Mark the date; on Tuesday April 6, 2010 the Obama Administration signaled to the rogue states and terrorist organizations in the world, ‘start making your biological and chemical weapons in earnest’. If the United States is attacked with the use of a biological or chemical weapon we will not use our nuclear weapons in retaliation. 

While the thought of using a nuclear weapon is heinous, it served as a deterrent for more than half a century. During the Cold War (1947 – 1991) from President Truman through President George H.W. Bush and then the post Cold War era,  the threat of our nuclear arsenal kept Super Powers and rogue state alike at bay. While we will never know if the United States would have actually used nuclear weapons in retaliation, our enemies were as uncertain and that prevented them from implementing the “first strike”.

We have now changed our stance. If a nation state is complying with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty we will not use nuclear weapons in retaliation to a chemical or biological attack. A chemical attack on the United States would be horrific, but it would be localized. However, imagine a biological attack capable of killing millions and spreading uncontrollably. Our new policy would be for Washington lawyers and bureaucrats to review documentation and investigate the whether or not the country has maintained its status with respect to the treaty and complied with IAEA inspectors on a regular basis. If the country is found to have met all of the requirements we would not retaliate with nuclear weapons.  Our retaliation response would be with the use of conventional weapons and boots on the ground.

I am not sure that the old Soviet Union in the 1970’s would have really been overly concerned with that threat. I think that they recognized that if a weapon of mass destruction was used on either the United States or its allies we would retaliate in kind. Mutual assured destruction prevented the use of nuclear weapons. The progressive left has always felt that a nuclear free world should be our goal. While that concept is admirable, the genie was forever let out of the bottle back in the 1940’s.

The Obama administration has also promised that our current nuclear arsenal will be reduced and that we will not develop new nuclear weapons. While that stance might signal to nations of the world that the United States is leading the way in preventing a nuclear holocaust, have we made our world any safer? 

Until yesterday, the United States had provided itself and its allies with a credible deterrent. Now rogue states and terrorist organizations are standing taller with a gun in hand and we are left standing holding a knife. Thank you President Obama for weakening our national security. It is a shame that we did not announce this stance last Thursday at least then we would have an excuse to look like fools.

Open Letter/Question to Attorney General Eric Holder:

In February of 2009, Mr. Eric Holder took the oath of office as he was sworn in as Attorney General. That oath which is the same for all federal employees includes the statement...” I will support (protect) and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”.

On December 24, 2009, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (the terrorist), unsuccessfully attempted to explode a device that would bring down Northwest Airline Flight 253 arriving in Detroit. Due to the heroic efforts of the passengers and the faulty device that the terrorist wore, the flight landed safely and the lives of 278 persons were spared. The terrorist was taken into custody and he was interrogated for approximately 50 minutes prior to having surgery to repair his self-inflicted wounds. The nature of that interrogation and the full disclosure of information that was revealed allowed the United States to begin seeing into the mindset of a terrorist from the new Al-Qaeda stronghold in Yemen.

However, during the time from the terrorist’s surgical procedure and his next meeting with the authorities, the terrorist was read the Miranda warning and given a court appointed lawyer. At that point it is reported that the terrorist no longer would divulge any further information.

 An audio tape released by Al-Qaeda this past weekend clearly shows the nature of the attempted homicide bombing of the flight and that of foreign terrorists is under the guidance of Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden is quoted as saying, “the message intended to be sent to you was through the hero fighter Omar Farouq, may God release him, confirming an earlier message that the [September] 11th heroes delivered to you and it was repeated before and after [that event]”.

The question that arises from this is who gave the authorization to treat this terrorist with constitutional rights and not as a foreign combatant?

Testimony taken under oath during Senate questioning reveals that the Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, the Director of the National Counter Intelligence Center Michael Leiter, and Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Robert Mueller were not consulted over this decision. If the backbone of our national security was not consulted, who then made this decision? It seems apparent that the decision, to afford this terrorist with rights meant to protect Americans and not foreign combatants was made by Attorney General Eric Holder.  

Mr. Holder, where is it in our Constitution that the rights of a Nigerian (foreign national) acting as a terrorist (enemy combatant) out-weigh the national interests, specifically our National Security? What information concerning other operations that might be launched from this new breading ground in Yemen was lost due to your ill-conceived decision? Where is it your sole-responsibility to make this important decision without the consultation of others that are also sworn to protect the United States? Couple the choice Mr. Holder made with Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and Mr. Holder’s decision to bring self-proclaimed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to New York to stand trial, maybe Mr. Holder was confused by what protect and defend the United States meant in his oath.

