Dakota Beacon

Hard times tend to drive people back to basics, to their roots, to something more meaningful than temporal prosperity.

Our first president and members of congress shared such an attitude. This attitude differed markedly from America’s older sister across the Atlantic and her revolution. Historians, in their attempt to explain the savagery of the French Revolution, point in part to the secular disposition of French society. American colonists, on the other hand, embraced deeply held beliefs shaped by the recent Reformation in Europe. Beliefs about mankind and the world influenced their attitudes, actions, and the way Americans governed themselves. These views found their way intrinsically into our early documents.

On September 25, 1789, Elias Boudinot of New Jersey introduced into the US House of Representatives a resolution that requested President George Washington to “...recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a Constitution of government for their safety and happiness.”

George Washington accepted the congressional request as a cultural consensus regarding the prevailing Christian precepts. On October 3, 1789, President Washington issued the first Thanksgiving Proclamation. Had the American Civil Liberties Union or a media obsessed with anti-religious bias existed at that time, they would probably have condemned the Proclamation as a bigoted, right-wing conspiracy.

Giving thanks presumes there is Someone to whom thanks is due. To avoid intellectual schizophrenia, we must acknowledge Washington’s context of Biblical Christianity. Here are excepts from Washington’s Proclamation with comment. He recommends:

“...a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God....”

For what should Americans give thanks?

“...for His kind care and protection of the people of this country...;”

We have been blessed with essential security.

“...for the...manifold mercies...of His providence...;”

Nations, like people, do not always exhibit the best behavior. The difference between what America deserves and what America receives we call “mercy.”

“...for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty which we have...;”

People from around the world recognize America as the embodiment of these qualities and are attracted to our shores.

“...for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have...established constitutions of government,...particularly the national one now lately instituted...;”

Others may imitate our Constitution with beautiful language. But, no other Constitution is so rooted in Reformation thinking as is the US Constitution.

“...for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed...;”

Other religions did not play such a foundational role in the fundamental precepts of our nation as did Christianity. But, all are beneficiaries enjoying the tolerance and protection found in compassionate Christianity as understood by our knowledgeable forefathers.

“...and, in general, for all the great and various favors, which He has been pleased to confer upon us....”

Amen!

Soon after issuance of the Thanksgiving Proclamation, the document disappeared for over a hundred years. In 1921, Dr. J. C. Fitzpatrick discovered the document at auction. He procured it for the library of Congress for $300 where it now resides.

With our drift toward progressive secularism, many people are uncomfortable with the language and tenor of Washington’s Proclamation. Even schools would prefer superficial stories of turkey, pumpkin pie and strange folk in queer costumes to the Christian precepts and convictions underwriting a great nation.

Benjamin Franklin uttered one of his famous quotes at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787. When queried by a lady, “Well, sir, have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” Ben Franklin replied, “A republic, Madame, if you can keep it.”

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

I received my letter from Congressman Earl Pomeroy last week with a convoluted explanation justifying his vote for the Affordable Health Care for America Act. In keeping with Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s talking points, he attacked the “evil” insurance industry exclusively for the “soaring” costs of health care, Medicare and Medicaid.

What he didn’t explain is how the cost of the “something-for-nothing” expectations will be borne by a few Americans while at the same time reducing the national debt. The group that takes continues to grow; the group that pays continues to shrink.

Pomeroy’s explanation sounded a lot like the warmed-over justification he used to explain his vote in favor of cap and trade. Possibly his unspoken thought is to reduce everyone to the same level of misery and call it “fair.” Weird. Interchanging equality with egalitarianism insults the public’s intelligence.

Meanwhile, unemployment continues to climb with over 16 million people out of work. Tax revenue continues to slump and government spending, thanks to TARP, chugs on at $200 million an hour. Out-of-control spending coupled with pending national health care plus cap and trade presages monstrous national debt. Where, oh where, is the skeptical media?

Nitpicking the specifics in any of the health care proposals at this time is mere straining at gnats.

                        --Health care coverage for everyone.

                        --Reductions or increases in Medicare benefits.

                        --Competition for private insurers.

                        --Co-ops.

                        --Pre-existing conditions.

                        --So called “death panels.”

We may quibble about the validity of any given issue, but to do so misses the point. It is like rearranging the proverbial deck chairs on the Titanic.

Any way you slice it, if the government is deeply involved in health care, that is, by definition, a government option. Otherwise, why have legislation that reorganizes the entire health care system?

Absent from the health care debate is the biggest issue of all -- the loss of freedom and liberty for all Americans except for the political elite.

For the federal government to appropriate 1/6th of the market economy comprising the current health care system is to control the lives of its citizens. And appropriate they will. Have we so soon forgotten GM, Chrysler, AIG, the banking system and pay “czars” capping pay?

Any aspect of our lives linked to health, which involves most of our behavior, qualifies for federal scrutiny. We’ve already seen isolated efforts involving tobacco and obesity. Subordinating behavior to the health bureaucracy with rules enforced by the IRS is already written into the House bill. Once sweeping health care legislation is enacted, the details will be worked out and managed with regulations and policies written under the Secretary of Health and Human Services and whatever “czars” the executive branch deems necessary.

Government keeps raising the cost of doing business and the handwriting is on the wall. The brain drain has started. In the face of federal takeovers, some former banking and insurance industry executives are testing the waters overseas. Singapore, Switzerland and Dubai are wooing U. S. talent.

If the outrageous health care reforms come to pass, many doctors and other medical professionals contemplate an exodus one way or another. Early retirement is always an option. Otherwise, attractive overseas locations like Costa Rica, with its American enclaves, offer quality environments for medical professionals giving high caliber care at very reasonable prices. Even now some insurance companies are forging arrangements between patients and doctors to fly patients overseas for necessary medical care.

            Senator Conrad!

            Senator Dorgan!

            Please! Stop this insanity! Enough already!

Focus on repairing Medicare and Medicaid with all its graft and fraud, but don’t overhaul 1/6th of the market economy.

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

President Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2010 on October 28, 2009. The signing followed convoluted action by the congress. Funding all activities and procurement for the entire Department of Defense for the fiscal year 2010 beginning October 1, 2009, was the primary purpose of the bill.

