, and our forces promoting democracy in hotspots around the world. And I thank all who have donned, are wearing and will wear a uniform of this great nation's Armed Forces. Those who have risked their lives so that we may live peaceably to pursue life, liberty and prosperity deserve this country's utmost respect, help and support for so long as these veterans are here on earth.
Circling back to the vein of national security, I believe this includes the patrolling of our nation's borders and coasts, a responsibility not being fully carried out under the current Administration, causing several of the 50 states to act on their own. The role of the federal government is narrowly defined in the Constitution, and yet, the Administration is ignoring the dangers of unchecked immigration while at the same time pursuing follies far beyond the bounds of the founding documents. (Please see my answer to Question 5 for more on immigration.)

Q2. Do you support or oppose efforts to negotiate with dictators in places like Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela, and if we negotiate, what would be the pre-conditions?

Negotiation has a place among parties that are of like ideologies, and among parties that are of differing ideologies.
I believe it is worth an effort to seek out solutions first with the pen before working with the sword. I would have little support for sustaining negotiations clearly going nowhere, and I would not hesitate to invoke the sword should agreements reached in a negotiation subsequently be broken.
I would say the most important pre-condition would be attaining a mutually-agreed to objective for meeting -- and would add that pre-conditions are themselves articles often prone to negotiation.

Q3. Do you feel the current national government is fiscally responsible, and what is your philosophy on government spending and taxation in order to balance the budget?

Having pushed the national debt beyond the $13-trillion mark and rising fast, the current Administration and congressional majority party do not fit the definition of "fiscally responsible."
The key to solvency lies with limiting outgo to income; something Americans do at kitchen tables with their family budgets, and something the President and his cohorts in Congress would be wise to do beginning today.
Rather than raise taxes and print money to cover newly-created debts our grandchildren will still be digging out from under, federal spending must be cut to a level of sustainability.
The alternative involves other countries calling in their loans...

Q4. Do you feel this country should be energy independent and if so, what are some action steps that we can take to attain independence?

Energy independence for this country is a laudable goal promulgated as far back as the Nixon Administration if not before. Letter of the law, "energy independent" would mean every BTU of energy expended in the U.S. would stem from a source within, or just offshore the U.S. I'm not sure this is literally feasible, but I do think a markedly less dependence on foreign energy is highly achievable.
This summer is understandably a dicey time to talk of oil exploration, with so much wildlife and ecology harmed and endangered in the Gulf. The underwater oil geyser makes clear that contingency equipment and plans need considerable ramping up, but oil and natural gas exploration continues to be a dominant part of America's energy plan.
Augmenting oil and gas efforts are the continued refinement of coal harvesting and burning techniques; the increased infusion of alternative fuels and battery power; and the expansion of natural energy provided by the wind and sun.

Q5. Within the next 12 months, do you see the government taking action to secure our borders and what is your stance on how our borders should be secured?

In answering Question 1, I touched on my displeasure with the federal government's shirking of border duties over the last couple of years.
In theory, I would envision the federal government properly staffing the borders, coasts and entry points, and thoroughly enforcing existing immigration laws.
In reality, over the next 12 months I see many states taking up the measures that Arizona has been forced to create and enact on its own.
I think when enough states join together, Washington will drop its frivolous suit against Arizona and spend the time saved in the courtroom on the very real national security issue of immigration.

Q6. Describe your thoughts on why you support or oppose a national health care plan and if you support any free-market alternative solutions to the plan.

Nationalizing health care is one of the major forces that brought me from ER doctor to ER doctor and congressional candidate!
I have firsthand knowledge of the precarious nature of our country’s health care system as a physician. The current health care business model simply does not work; and it won’t work until individuals are empowered, encouraged and enabled to take direct control and responsibility for their own health.
The federal government has no constitutional basis for reorganizing and regulating our health care. There are commonsense solutions deserving time on the floor of Congress, such as:
Health insurance portability.
Frivolous lawsuit/scandalous damage award reform.
Tax credits for personal insurance plans.
Medical savings account deductions.
Preventive health behavior initiatives.

Q7. Do you think that that our education system is currently effective and what is your position on teachers' unions and teacher accountability?

"Effective" will mean different things to different people, but in a world where the education received by America's children ranks far back in the bus compared to other nations, there is work to be done.
Let's return control of our local schools to our local communities.
Let's let locals decide when and when not to foster/condone/permit an environment of unionized teachers.
And let's let the performance of teachers dictate the pay and tenure of teachers.

Q8. Are you concerned about the future of Social Security and Medicare, and if so, what are your ideas on how to save these programs from bankruptcy?