It is my opinion, that a detailed inquiry be made into Mr. Holder’s decision and that Mr. Holder should be held accountable if further attacks are committed that the United States could have prevented if we were given more information from the terrorist we have in custody.

A week ago I wrote a letter to the editor which described my hesitation and doubts about the pending Health Care Reform legislation that is in the forefront of American domestic politics. In that letter, I listed my doubts about the ability of the federal government to provide cost effective health care to all Americans without raising taxes, increasing the deficit, or reducing services. I posed my direct questions to our local/state representation. As of this time I still have not gotten a direct answer to my specific questions, but I have received personal messages from Representative Chris Smith and from Senator Menendez, both of whom assure me that they are working in the best interest of every American. Senator Lautenberg has still been silent in the matter.

Now a week removed from my letter, I am feeling less concerned about the prospects of our government controlling our health care decisions. Now maybe you are reading this and wondering how I could change my opinion so quickly. Rest assured I have done my homework. Here is some of the information that I have read since my letter last week. 

Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) states, “There is renewed momentum for a public plan that competes on a level playing field with private insurers. Any plan absolutely must be available to all Americans from the first day in order to successfully keep private insurers honest.”

Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA), “I urge my Senate colleagues to support a robust public option plan…. I'm for a bill that provides for universal coverage”.

Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), “The time for meaningful health care reform is now.  We cannot stand by any longer while children, seniors, and working families suffer because they are unable to afford necessary medical care, their prescription medication, or a life saving treatment for a chronic illness”.

Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), the goal is "quality, affordable, accessible health care for all Americans…health care reform is entitlement reform”.

MSNBC Countdown’s Keith Olbermann - points out that there is no higher human priority than health and therefore no more basic government responsibility than ensuring the care of its citizens.

After reading the insightful quotes and passionate feelings for the need for health care reform, so that all Americans can benefit from the government’s new entitlement program, I came up with a new mathematical model for health care reform. Today the Congressional Budget Office came out with a revised estimate for the cost of reform. Their numbers are…cost of $829 billion over the next ten years and reduce the deficit by $81 billion. Back in July the numbers were far different. In July the CBO stated that health care reform would cost $1.2 trillion and increase the federal deficit.

All of the numbers are well beyond most of our imaginations. So I thought that a far simpler and easier mathematical model was needed. In my effort to create that model, I spent many hours deriving the formulas, compiling the data, and calculating the statistical deviations. The final product of my effort is:

100 + 435 + 1 = 536

Now I know that you are all wondering how can a complicated problem as health care reform be brought down to such a simple equation, that answer is even simpler.

If our 100 Senators, our 435 Congressmen, and our 1 President are the first to enroll themselves and their families in the government sponsored health care package and give up their so-called “Cadillac” plans, I will whole-heartedly support this legislation. 

However, I do not believe that the elite that sponsor and write the laws for the masses will ever come down and live in the world they create.

1.      How can adding anywhere from 20 – 30 million currently uninsured persons not add any cost to the federal deficit? 

2.      Of the current uninsured population how many are –

a.      Healthy 18-25 year olds that do not want health care coverage

b.      Illegal aliens

3.      If the offset is by reducing Medicare expenditures (coverage, waste, and fraud), who will make the cost saving decisions, the patient’s doctor or an executive branch czar?

4.      Where will the additional medical personnel, supplies, facilities come from to accept this new influx of people?

5.      If the plan includes reducing payments to doctors and hospitals, would you not expect -

a.      doctors to retire sooner,

b.      students to reconsider the medical field if their future income was pre-decided by the Federal Government and not the free-market,

c.       and hospitals and laboratory facilities to close?

6.      What will prevent an employer that currently offers health care coverage from stopping? If a fine is imposed on an employer that is less that the current expense for health care coverage will it not be in the interest of a company to eliminate coverage as a cost savings method?

7.      Given the ability of the Federal Government in managing other programs; entitlement programs Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid (see above for a smoothly run program that will pay for Health Care Reform by cutting waste and fraud); or most recently Cash for Clunkers, why should we be comfortable allowing the Federal Government to manage nearly 15-20% of the United States economy within one program?

While I realize that it has been a number of years since I had my first economics course in college, I still think I remember one basic tenet:

            Supply:

-          Number of doctors remains flat or declines

-          Number of hospital beds remains flat or declines

Demand:

-          20 – 30 million person increase in the system

Where supply stays flat or in decline and demand increases one of two scenarios (or combination thereof) can occur:

-          Prices go up

-          Services go down