With the exception of individuals who have ties to the military, most people have little reason to pay attention to the progress of this legislation. Contrasted with the astronomical cost of pending health care legislation, this year’s Department of Defense budget of $680 billion pales by comparison.

The Pentagon is not the kind of place that can turn on a dime,” said Defense secretary Robert Gates at the NDAA signing. Likewise, American society cannot turn on a dime either, Mr. Gates. Liberals will try anything to advance their cause.

The NDAA’s progress went like this. Appropriately, the original House defense spending bill, H.R. 2647, did not include hate crimes language. Hate crimes language was included in a separate bill, H.R. 1913, which passed the House on April 29 but it wasn’t clear the Senate would pass the bill.

Those in the Senate supporting hate crimes legislation were able to attach hate crimes language from H.R. 1913 to the Senate version of the NDAA, S. 1390. After all, who would vote against “supporting the troops” just because of some measly gay activist amendment? The Senate passed their version of the bill on July 28, 2009.

The House and Senate conference committee reconciled minor differences between their respective versions of the NDAA during the week of October 6 Then, on October 28, 2009, Obama signed the NDAA into law.

If the FY 2010 NDAA drew little public attention, amendments to the bill drew even less. The radical new hate crimes legislation attached to the defense appropriations bill gave it the alternative title of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

The latest hate crimes legislation is the largest expansion since 1968. It includes “perceived” hate crimes (thought crimes) based on sexual orientation, increased penalties for hate crimes although penalties already exist for these crimes and opens the door permitting prosecution for the same crime at both the state and federal levels (double jeopardy). Additionally, people of faith who speak in opposition to homosexuality on religious grounds may be in violation of this law. Some lucky folks will eventually have to experience grief and legal costs to test the constitutionality of the law in court.

Because the expanded hate crimes legislation would never pass the senate on its own merit, some vehicle had to be found which would avoid a floor debate and the senate would not vote against. The NDAA was the perfect vehicle. Who would dare vote against supporting our troops in harm’s way?

That’s no way to pay respect to our men and women in uniform.

Enter Major Nidal Malik Hasan and the travesty (not tragedy) he perpetrated on November 5, 2009, at Ft. Hood, TX. How ironic that he committed mass murder almost a week to the day after Obama signed into law the NDAA hate crimes provision. Shouting “Allahu Akbar” (“God is great”) he shot 42 fellow soldiers at a processing center before he himself was taken down.

How much of this scenario stemmed from a vibrant diversity of a politically correct society is anybody’s guess. It is known that the good psychiatrist sympathized with suicide bombers, was attempting to contact al Qaeda and that he had no problem with the recruiting station murder of a soldier on June 1, 2009, in Little Rock, AR by Abdulhakim Muhammad. The mainstream media has apologetically airbrushed the story expressing sympathy for the murderer with scant focus on families and survivors who will live with the carnage.

Hasan had not served in Iraq or Afghanistan but was on orders to deploy to the war zone. Therefore, he wasn’t suffering from the current understanding of PTSD -- Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. The way he has been reported you might think Hasan suffered from a new-fashioned disorder -- a reverse PTSD or Pre-Traumatic Stress Syndrome.

Will Major Hasan be charged with a hate crime under the NDAA that Obama just signed into law? Probably not. His victims were not a protected class of citizens. However, a case may be made that he is an Islamic extremist falling into the category of a home-grown, self-radicalized terrorist.

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

When enemy action kills our troops it is unfortunate.

            When political dalliance and indecisiveness kills our soldiers it is inexcusable bordering on criminal.

            Political decision making as the final arbiter of military strategy is the incongruent bane and glory of democracy. This is America’s historical experience, but even more so in the last century.

            KOREA

            The Korean war provides the classic example of unpreparedness produced by political dithering. It began when seven North Korean infantry divisions and an armored brigade, about 90,000 thousand men, poured south across the 38th parallel. Within the first 100 hours Seoul, the capitol of South Korea, fell and the South Korean Army was destroyed.

            In spite of the Cold War danger signs, America demobilized its military rapidly after World War II. So radical was the drawdown that only two infantry companies from the entire Pacific Theater could be mustered. They were thrown into the fray in the face of the North Korean onslaught to fight a delaying action. Only the company commanders and first sergeants of each company survived.

            The war dragged on from June 25, 1950 until July 27, 1953. Hostilities ended between North and South with only a ceasefire agreement, no armistice or treaty. North Korea declared that ceasefire void on May 27, 2009, with the conduct of its second underground nuclear test.

            Every major mistake in Korea, the unpreparedness in the face of a known threat, the eventual intervention of Red China leading to the firing of General Douglas MacArthur and the eventual rise of a nuclear North Korea all resulted from political decisions. Politics cost the United States 33,600 lives in the Korean War.

            VIETNAM

            The embarrassment of Vietnam culminated with a hodgepodge of political piecemeal commitments known as containment. The strategy of limited response and “pacification” was a political decision that protracted the war from September 1959 to April 1975.

            The political decision of containment rather than a strategy to win typified the Vietnam War. Political involvement reached absurd levels with President Johnson planning bombing raids from the basement of the White House. He played with the lives of soldiers rather than allow the field commanders to finish the job quickly and cleanly.

            Congress was not exempt from political interference. Most onerous was the Cash-Church Amendment which prohibited direct military involvement after 1973. As a consequence, Vietnam fell in 1975 at the cost of over 58,000 U.S. dead.

            FIRST GULF WAR

            The Gulf War exhibited one of the finest hours of military professionalism. Within one hundred hours of the attack the entire Iraqi military was in shambles and the elite Republican Guards were crushed. Yet, General Norman Schwarzkopf, instead of attacking west to Baghdad to finish the job militarily, was told to halt his advance. That was a political decision. History might have unfolded differently had he been allowed to proceed to capture Baghdad and Saddam Hussein. There may have never been a need for a Second Gulf War in Iraq.

            AFGHANISTAN

            Six decades after the Korean War the American political elite have learned little from our collective experience. President Obama’s hand-picked commander on the ground, General Stan McChrystal, submitted a request for what he believes it will take to succeed in Afghanistan. That was six weeks ago. His call for resources remains unfulfilled while the American death toll in Afghanistan climbs to the highest level of the war and America’s enemies at home and abroad take heart.