Both programs were enacted in times where life expectancy simply wasn't nearly as long as it is today. What's great for people, more time on earth, is a mathematical pothole to the solvency of these two programs.
One thing to begin focusing on is educating today's students about the financial practicalities and realities of the world outside the classroom and off the campus. The fewer people conditioned to rely on the federal government for retirement pay and healthcare, the better for all involved.
Another aspect that really has already begun is pushing back the target ages for drawing partial and full benefits. The people of FDR's age simply weren't considering the prospect of a 25-year retirement, and even the seniors of LBJ's time were not thinking much beyond 10 or 15 Golden Years. Today, we're finding a growing number of retirees whose retired years exceed their working years, making the boosting of the benefit collection age up a bit both reasonable and prudent.

Q9. What is your take on the role of judges? Should they be allowed to legislate from the bench?

Judges are to execute judiciary responsibilities.
Judges legislating from the bench makes no more sense than members of Congress ruling on matters of law or the President creating laws.
The nation's three branches of government are by design co-equal; and by necessity, are to be quite separate.

Q10. Is the American Dream attainable? If so, will individual responsibility help Americans attain it and/or what aspects of the American Dream should be assisted by the government?

Having worked my way through college and medical school to become an emergency room doctor and a happily married adoptive mother gives me great cause to be thankful for what this country has to offer to anyone willing to dream a bit and work a lot.
The federal government can aide in the process, to a degree. A well-defended nation, a unified monetary and banking system, along with moderate regulatory oversight in matters of public health and safety come to mind.
But beyond these base tenets, government's best role is played well off stage -- and far away from our pocketbooks.
Please visit www.drdonnaforcongress.com to learn more about me, and more about my stances on the important issues of the day.

From Hannity.

She is now at 220k, needing another 80k to get to 300k for NRCC support.
Donate here.

Why she thinks she can win here.

Last Best Hope


Dr. Donna Campbell

Dr. Donna Campbell is running against Lloyd Doggett who is a Democrat politician since 1973. He voted for Obamacare.

Dr. Donna Campbell is a small town physician who promises doing all she can to repeal Obamacare, favors energy independence, believes in small government, and something i too very much believe in, simplifying the tax code toward consumption rather than income taxation.

Please support her by donating something here.


Republicans in Charge

There is significant talk that the Republican may be able to take control of Congress and perhaps the Senate away from the Democrats. This has led me to wonder what the Republicans can do in 2011 that will give them an opportunity for gains in 2012 without Obama benefiting. Firstly I do not believe the Republicans should play politics if given the opportunity to lead and save America from the Obamacrats. They should do everything possible to reverse what was enacted in the past two years.

Firstly, extend the Bush tax cuts and keep calling it the Bush tax cuts. If they cannot get sufficient votes to extend it, ask for a greater majority in 2012. If they do pass it that will put Obama in the position to sign it or veto it. If he vetoes it, then ask for a veto over riding majority in 2012 if the economic condition continues to be poor, and blame Obama for it. If economic condition improves without it, then America will be better for it. If Obama passes the Bush tax cuts and the economy improves, remind everyone in 2012 that it was the Bush tax cuts rather than the Obama tax cut that improved the economy. If Obama passes the Bush tax cuts and there is no resulting economic growth (unlikely), ask for a greater majority to reduce tax and regulation even further.

Secondly, repeal Obamacare. Again if there is not enough vote to do so then ask for a greater majority in 2012. If it makes it to Obama, he will have to either veto it or pass it. If he vetoes it, and it remain unpopular in 2012, as for a greater majority to repeal it. If he sign the repeal, he loses a "political accomplishment" of his administration.


Economic Growth

As we all know, this supposed "Recovery Summer" is any thing but and this should come as no surprise. What is a surprised is that the Democrats actually believe their economic plans would actually stimulate the economy. Lets review what their plans entailed. Firstly was the 800 billion dollars stimulus package. Common sense would say that government spending is always wasteful and inefficient and that any such money that does make it to projects will only be short lived and at best, maintain employment as is rather than grow it. Once the government fund dries up, so would the activities associated cease and those employed for the project be at risk for being cut.

The second plan the Democrats enacted was Obamacare. The argument goes that if the cost of health care was reduced, the cost savings would go toward economic growth and increased hiring. The first fallacy here is that nothing in Obamacare actually goes toward decreasing the cost of health care, it just spread the cost around differently. Then there is the second fallacy is that if it the healthcare cost of hiring is reduced, more people will be hired. Things just simply do not work that way. Employers do not hire because they can afford to hire, they hire only because they have work that needs to be done, work that will help them generate a profit. In addition, Obamacare also increases the administrative cost for the employer so that while it may be cheaper upfront to hire, it will be more costly to administer the hiring.

