Can the U.S. government secretly subpoena the IP address of every visitor to a political website?
No, but that didn’t stop it from trying.
The report describes how, earlier this year, U.S. attorneys issued a federal grand jury subpoena to Indymedia.us administrator Kristina Clair demanding “all IP traffic to and from www.indymedia.us” for a particular date, potentially identifying every person who visited any news story on the Indymedia site. As the report explains, this overbroad demand for internet records not only violated federal privacy law but also violated Clair’s First Amendment rights, by ordering her not to disclose the existence of the subpoena without a U.S. attorney’s permission.
Charles Krauthammer comes in with the voice of reason to point out the multitude of oversights, warning signs, and inaction by various government officials at different levels, which tacitly facilitated the ability of U.S. Army major psychiatrist Nidal Hasan to methodically gun down and kill 12 of his own fellow soldiers, one civilian, and injure 31 more, while shouting “Allahu akbar.” The subsequent inability of the liberal media to point out the seeds from which the Muslim major’s actions at Fort Hood, Texas were borne, was clearly sidestepped by a U.S. president as well. All in the name of political correctness.
Krauthammer is right. When political correctness becomes a danger, it is a problem. And perhaps those policies that foster that require changes. Imaginary retaliation is what appears to be the guiding hand.
Is the president going to step out and say that this is an abomination? This should never have happened? We have been overlooking all of this in the name of political correctness, and we are going to change our policies? Or is he going to adopt the Casey line which is the real issue here is the safety of our Muslim soldiers?
Update. Reader Mockazine correct in suggesting killing the bill is the best solution, as correcting it would be grossly inadequate. Stigma attached is an understatement.
The bill is instead a breathtaking display of illiberal ambition, intended to make the middle class more dependent on government through the umbilical cord of “universal health care.” It creates a vast new entitlement, financed by European levels of taxation on business and individuals. The 20% corner of Medicare open to private competition is slashed, while fiscally strapped states are saddled with new Medicaid burdens. The insurance industry will have to vet every policy with Washington, which will regulate who it must cover, what it can offer, and how much it can charge.
The reality.
Insurers will thus have to cover more sick people with fewer dollars, as healthy folk opt out of coverage until they are sick.
…their customers, most of whom will pay more for insurance as the new mandates raise costs.
…as subsidized costs soar, government will have no choice but to ration medical care, starting with the aged and grievously ill. Is pre-natal life more valuable than the elderly?
Every decision of what to insure or not… will become subject to political intervention over moral disputes or budget constraints. Heretofore, these decisions have largely been made between a doctor and patient.
This ought to be a wake-up call to the Senate, which now holds the health care reform ball in their court.
52% voters opposed, 47% approve.
90% of Republicans and 58% of unaffiliated voters opposed.
The number of unaffiliated voters should resonate deeply with the current members of Congress. Especially the Democrats. It was after all, the Independents who swung major governor elections in New Jersey and Virginia last week. And it will be the very same Independents who will determine the elections in 2010, of those politicians who support health care reform riddled with problems as it stands now.
Independents who swept Barack Obama to a historic 2008 victory broke big for Republicans on Tuesday as the GOP wrested political control from Democrats in Virginia and New Jersey, a troubling sign for the president and his party heading into an important midterm election year.
And, voter attitudes – particularly among independents – could bode ill for Democrats in moderate districts and in swing states like Ohio, Colorado and Nevada, should they remain unchanged when the party seeks to defend its turf next fall. In 2010, most governors, a third of the Senate and all members in the House will be on ballots.
Senators, are you listening? Better yet, do you comprehend what looms just ahead?
Even if it is not worthy enough for a United States president to travel to the historic site today to recognize the significance, many in the U.S. and abroad do recognize the great history made. Thousands cheer 20 years since fall of Berlin Wall. Yahoo.
“That night, you couldn’t stop people,” Kross said. “They lifted the barrier and everyone poured through. We saw it first on TV, normally it was very quiet up here, but that night we could hear the footsteps of those crossing, tap, tap, tap.”
Merkel, who was one of thousands to cross that night, recalled that “before the joy of freedom came, many people suffered.”
She lauded Gorbachev, with whom she shared an umbrella amid a crush of hundreds, eager for a glimpse of the man many still consider a hero for his role in pushing reform in the Soviet Union.
“You made this possible — you courageously let things happen, and that was much more than we could expect,” she said.
Later, Merkel also thanked Germany’s neighbors to the East. She welcomed several leaders who dared to stand up for democracy, including Poland’s 1980s pro-democracy leader, Lech Walesa, and Miklos Nemeth, Hungary’s last prime minister before communism collapsed. The two men were tapped to push the first domino.
The History Place brings us to the time when former U.S. President Ronald Regn made a speech to the people of West Berlin on June 12, 1987, at the Brandenburg Gate near the Berlin Wall. Many equate Reagan’s speech as the impetus for the beginning of the fall of Communism, the Cold War, and eventually the Berlin Wall. Some excerpts from the speech.
Are these the beginnings of profound changes in the Soviet state? Or are they token gestures, intended to raise false hopes in the West, or to strengthen the Soviet system without changing it? We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace.
General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!