            For all Obama’s eloquence, he is indecisive. Has no set strategy, yet he demurs on General McChrystal’s recommendations. Victory, he told the nation recently on national TV in an allusion to the surrender of Japan, is not something with which he is comfortable. The ongoing conflict in Afghanistan is rapidly devolving into a protracted conflict by political fiat.

            Today’s military is a highly professional and all volunteer force, a tribute to our young people, their leaders and their training. How foolish for the political elite to abuse this precious resource by ignoring good military strategy as laid out by General McChrystal in favor of political dithering.

            Either the president should show confidence in his handpicked field commander and accept McChrystal’s recommendations, or pull the troops out. Let the national security chips fall where they may.

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

Language in general, and English in particular, is fascinating and engaging. Its construction, usage and evolution offer hours for investigation. So why truncate the language when it’s possible to express one’s self precisely? Good question. What answer? Take clichés for example. A good dictionary definition of a cliché is a trite, stereotyped phrase or term that attempts to express a popular thought or idea but that has lost its originality through overuse. Such words and phrases are reduced to bromides, platitudes. Like idioms that have no literal meaning, clichés are expressions that do not lend substance to the meaning of a sentence. On the other hand, they are distinct from jargon which usually forms a specialized language for technical use. Clichés become rhetorical crutches when strung throughout conversation. Speaker and listener alike are usually unaware of the mind-numbing effect of uninspired clichéd rhetoric as the conversation drones on. There are many, many clichés. Some arise through contemporary everyday usage while others wane over time in a reverse way. So, why use clichés? Maybe from habit. Maybe from laziness. Either way, they are verbal expressions stemming from pop culture. They tend to say little, but they sound good in the process. Complex issues are reduced to rational-sounding phrases by means of clichés. Clichés are a shorthand means of communication. They can mean a thousand things, or they can mean nothing. Frequently, they serve as fillers occupying time and space in conversation signifying little. When not otherwise justifying poor or lazy thinking, clichés in their more sinister form are a way of dismissing dissent or opposition. Clichés may take on the form of butchered platitudes as in “A doctor a day keeps illness away.” Mixed clichés, like mixed metaphors, grate on the brain. They usually result from misunderstanding the meaning of the expression. You never want to “sign your own death knell.” You just might “get your dandruff up.” And, surely, “violence is not as American as apple pie.” On the other hand, you could be “busy as a bee” while “working like a dog.” Here are some common clichés heard in everyday conversation together with possible renderings. “Moving forward...” Let’s not talk about it any more. Change the subject. “Do the right thing..” Let’s do what I think is best. “Send a message...” Why send a message? Just talk straight say what needs to be said. “On steroids...” Exaggerated, bigger than life. The senate health care bill is Medicare on steroids. “Sweet!” A sugary expletive. “It’s for the children...” A nonsensical phrase usually uttered by politicians and bureaucrats. Not much in use since the legislated massive debt our kids will inherit became the latest form of child abuse. “Foot in the door...” An initiation of something new, like takeover of health care, banking and auto industries. “Empower...” A faux redistribution of ability. “Going green...” How we’ll look and feel if Cap and Trade legislation is passed by the senate. “Carbon footprint...” Guilt smudges conveyed by radical environmentalists and politicians as they stomp on the private sector. “You got it...” Thanks for embracing my point of view. “Cowboy...” An independent, forthright, honorable guy -- except when liberals refer derisively to President Bush. “Make a difference...” An inane filler-term. Lenin, Stalin and Mao Tse-tung made a difference. Alternatively, doing nothing, as opposed to doing something, can also make a difference. “Racist...” A loose but effective epithet, warranted or not, used to silence the opposition or shut down honest criticism. Overused banality. “You know what I’m saying?...” Agree with me -- or else. Clichéd rhetoric is a ragged attempt at acceptable, verbal communication. Listen carefully to conversations around you. Better still, listen to the greatest perpetuators of all, the media pundits, and see how many clichés you can identify. Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

With Islam so prevalent in today’s news, this topic warrants scrutiny. The fact is that the Muslim population worldwide is expanding and shifting. It is prudent to familiarize ourselves with the reality of Islam. Consulting resources discussing the Islamic phenomenon would extend our comprehension. Here are a few suggestions. Mark Steyn’s book “America Alone” is very well thought out, insightful and witty. He portrays a demographic reality confronting the West, to wit, an expanding Muslim population in terms of birth rate and migration. Regardless of the reader’s sentiment, Steyn speaks bluntly to this reality. In the contest between Islam and the West, demographics plays a major role. Early in his book Steyn establishes that a country must produce 2.11 live births per adult woman just to sustain its population, to neither shrink nor grow. This is the American birth rate today. Canada has a shrinking birth rate at 1.48. The European birth rate as a whole is 1.38. Russia’s birth rate is declining at 1.14 live births per adult woman. On the other hand, Muslim Pakistan has a birth rate of 5.08 and Saudi Arabia 4.53 children per adult woman. At this rate their overpopulation will migrate to fill the gap of the declining populations of the West. That France has a 30% Muslim population under the age 20, and growing, is symptomatic of the problems to come not only in France but in every other European country with a declining birth rate and a lax immigration policy. Another suggested reading is V. S. Naipaul’s book “Among the Believers: An Islamic Journey.” Naipaul offers a refreshing glance at the root of modern Islamic events. Specifically, he begins immediately after the 1977 revolution in Iran when the Shaw was deposed by radical mullahs. This is travel literature at its best and the reader benefits from Naipaul’s valuable portrayal of Islamic people he encounters from Iran across India to Malaysia. Dispel any notion that he is a “biased Hindu.” If anything, he questions radical ideology rather than doubting the people. He is motivated more as a seeker of truth than as a scholar. As such, he expresses his doubts about certain interpretations of Islam. Another fine travelogue was penned by the eccentric Robert Byron in his book “The Road to Oxiana,” detailing a fascinating 1930s journey through Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. Departing from Venice in 1933, Byron set out on a journey through Beirut, Jerusalem, Baghdad and Teheran to the land of Oxus. That is the ancient name for the region of the Amu Darya which forms part of the border between Afghanistan and the former Soviet Union. This is a thoroughly captivating record of his experience with Islamic people in a multicultural setting along with his account of architectural treasures and geography inaccessible to most Western travelers. If history holds your interest, another suggested reading portrays history from an Arab perspective. “The Travels of Ibn Battuta” translated and edited by Rev. Samuel Lee is a classic in travel literature. This tale is the equivalent of Marco Polo’s “Travels.” His account is of significant historical value. Sheik Battuta started on a pilgrimage to Mecca from Tangier, Morocco, in 1326 and ended his journey 27 years and 75,000 miles later. During his travels he visited the lands of every Muslim ruler of his time including East Africa, Byzantium, Iraq, southern Russia, India, Ceylon and China. Among his many accounts are descriptions of Muslim seafaring activities, architecture and agriculture. We may not be able to personally visit Islamic lands, but we may still learn of the people, culture and religion through the experiences of others who did traveled there once upon a time. It behooves us to learn of the past to peek at the future. Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