The third plan the Democrats enacted was regulating the financial market. By financial market I mean Wall Street and the banks, not the home purchase lending policies that led to the housing bubble burst that led to the economic collapse 2-3 years ago. While more rigid standards and oversight may make for a more stable financial environment, a more stable financial environment in itself does not stimulate economic growth, especially in the short term as firms have to spend administrative costs to stay in compliance.

Lets look at things from a different perspective, what it does take to generate economic growth.
Firstly, there has to be a perceived opportunity for profit. By painting the economic environment as impending depression rather than a transitory recession to correct for the housing bubble burst. The Democrats intentionally fear mongered to get justification to enact their economic plans (faulty plans at that) without sufficient regards for the national perception. They then made it worse by predicting an over optimistic scenario that never came. Never came because their policies and plans are just wrong. The Democrats then made a second mistake in criticizing capitalism and the drive for profit. The opportunity well for profit was deliberately poisoned.

Secondly, there has to be available credit to finance project to take opportunity for profit. This was the main reason for the bail-outs but the bail-outs was resented by most Americans. The bail-outs was also directed at a few large firm whereas the majority of economic activities in the nation were with small and medium firms. These small and medium firms also suffered disproportionately from the housing bubble defaults. Thus the bail out did not and could not stimulate growth. In addition, the low interest rate as determined by the Federal Reserves was not in any meaningful way different from the interest rates before the economy soured. And since it cannot really go lower even when the economic environment is worse, there wasn't any growth to be derived.

Thirdly, there has to be an economic infrastructure facilitative for profit. Stability of the financial market is facilitative but not stimulative; it is the minimum necessary. When the financial market is unstable, economic growth is unlikely. When the the financial market is stable, economic growth is not a result. What is more important regarding economic infrastructure is the administrative cost or barrier to profit. There are two aspects here, the actual administrative cost to remain in legal compliance. The greater the cost, the more onerous the process, the less likely the risk to make a profit will be taken. This administration has sought to increased regulations of business. When you add on increased taxation on profits, even just the threat of increased taxation on profit, will dampen any enthusiasm for growth. Note, the other aspect of economic infrastructure that impedes economic growth is the amount corruption. I have no doubt that a significant amount of the economic stimulus was spent with a political component.

These same factors also explain why centralized economies do not produce the same economic growth as free capitalism.

Bottom line is that this administration has done everything possible to impede economic growth. It has demonized profit. It has increased the cost to make a profit. It threatened taxation on profit.


Government and Marriage

These guys pretty much share my sentiments on Government and marriage.

Government can regulate and define civil contracts such as civil unions, including benefits, consequences and penalties associated with being in one, and ending one. Leave marriage for social institutions.


Support the Tea Party

Here & Here

Vote out the Democrats this November.


Government Accountability

Recently two nations have discovered vast potential resources that could transform their country from poor third world affairs toward second world status; Ghana with oil and Afghanistan and minerals. With great wealth comes power and responsibilities. These governments cannot appropriate this income for their own use, even if well intended to serve its people. A government that does not depend on its citizens will not be accountable to its citizen.
A government comes to depend on its citizens through two primary ways. Firstly through taxation to acquire income for governmental function. But this alone will a recipes for corruption; obligue noblesse cannot be institutionalized or relied upon. Also firstly, side by side with taxation is election. True election can only exists in a open Democracy where there are competitive election and true counting of the votes. Secondary to taxation and election has to be term limits. Once elected the power acquired through taxation will make incumbents the favorites for elections. Term limits for all elected officials is a necessary safeguard against corruption, but not necessarily accountability.
The final and ultimate safeguard against a corrupt and unaccountable government must rest with its citizens. Whereas elections is a political manifestation of this, the potential for more must exists, even if only on the periphery beyond conversation. The population must be armed for the potential event of insurrection against a corrupt, unaccountable and unjust government. On the most base of level, the government must fear those it govern so that boundaries will be respected beyond the written law.
The United States has all the requisites for government accountability. With regard to the new found democracy of Iraq, as well as that of the nations of Ghana and Afghanistan, my advice is to arm their population as a first step toward an accountable government. Yes this will make formation of a new government more difficult, but this difficulty arises from ensuring that the population to be governed is agreeable with the nature of the government. Growing pains ensure appropriate future limits.


Indian Americans

When Nikki Haley wins the gubernatorial election in South Carolina come November, as she did tonight in the GOP run off, she will join Bobby Jindal as the second Indian American to be elected as Governor in the US. Interesting that both are Republicans.

WSJ: An Indian in the White House?