…
Perhaps this gets to the root of the matter, to the most fundamental distinction of all between East and West. The totalitarian world produces backwardness because it does such violence to the spirit, thwarting the human impulse to create, to enjoy, to worship. The totalitarian world finds even symbols of love and of worship an affront. Years ago, before the East Germans began rebuilding their churches, they erected a secular structure: the television tower at Alexander Platz. Virtually ever since, the authorities have been working to correct what they view as the tower’s one major flaw, treating the glass sphere at the top with paints and chemicals of every kind. Yet even today when the sun strikes that sphere–that sphere that towers over all Berlin–the light makes the sign of the cross. There in Berlin, like the city itself, symbols of love, symbols of worship, cannot be suppressed.
As I looked out a moment ago from the Reichstag, that embodiment of German unity, I noticed words crudely spray-painted upon the wall, perhaps by a young Berliner: “This wall will fall. Beliefs become reality.” Yes, across Europe, this wall will fall. For it cannot withstand faith; it cannot withstand truth. The wall cannot withstand freedom.
1,990-pages. Price tag $1.2 trillion. Just a skip away.
“We are going to have a complete government takeover of our health care system faster than you can say, ‘this is making me sick,’” said Rep. Candice Miller, R-Mich.
For all the hand wringing and brow beating on the Democrat side, considering they all did not support it, perhaps the Posterous pin-up may describe how it went down in the House before the vote on health care reform was passed.
Cofused about just WHO will pay for health care reform? Then check out Pelosi Health Care Plan: Who Pays the Surtax? A nifty easy-to-understand post on how everyone will ultimately pay the price. Starting from those higher wage earners and small business, to eventually the middle class. And then of course, the trickle down effect to everyone else indirectly.
Proponents of the 5.4 percent surtax on high-income individuals argue that it will only affect the very rich, who can afford to pay a higher rate in order to ensure that the poor have access to health care. If only it were this simple.
Raising taxes on the highest earners can never affect only those individuals. The money that is taxed would otherwise have been invested, which would create jobs at those companies, or spent creating jobs through consumption.
However, the surtax as currently proposed would have an even more direct affect on jobs–because it would be a direct surtax on hundreds of thousands of small businesses. These small businesses are the engine of new job creation in the economy. Right when the U.S. needs this job creation the most, the surtax would force successful small businesses to make cutbacks and layoffs.
Celebrate! The House has passed their version of health care reform.
Now look and see how much YOU will be paying. How YOU will be affected. Directly or indirectly. Karl Rove in a WSJ op-ed pegged the problems with the House bill. Highlights.
Surprise!
Congressional Budget Office cost estimate at $1.055 trillion over 10 years, not the $894 billion House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claims.
“The legislation is projected to create deficits over the second five years,” per Politico. “Front-loading revenue and benefit cuts and back-loading costs. The real cost, according to a Republican House Budget Committee report, could be $2.4 trillion for its first decade of operation.
Costs for the first 10 years, $572 billion in new taxes (including a 5.4% income surtax on anyone making more than $500,000 a year), and $426 billion in Medicare and Medicaid cuts, which will hurt seniors and the poor and could lead to rationing of care.
Small businesses would pay $153.5 billion of the surtax. Plus 8% in new payroll taxes if unable to provide health coverage to their workers. Price tag $135 billion more over the next decade. Why create jobs when small businesses will be struggling with those costs?
$2 billion tax on those who already have health insurance.
$20 billion in taxes on medical devices.
$8 billion in taxes on anyone who buys over-the-counter drugs with money from their health-savings accounts.
$140 billion in higher taxes on drugs.
Fines up to 2.5% of your income if you fail to purchase health coverage.
The CBO estimates the public option will have higher premiums than private plans, even though it will get a $2 billion, interest-free start-up loan from the government.
The public option is also likely to mimic Medicare, which denies reimbursement claims at almost twice the rate of private insurers, according to the American Medical Association’s 2008 “National Health Insurer Report Card.”
The bill dumps $34 billion onto already strained state budgets by pushing more of the working poor off private insurance and into Medicaid.
Illegal immigrant can receive subsidies since there is no proof of citizenship required for the public option.
Loophole open for abortion funding. [UPDATED as Stupak amendment puts tight restrictions on federal funds for abortion, but not state funds . Still can be eliminated in Senate bill.]
Younger people with healthier lifestyles would subsidize older, sicker Americans as insurance companies lose flexibility to charge lower prices for healthier habits
Stupak’s amendment imposes tight restrictions on abortions that could be offered through a new public health insurance option and through private insurance purchased with government subsidies for lower- and middle-income people.
The bill now goes to the Senate for passage. Can America afford this afront?
David Brooks, New York TimesWe're all born late. We're born into history that is well under way. We're born into cultures, nations and languages that we didn't choose. On top of that, we're born with certain brain chemicals and genetic predispositions that we can't control. We're thrust into social conditions that we detest […]
Froma Harrop, Providence JournalIt is the duty of every pundit to be all-knowing on what the recent elections mean for the future of American politics. They may have only three dots to connect -- and two dots may have been state-level contests mostly about local issues -- but the confident ones plot detailed maps of political change.The "story" out […]