Popular conception holds that the Obama stimulus plan will work. This is the $789 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that will ultimately cost $3.27 trillion over ten years including $744 billion just to service the debt. The assumption is that money pumped into the economy will “create jobs” thereby “improving the economy.” This simplistic view is touted in easily consumable sound bites. There is, however, another more realistic and definitive understanding of the term “stimulus,” one a bit more insightful and sane. Neither views are mutually exclusive, but the second makes more economic sense. The first goes like this. The government has a responsibility to spend money. It doesn’t matter where or how, just spend it. The government’s role is to stimulate the economy with huge infusions of cash. Lots of it. Borrow it (debt instruments like bonds and notes), beg for it (print money) or steal it (tax citizens). Regardless of the source, just spend it. Bush gave checks to individuals to spend while Obama gives money to states and communities with impunity. Funding includes grants and other distributions for bridges, highways, parks, golf courses, pro-wrestling teams, origami classes -- the list is endless. See the federal government’s “Tracking the Money” official web site at Recovery.gov for details. As of September 2009, $622 million is available to North Dakota for 354 projects. That pittance gives North Dakota a ranking of 51st of all states and territories. More formally, this cash injection is what John Maynard Keynes advocated in his General Theory. Little matter that the money flows round and round giving the illusion of “stimulating the economy” by intending to pass money from hand to hand. However, if businesses and manufacturers are not hiring and banks are not lending, then the cash infusion is not circulating as intended. Add to that the government’s demonization of auto, banking, insurance, medical, pharmaceutical and investment industries and public incentive drops. Which is exactly the situation our economy faces. The “job creation” argument becomes spurious. Most of the jobs created are government jobs in an expanding bureaucracy. The stimulus was to have created 4 million new jobs. In fact, unemployment in the private sector is now 9.8% for people still looking for work. The actual figure is closer to 17% unemployment when including those that have given up job hunting or no longer qualify for unemployment benefits. That number is growing and these people do not pay taxes thus depriving the government of needed revenue. Government expands, but the private sector keeps shrinking. Yet, it’s the private sector that is called upon to pay for the expanded government bureaucracy with what little wealth the private sector is allowed to create. The second option for stimulating the economy goes like this. A growing economy is one that exhibits wealth accumulation through profits. Profits are used to purchase capital assets and expand production to satisfy the needs of new markets. Increased profits pay for new hires and expanded facilities. Adam Smith successfully and lucidly articulated the process 240 years ago. Our capitalist economy is not a zero-sum game. If you eat all of the pizza, I do not have to eat the box. There is more pizza where that came from. Our capitalist economy is flexible, dynamic and expanding if only government curtails interference. Cut taxes to release existing financial resources for use by the private sector rather than by government. The idea is to grow the private sector naturally without government interference. America’s accumulated wealth is far greater today than 200 years ago and the aggregate is not ill gotten gain. China, India, Korea and Japan are following America’s historic model to their great success reinvesting profits to produce new goods and services for expanding markets. By doing so, true jobs are created along with the wealth to sustain them. This, in essence, is how economies grow. This is how China and India eventually adopted a more capitalist society that may soon rival that of the United States. The first example certainly puts money into the economy. It puts a few people to work for awhile but without generating new capital in return. But, what happens when government money runs out and the economy has not expanded? Can the government return to a shrinking tax base expecting still more money? With high unemployment and less revenue coming into the federal coffers, who pays the bills? The second example is tried and true. It is how America became a strong independent world leader able to rescue other nations in hard times while taking care of its own. Fretting about the stimulus might be making a mountain out of a mole hill. Maybe Alfred E. Neuman had it right when he blithely begged the question, “What, me worry?” Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