In less than a year and a half of a four years term, the majority of Americans have come to understand the nation made a mistake with his election. Obama's failures span all fields of government from domestic economic policy, environmental protection, health care reform, foreign relations, as well as military direction. At the core the failures arise from a mismatch of core values between what American values and Obama's own ideology as well as a failure of leadership, believing rhetoric sufficient to inspire actions without sufficient ability to direct people of ability to apply their expertise.
Whether Obama is a fool or a knave has become irrelevant; the time for that debate has passed. The time now is how to minimize his ability to damage this nation. Personally I believe Obama is both a fool and a knave, a highly dangerous combination but insufficient ground for impeachment. With our divided government, the definitive mean to contain Obama lies within either the Judiciary or the Legislative. Unfortunately, the integrity of the Justices in the defense of the Constitution is under threat with Obama's appointment of judges as approved by Congress. Thus the key to contain Obama is to apply all reasonable resources to neutralize the leftist Democrat control of the Legislative Congress. All competitive House elections must be turned away from the Democrats. At this point I do not believe there are any such creature as a conservative Democrat; they must all be turned out. If permissible, safe Republican races must also turn from RINO incumbents to conservative new comers unless this turn threatens election of a Democrat.
The secondary line of defense against the harm of an Obama presidency will be the the states. Both the governorship and the state legislatures must move toward conservative ideals of less dependency on the Federal government. A dependent state government are willing victims of federal over reach that is the hallmark of the Obama administration. And among the ranks of current or former governors, someone with true leadership and executive experience will we find a challenger for Obama come 2012.

Roger L Simon wonders if Obama has lost interests in being President and believes this would be a dangerous situation for us all.


Memorial Day

Lets also remember the Love they gave as well as the sacrifices they made.

image from Stuck in Customs


Right vs Left: US Government

There certainly is a difference in expectations between the left and the right regarding the role of the US government. I have noticed that there are still plenty of bumper stickers decrying the war on terror. Yet, waging war is well within the purview of what a government, any government, does. In my opinion the primary goal of any government should be protecting its citizens against foreign power whether it be another national government, band of corsairs, or terrorists. I empathize with the pacifist sentiments of the left regarding war in general, and I also acknowledge their disagreement whether it was a just war or not in Iraq. I happened to think we should do more than retaliate against the perpetrators of 9/11 and if Iraq succeeds as a democratic state, I believe this will move Arab jihadists just a little away from terrorism. South Asians are another matter completely and deserves its own post. I bring this up because my abhorrence of the Obamacare must feel similar to the left regarding the WoT/Iraq. Yet I just do not see how Obamacare is within the purview of the US government at least as laid out in the US Constitution. That the discussion of Obamacare even occurred and considered at all is astounding. Not to mention how it came to pass seems very undemocratic.

The WoT/Iraq was about whether the US government should or should not wage war.
Obamacare was about whether the US government could or could not be in the business of providing healthcare. There is just no constitutional basis for this discussion to even get to a disagreement.

One might argue that Obamacare is not about US governement healthcare ... until you realize that the regulations imposed will increase the cost of providing private insurance, thus herding more and more people toward government care.


Socialist Holy Grail

I think most people who are against the current health care reform believe that re-election pressure on the Democrats would be sufficient to stop the legislative process of health care reform. I do not believe that the normal legislative process is in play here. Health care reform is the holy grail of the socialist left. Now that it is within reach, they will risk everything to achieve it. The Democratic leadership will risk even losing the congressional majority to achieve this. Yet I believe this is short sighted because it should be more than achieving health care reform, it should be about achieving durable health care reform. Without bipartisan support, should the Republican win back majority in either house or senate, the health care reform will come tumbling down.


Health Care Reform

With Scott Brown election to the US Senate from Massachusetts on Tuesday, the Democrats' proposed health care plans are doomed. Certainly this is good news not because health care in the US shouldn't be reformed but because their proposal had more to do with government control than health care reform itself. Any future proposals for health care reforms must address the following issues, though not necessary all together as a composite proposal.

1. Malpractice Reform. Health care must first be about the delivery of health care. Malpractice reform will make it easier for health care professional to deliver quality care in an efficient manner.

2. Provide care for for those in need but without coverage. This predominantly pertains to those with preexisting conditions. One way to do so might be to provide tax advantages for commercial insurance companies to include this population.

3. Stimulate competition in the health care insurance market. Allow companies to offer policies across state lines.

4. Stimulate consumer cost awareness. When the consumer feels more of the cost, they will price and quality shop. Perhaps co-pays should be based on a percentage rather than a flat fee. Naturally health care providers will also have to make both their fees and their results available. Results may be given as percentage-brackets rather than raw values.


I support Scott Brown as the next US Senator from Massachusetts. Why?

1. His election would give Republicans 41 votes, enough break the Democrats current filibuster proof 60 votes.
2. He has promised to vote against Obama care.
3. He is running for the People of Massachusetts' US Senate seat, not dead Kennedy's US Senate seat.

I have given money once already and have just given again. You can do so as well here.