Capturing oral history from military personnel before they pass on is a noble initiative for veterans’ organizations. Gallant efforts though these are, a complementary perspective would advance these histories by also capturing the stories of the women who served with and supported their warrior husbands behind the scenes. Last month my wife and I again had the honor and privilege of attending the annual convention of the Society of Military Widows in Albuquerque, NM. The SMW plays a commendable role in highlighting the great tradition of service to the nation. Fundamentally, however, the SMW members seek the friendship and conversation of shared experiences of their lives through years of service with others who know what military community life is all about. The SMW organization comprises widows from all services and from all ranks. The only rank they now know is that of “widow.” Life of the military wife spans good times and bad. Tales of the cumulative memories of these military widows could easily fill volumes providing a window on a bygone era. What follows is a story of one of the good times, one of warmth and camaraderie, shared by a lady at our convention banquet table. In 1964, during the height of the Cold War, Pat and her naval officer husband were serving a tour of duty at a tiny military installation in the region of Angus, Scotland. Their base was located on the east side of Scotland near the village of Edzell between Aberdeen and Dundee north of Edinburgh. The first Christmas Pat and her husband were in Scotland the famed Black Watch Regiment invited the American officers and their wives to their Christmas Ball, a formal affair held between Christmas and New Years. Invitations specified the gala would be held between 10:00 p.m. and 4:00 a.m. with dinner after midnight and soup upon departure. The date of the ball finally arrived and the evening progressed gaily with traditional waltzes and foxtrots. Officers and their ladies were dressed in their elegant best. American military wore dress uniforms and the Black Watch their formal regimental kilts of the appropriate tartan. Each of the men wore their military decorations adding a splash of color to their uniforms. The women, of course, were beautifully attired in their exquisite evening gowns. After dinner, the Scots commenced their traditional Scottish country dancing similar to square dancing but without a caller. Each dance was different and had a requisite number of partners and precise steps. Among the pieces the band played were the “Dashing White Sergeant,” the “Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh” and the “Duke of Perth” country dances, each one identified in sequence on dance cards fastened to the ladies’ wrists. Gracious hosts that they were, the Scots invited the Americans to participate offering to coach them through the steps. Whether shy or otherwise inhibited, the Americans politely declined and retired to the safety of a balcony where they could watch the progress of the festivities. Ingenuity, a hallmark of American culture, rose to the occasion. On the bus ride back to their quarters, the American wives took the lead and committed themselves and their husbands to learn Scottish country dancing. Within a week they retained a dance instructor complete with all the necessary music. The instructor was sworn to secrecy. No one in the Scottish community knew of the dance lessons and the instruction continued weekly without fail. On the 4th of July the Americans hosted a patriotic celebration to which the officers and ladies of the Black Watch were invited. Even so, the dance lesson rehearsals by the Americans remained a closely guarded secret. In early December, as expected, the Americans received their invitations to the 1965 Black Watch Christmas Ball. This time the Americans were not at all reticent. The evening progressed with the usual formalities and conviviality. Dinner after midnight was followed by Scottish country dancing. Again, the Scots invited the Americans to participate. Coyly, the Americans declined, but asked for a small space in a corner on the dance floor. The music began and the Scots commenced their country dancing. At first the Scots were not aware of any American activity. Soon, however, they took note, stopped their own dancing and watched in amazement. The Americans danced each dance without missing a beat – literally. It must be understood that the Scots haled from different villages and, consequently, incorporated slight variations in their dance steps resulting in some unsynchronized movements. The Americans, on the other hand, had learned their lessons uniformly and learned them well. Soon, the Scots relinquished the dance floor and it was their turn to retreat to the balcony to observe. The Americans were performing impeccably. Little did the wives know at the time that, as ambassadors of good will, they were cementing relations with good allies. There’s nothing like adopting bits of a host’s culture to fortify friendships. Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

A story of sleaze and corruption involving a taxpayer-funded organization consisting of sex, hookers and government ties at high levels has to be a news director’s dream. Yet, this very scenario was essentially ignored for days after the story broke. The mainstream media, or should I say the old-line media, chose simply not to cover the recent ACORN scandal. There was a time when investigative reporting dominated the news in the grand tradition of “20/20” and “60 Minutes.” Apparently that heyday has passed. In a word, ACORN employees were caught on video tape advising a “pimp” (James O’Keefe, 25) and his “prostitute” (Hannah Giles, 20) on how to launder their earnings and avoid detection. Working under cover, O’Keefe and Giles were advised by Baltimore ACORN employees how to bring underage illegal alien girls into the United States to work as prostitutes from a brothel which ACORN would help finance. Portrayed in the video, all discussions were up front and straight forward. The Baltimore video tape was the first, but by no means the last, incident recorded and the ACORN scandal appears endemic. ACORN offices in three other cities were also willing to help support, organize and arrange loans for houses of prostitution. Film maker O’Keefe taped the identical scenario with the same advice provided by ACORN workers in Washington, New York and San Bernardino. At this writing O’Keefe says that there are more tapes to be released. ACORN employees helping a “pimp” and his “prostitute” should be a huge story, but major news outlets did not see it that way. Instead, MSNBC ran an investigative story on the informercial “ShamWow or Sham?” They also produced razor edge reporting on another product, the Snuggie. No time for the ACORN scandal. CNN broke a different story. They ran with an account about jilted women facing trial for staging a motel tryst that ended with the women gluing the man’s private parts. CBS chose to air an investigative report about a divorcing couple named Jon and Kate Gosselin in lieu of the ACORN scandal. To its credit, ABC mentioned the ACORN scandal, albeit loosely, by announcing that the two Baltimore ACORN employees had been fired. Aside from that, details were sketchy and ABC excoriated O’Keefe and Giles for malfeasance. In spite of the lack of coverage, ACORN’s relationship with federal agencies has been called into question. In all probability ACORN will lose federal funding as well as its 501(c) (3) status. The Census Bureau has severed ties with the group for all work related to the 2010 census. The IRS has also severed their favorable relationship with ACORN. Clearly there was a pattern of improper partisanship and fraudulent activity. ACORN’s reputation is tarnished. In unrelated incidents involving voter fraud, over 30 ACORN officials have been convicted. Investigations continue in seventeen states. Although ACORN has promised to sue O’Keefe, they have yet to make good on their threat. For his part, O’Keefe say, “Bring it on.” There may yet be some truth in the old adage that just because a watchdog has its eyes closed does not mean it’s asleep. On the other hand, the term “main stream media” has probably become a euphemism. Losing viewership and, consequently, advertising revenue, the main stream media has become anything but main stream. Slowly but surely they’re losing their influence. In addition to not covering the ACORN scandal, the old-line media news gave very scant coverage to other recent stories. The Van Jones scandal and the National Endowment for the Arts scandal, until recently, were passé. Both Van Jones, head of the Council on Environmental Quality, otherwise known as the “green jobs czar,’ and Yosi Sergant, head of the NEA, both resigned in disgrace. If you don’t recognize these scandals, you probably take your news from the old-line media. Point made. Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

Labor Day traditionally spells the end of summer and the start of school. Seasons change not by calendar alone, and summer’s end is marked by bird behavior as well.

Politics and policy will always nip at our heals, but other things are more enduring -- and endearing. For example, the peaceful observation of the birds spells a welcome respite to the acrimony around us. The birds are hearty, resilient and not bothered by the “sophistication” of the world that too often plagues mankind. Theirs, however, is the simple life albeit a struggle for survival.

With autumn upon us and school already in session, it’s time for the great migration to commence and birds to head south. Already, the ducks and geese are beginning to congregate. Even the grackles are on the move south and they are not alone.

I encountered a species of bird for the first time recently which was new to me. I had never seen an ovenbird until the other day even though they’re not uncommon in our area. Unfortunately, the little fellow won’t be making the flight south. He had recently expired. As macabre as it sounds, he was in very good shape and evidently had not departed this world too long before I discovered him. At first I did not recognized the markings and had to check them against some of my resource material.

The ovenbird is a member of the warbler family but often acts like a thrush. This ground-walking species characteristically separates itself from all other warblers by its preference for the ground. He’s somewhat small in size, about five inches long, with a distinctive olive back and wings, white underparts and heavy black streaks on the breast. It’s crown has a broad burnt-orange stripe bordered on each side with a dark brown or black stripe.

The ovenbird is common enough. He’s just not common at my feeders which explains why I haven’t seen him. The little guy is an insectivore. Ovenbirds feed on spiders and insects either caught in flight or on the ground. Typically ovenbirds do not forage in live vegetation, but prefer to scrounge around in twigs and leaf litter beneath the trees. In fact, they spend at least as much time on the ground as they do in the air.

Ovenbirds are more often heard than seen. Although my bird had already assumed room temperature, happily I found him in the autumn just in time to coincide with the start of school. His song is a ringing call which increases in volume sounding like tea-cher, TEA-cher, TEA-CHER. With my discovery occurring in the autumn, this coincidence has to be a fitting tribute to the start of the new school year.

The best is held ‘til last. The ovenbird gets its name from the shape of the domed nest resembling an old fashion European baking oven. The domed nest is made principally from woven grass and twigs cemented with clay and containing a side entrance. Nests are built on the ground in deciduous wooded areas. Although the nest is unique, nevertheless it is a target for parasitism by cowbirds.

This relatively tame little critter is a long-range migrater. He spends the winter in northern South America, Central America and the West Indies. However, he breeds in the eastern and north central areas of North America. Although not predominantly a Transatlantic bird, confirmed sightings of the ovenbird in recent years have occurred in Norway, Great Britain and Ireland.

Rustling through my research on the ovenbird, I discovered that poet laureate Robert Frost paid homage to the little guy a poem in 1916 and titled it simply “The Oven Bird” in his collection “Mountain Interval.” Of all the many birds he could have chosen for his poem, the ovenbird was honored by his choice.

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

The Oven Bird

THERE is a singer everyone has heard,

Loud, a mid-summer and a mid-wood bird,

Who makes the solid tree trunks sound again.

He says that leaves are old and that for flowers

Mid-summer is to spring as one to ten.

He says the early petal-fall is past

When pear and cherry bloom went down in showers

On sunny days a moment overcast;

And comes that other fall we name the fall.

He says the highway dust is over all.

The bird would cease and be as other birds

But that he knows in singing not to sing.

The question that he frames in all but words

Is what to make of a diminished thing.

When slowed by an ailment, a person naturally turns to the familiar for solace. That’s what I did last week recovering from a medical procedure. I sought my old “friend,” Robert Service, balladeer par excellence. As chance would have it, I also recently heard a radio program on which Hank Snow recited some of Service’s poetry. I was inspired.

Scotland gave the world Sir Walter Scott, Robert Burns, and Robert Louis Stevenson. She also gave the world a minor poet, the popular bard Robert W. Service.

My father first introduced me to Robert Service with “The Cremation of Sam McGee” and “The Shooting of Dan McGrew.” They were among his favorites along with several lesser known poems and rhymes. Now they’re mine.

Born January 16, 1874, of a Scottish father and English mother, Robert Service became one of the most widely read poets of his day.

Robert was an avid reader. By age 15 he had devoured the works of Browning, Tennyson, Thackeray and Keats. He entered the University of Glasgow where he studied English

Language and Literature. Upon completing his Christmas exams he had placed 4th in a class of 200.

Beginning the New Year term, he wrote an essay critical of Ophelia in William Shakespeare’s “Hamlet.” In it he questioned her “purity.” The instructor, taking exception to his comments, wrote on his paper “...this is perverse and obscene....” Rebuked, Robert challenged the instructor to a fist fight, which never occurred. Disenchanted, Robert left the university never to return.

Robert emigrated to Canada arriving in 1896 with $15 in his pocket and visions of becoming a cowboy in British Columbia but the life of a rancher was less than he expected. He quit after 18 months.

Robert was not averse to hard work. He dedicated himself to physical fitness which suited his spirit of wanderlust and supported his lifestyle. He greatly enjoyed walking and received much of his inspiration during solitary treks in woods and fields.

He spent the next few years drifting up and down the Pacific coast working at various odd jobs. In 1903 he accepted a position with the Canadian Bank of Commerce and took a post in Whitehorse in the Yukon Territory, later transferring to Dawson.

Returning from one of his walks he passed a bar on Main Street in Whitehorse where “A bunch of the boys were whooping it up.” The line stuck and he spent the rest of the night composing “The Shooting of Dan McGrew.” On another occasion he heard the story of a prospector who cremated his partner. In other conversations people always complained of the Yukon cold. One day he spotted the name of Sam McGee from Tennessee on some bank papers. Robert’s muse inspired him to write the famous “Cremation of Sam McGee.”

Much admired in his time, Service wrote of heroes, common folk and rollicking buffoons. In his poems he spoke of miners and prostitutes, loggers and loners, life and death. With these ordinary, rustic themes, he produced ballads, songs and rhymes. In his first book of poetry, “Songs of a Sourdough” (1906) he celebrated the rough and tumble life of the Klondike during the gold rush days of the early 1900s.

With the publication of “Songs of a Sourdough” and “Ballads of a Cheechako” (1908) Robert was well on his way to financial independence. He spent a total of 8 years in the Yukon and left in 1912 to serve as a war correspondent covering the Balkan War. Though these were some of his most momentous and productive years, he never returned to the Yukon.

His time as a war correspondent was followed by a stint as a volunteer ambulance driver for the Americans in World War I. This experience provided him with yet more material for his collection of poetry published as “Rhymes of a Red Cross Man” (1916).

Robert purchased a villa in Brittany following the war. Except for a period during World War II he lived the remainder of his life in France and Monte Carlo writing and traveling.

Robert W. Service passed away on September 11, 1958, and is buried in Lancieux, France. His death preceded by forty-three years to the day the heinous terrorist attack on America. I wonder what he might have written of such aggression?

Those interested in further study of the life of Robert Service should consult his two autobiographical works “Ploughman of the Moon” (1945) and “Harper of Heaven” (1948).

Any time is a good time to read Robert Service. I found my time while recuperating. Some claim that he was the most widely read balladeer of his day. It would be unfortunate if today’s generation missed knowing the poems of Robert Service. For those already familiar with his light verse, September is as good a time as any to say “Thank you, Mr. Service, for gracing our days with your poetry.” Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

Fool me once, shame on you.

Fool me twice, shame on me.

Universal health care doesn’t appear to be the shoo-in it once was, but it may still become reality.

The liberal objective, now and for the last half century, has always been a single payer health care system. Regardless of the rhetoric used by proponents, a single payer system rules out competition. Ergo, a public option, single payer health care system means a government-run system.

In fact, without a government option, there is no reason for a health care reform legislation as currently proposed. Medicare reform, yes. Co-opting the entire private health care system, no.

The current euphemism in congress for a government-run system is “co-op.” As such, this represents little more than the camel’s nose under the tent, so to speak.

If a public health care plan was a Trojan horse for a universal, single-payer health care system, a co-op, in the liberal sense, is a Trojan horse for a government-run public health care system.

Be careful what you wish for and don’t be fooled by the wildly populist words of legislators. Their sense of co-ops and the public’s sense of co-ops are not the same.

The co-op concept has a rich and varied history. We all know farmers established co-ops long ago to market and distribute produce. Workers in some sectors have established co-ops called “credit unions.” Purchasing co-ops provide members with access to a variety of goods and services at reduced prices. In metropolitan areas, co-op members own their apartment buildings. Insurance companies form co-ops called “mutual” insurance companies.

Here are the criteria a true co-op should meet if it is to be part of the health care solution.

--It should be run exclusively by its members.

--It should be funded exclusively by its members and other private sources.

--It should be controlled exclusively by its members.

Health care co-ops cannot and must not have any federal involvement if they are to be truly competitive and working for the individual. They must not:

--Be run by any government in any form, especially the federal government.

--Be funded or subsidized by the government even for “startup funds.”

--Include plans chosen or influenced by any level of government.

Currently, liberal congressional leaders seek some form of government involvement as a compromise under the moniker “co-op.“

If health care co-ops are so good, why don’t they proliferate? What’s to stop them from germinating like other co-ops?

If congress is intent on reforming health care along the lines of co-ops, they could change the tax code to do two things. First, congress could permit mutual insurance companies to be truly non-profit insurance companies.

Second, the tax code could give individuals the same tax breaks for buying insurance through co-ops as they currently give for buying through their employer. That would spur real competition.

Senator Kent Conrad touts the example of Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound (GHCPS) as an example of a health care co-op. Unfortunately, that is not a good example to use. GHCPS policy holders do not have ownership rights. They may apply for membership, but policy holders neither own the “cooperative” nor do they have full membership rights.

Ultimately, every civil program the feds attempt to manage eventually is driven into the ground and out of budget with inevitable cost overruns. Why entrust the government with yet another costly boondoggle to botch?

If a public option is adopted, individuals can expect to be treated no better than a line item in a budget. Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

There is an old saying, “When you’re sent to drain a swamp and you’re standing in water up to your neck with alligators swimming all around -- don’t lose sight of the objective.”

With attention focused on the opposition to health care reform at town hall meetings, the US House has yet to vote on H.R. 3200, the major health care bill. If and when it does so, the bill then goes to the US Senate where passage remains murky. The Senate has no clearly identifiable health care bill but continues crafting one in committees.

Much is made of “fixing” Medicare. Medicare has been a known problem ignored by congress for years. It isn’t necessary to hastily rework the entire health care system with an overarching government replacement to “fix” Medicare.

Even as congressmen and senators get an ear full on the various health care proposals, the Senate will quietly take up H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, when they return from their summer listening tour. This is the House version of Cap and Trade legislation. Once the Senate acts on Cap and Trade, it’s on to the president for signature. Then Cap and Trade is a done deal.

In a way, juggling these bills is much like a political shell game. You focus on the shells and miss the pea.

Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) is very certain the Senate will not pass a “public option” health care plan. Interestingly, a health care amendment was submitted by his colleague Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) that was adopted with bipartisan support by the Senate Heath Committee. If adopted as part of any final health care bill, the amendment would require all senators, congressmen and their staffs to come under whatever option congress passes and the president signs. This illustrates a very good point. If health care reform is so good for the people, surely it’s good for congress as well.

When I asked Senator Conrad at a town hall meeting if he supported Senator Coburn’s bipartisan amendment his response was that “there would be no public option passed in the Senate.” This was a neat parry, a typical political non-answer. I took it as a “No.” After all, why should the patricians stoop to the level of plebes and live under the same health care they think best for the rest of us?

No public option? Let’s see if a public option resurrects itself under a different name such as a health care co-op. Why don’t I trust these people?

So much for the health care listening tour.

I had another question the opportunity for which never presented itself for the asking. It’s a nit picking Cap and Trade question. Washington’s mantra is chanted over and over, “We must break our dependence on foreign oil.” Fair enough. But, there are the inevitable unintended consequences accompanying the usual government “solution.”

A push is on to substitute hybrid or fully electric cars for cars using the internal combustion engine. Disregard for a moment that our number one and number three suppliers of oil are Canada and Mexico in that order. Venezuela is second with all other countries arrayed after them. Disregard also the need to generate the electric energy to charge the batteries. Think about the composition of the batteries.

An important component of the rechargeable batteries is lithium. A full 50% of the world’s supply of lithium comes from Bolivia, a close friend of Hugo Chavez. Another 25% comes from Chile. Seventy-five percent of the world’s lithium comes from these two countries.

My question is, “Aren’t we depending to an even greater extent for our supply of lithium from overseas than we are currently for oil?” In other words, aren’t we trading a headache for an upset stomach?

Maybe, just maybe, health care and cap and trade legislation have nothing to do with either health or saving the environment. Maybe these and other efforts have more to do with consolidating political power in the hands of a few Washington politicians to the detriment of our freedom.

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

If you want to drill for oil, you hire a petroleum engineer. If you want to drill for money in Washington, you hire a lobbyist. That’s what farm lobbies, industry associations and teachers unions do. Lobbyist facilitate taking tax dollars from some people and giving those dollars to others.

Formerly known as the American Association of Retired Persons, AARP is no different than any other special interest group in its activities.

Although AARP bills itself as non-partisan. Nevertheless, its actions prove otherwise. They have funded advertising and pushed for legislation that consistently argues for a Democrat legislative agenda embracing higher taxes and bigger government.

On Tuesday afternoon, July 28, President Obama participated in a “tele-town hall” meeting at the AARP headquarters in Washington, DC.

The question is, “How well does AARP represent members’ interests?”

Seniors remain skittish about the vote in congress on health care bill H.R. 3200 . Skepticism remains high for several reasons.

Nevertheless, AARP continues active campaigning in favor of “Obamacare” by urging members to lobby their congressmen and senators to support the measure despite the bill’s major flaws.

FLAW 1: Under Obamacare, seniors indeed risk losing their doctor. Administration rhetoric to the contrary, the New York Times on April 2, 2009, reported that 29% of Medicare beneficiaries surveyed who were looking for a primary care doctor had trouble finding one. That’s up 5% from last year. Our nation already faces a significant and growing doctor shortage. Obamacare will compound the problem making it more difficult for seniors to find doctors who accept Medicare.

To exacerbate the problem further, Obama plans to pay for up to a third of his plan by cutting $313 billion in Medicare reimbursements to health care providers thus forcing doctors to see even fewer Medicare patients.

Adding to the pressure, Obamacare’s “public option” could decrease the annual income of hospitals by $36 billion causing the net income of physicians to drop by $33 billion. Such reductions will encourage doctors to retire early and medical students to seek other fields of endeavor.

FLAW 2: Under Obamacare many seniors will lose their coverage. At least 22% of all Medicare patients (10.5 million people) are enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans. In addition to the traditional Medicare benefits, these plans include coordinated care for patients with chronic conditions together with additional hospitalization coverage. President Obama proposes to kill the entire program. If so, seniors could easily face an average $2,000-$4,000 annual cost adjustment increase.

FLAW 3: Under Obamacare, health care will be rationed. Central to Obamacare is a federal health board that will, of necessity, ration health care to cut costs. Supporting Obamacare, Princeton professor Peter Singer wrote in the New York Times, “The task of health care bureaucrats is then to get the best value for the resources they have been allocated.” Congressional conservatives have given every opportunity for Obamacare liberals to disavow government-rationed health care with amendments to remove rationing provisions. Those amendments have been voted down in every instance along partisan lines. Obama plans to pay for expanded coverage for the young and healthy at the expense of the elderly and infirm.

In spite of these profound flaws, AARP continues to support and advocate for Obamacare regardless of members who see things differently from AARP leaders. Which begs the question, “Whose interest does AARP serve -- the elderly or ideologues?”

There is no question that America’s health care system needs improvement. Rather than balancing health care reform on the backs of seniors, more must be done to revise the tax system, implement tort reform, enable true health care competition in the private sector and give families control of their health care dollars.

Obamacare does none of this.

July 24, 2009

Health care legislation, the biggest story in months, gets scant critical examination in the mainstream media. One outlet after another offers the same unremarkable spin in favor of Obama’s health care initiative.

For example, there’s not one peep about tort reform from the MSM. Frivolous law suits with enormous payouts that drive the high cost of doctor’s malpractice insurance is one of the biggest contributors to the high cost of health care.

The rush toward health care reform proceeds unchecked at a dizzying pace. President Bush was criticized for rushing to war with Iraq, but there is no media criticism about Obama’s rush to pass health care legislation.

For all its warts and pimples, we already have the best health care system in the world. WHO ranks the United State 1 out of 191 countries. Americans don’t flock to Canada, Britain or Cuba for health care. But, people do flock to the United States for care.

Frustrated, more people seek information about health care legislation from alternative media. Public objection and outrage grow over H.R. 3200 (America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009). People are learning that the provisions are neither affordable nor offer choices.

Although Obama has praised the Mayo Clinic repeatedly as a model for health care reform, Mayo Clinic has not returned the favor. It’s adamantly opposed to H.R. 3200. Last week clinic officials said “...the proposed legislation misses the opportunity to help create higher quality, more affordable care for patients. In fact, it will do the opposite” because the proposals aren’t “patient-focused or results oriented. The real losers will be the citizens of the United States.”

Easily found on the internet, H.R. 3200 contains the following examples. If anything changes in your current health contract, you will be required to move into a “qualified plan,” one that the government considers in your best interest (pp. 16-17).

Offensive language such as “mentally retarded” is used (p 389).

Seniors will be compelled to submit to end-of-life care counseling once every five years, or more often if ill or in a nursing home (pp. 425-430).

When filing taxes, if you cannot prove you are in a “qualified plan” you will be fined thousands of dollars (pp. 167-168).

July 24, Democrats, rejecting Republican input, pushed through a partisan amendment to H.R. 3200 allowing 12 million illegal aliens free health care. The House Ways and Means Committee passed H.R. 3200 23-18. An amendment offered by Republicans to strip the illegal alien provision was defeated along straight partisan lines 26-15.

Taxpayers’ dollars flow like water. If congress had used $30 billion of the $1 trillion stimulus package (which isn’t working) to insure people without health insurance, the forty million “uninsured” would be covered -- including the illegal aliens.

Chairing his Senate Budget Committee hearing on Thursday, July 16, Kent Conrad asked a pointed question of Congressional Budget Director Doug Elmendorf. “I’m going to really put you on the spot....[D]o you see a successful effort being mounted to bend the long-term cost curve?” Elmendorf answered, “No Mr. Chairman. On the contrary, the legislation (H.R. 3200) significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs.” And again, “Over time, accumulating debt would cause substantial harm to the economy.” Elmendorf’s comments earned him an invitation to a personal meeting with President Obama. Separation of powers anyone?

On Saturday, July 25, in a letter to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, Elmendorf reiterated that “In CBO’s judgment, the probability is high that no savings would be realized [over the 10-year budget window]....”

Peggy Noonan, a Ronald Reagan speech writer and Obama campaign supporter, recently discussed the unspoken public fear with the health care bill. With comprehensive public funding of the same health care for everyone, the overseers in government feel obligated to tell folks how to live and which simple joys in life are allowed and disallowed. As Americans go about their daily routines more and more are feeling less and less free. H.R. 3200 will only intensify that feeling.

Are you listening, Congressman Pomeroy?

With rising public concern, shouldn’t congress take its time and get it right? Shouldn’t Obama at least take as long revising health care as he took to select his puppy for the White House -- six months?

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).