May 2009 Archives

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal posted an article on the growing school choice movement among both Democrats and Republicans.  South Carolina state Senator Robert Ford says that the new civil rights struggle is about the quality of education in public schools, he feels that in order to receive a quality education, African-American children need school choice.  He states, "We need choice like Obama has. He can send his kids to any school he wants."

The article points out:

"The danger for Democrats still opposed to school choice is that Mr. Ford represents widespread frustration among black voters who see Mr. Obama in the White House and now expect real change to occur in their communities. Black voters could come to support conservative education policies (if not GOP candidates).

Typically, school-choice fights involve Republicans and a handful of Democrats pushing vouchers for a limited number of poor kids in inner cities. That's fine as far as it goes. But, as is evident in Washington, D.C., it doesn't go far. With just a few thousand families receiving vouchers, congressional Democrats are confident that they can kill the school-choice program in D.C. without provoking a voter backlash."

South Carolina is looking at a program of tax credits to allow lower and middle income familites access to better schools.  Let's hope this program catches on in other states.

It looks as if the neverending Minnesota Senate election may be coming to an end.  According to The Hill, Senator Coleman and Al Franken will face off before the Minnesota Supreme Court on Monday.  According to the article:

"At issue in the appeal is whether or not the panel overseeing Coleman's election challenge erred in including some absentee ballots while disqualifying others. Coleman's campaign alleges that the court inconsistently allowed ballots."

The basic issue here is "one man, one vote".  Frankly, I don't think there is a way to get a fair verdict on this vote.  The only real way to handle this particular election is to throw the vote out and have a do-over.  The audit trail of too many votes has been lost, and an equal standard for counting the votes has not been applied.

Yesterday's Power Line has notes by Paul Mirengoff on a discussion between John Hinderaker (one of the authors of Power Line) and Andy McCarthy concerning the upcoming hearings in Congress on Sonia Sotomayer.  The conclusion they draw is very simple.  Paul states:

"I've argued many times that Republicans must apply whatever standard the Democrats use when a Republican president makes a Supreme Court nomination. For if the two political parties don't employ the same standard, one of them will have an unearned advantage when it comes to what is arguably our most important institution."

Because this makes perfect sense, it probably won't happen.  Paul points out that the Constituion sets no standard for confirmation.  Up until recently, the President's choice for judges was approved almost automatically in deference to the President.  That changed when Democrats came to rely so heavily on the Supreme Court to bring about changes they could not enact through the normal political process.  At that point, the Democrats wanted more input into judges even when they did not control the executive branch.  That's how we got where we are today.

The article concludes:

"A system of deference will yield a Judge Bork or a Justice Scalia. A system where Congress denies deference will yield a Justice Kennedy. And one can only imagine who (if anyone) such a system would have produced if the vacancies President Bush filled had come open in 2007.

But the days of deference are over and Republicans would be fools to even think about reinstating them during the presdency of Barack Obama."

I have no idea what the correct response to this nomination is.  I do know that the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayer will put the white male on the endangered species list as far as finding employment or getting a fair hearing in her court.

 

Yesterday's National Review posted an article by Larry Kudlow about what has happened to General Motors.  He points out that the taxpayers now own General Motors, but that we will never get our money back.  Mr. Kudlow points out:

"Instead of putting the failed car enterprise into bankruptcy six months ago -- where Carl Icahn or Wilbur Ross could have bought it -- the Bush administration chose Bailout Nation. Under Team Obama, that bailout has morphed into full-scale government ownership. Twenty billion dollars of TARP money is already invested in GM, with another $50 billion on the way. And that number could easily double unless GM car sales miraculously climb back to 14 million this year. That's highly unlikely, with car sales now hovering around 9 million a year."

The article points out that with the government running General Motors (the government has had no experience running a car company), the extreme environmentalists will pressure the company to make 'green' cars which most Americans won't buy.  However, if you enact energy policies that bring the price of gasoline back up to nearly $5 a gallon, people may buy these cars.  That is what I see the Obama Administration moving toward.  They have blocked all drilling of domestic oil, and they really don't have a solid alternative energy to fuel our cars and industries.  We are heading into a period of severe lifestyle changes for the average American--and they will not be positive changes.

Larry Kudlow also points out some things from an interview he did with Dick Cheney::

"Cheney was very critical of Obama's big-government spending-and-borrowing policies, too, telling me that there are only two ways out: inflating the money supply or big tax increases. He doesn't like either. Yes, Cheney believes Obama has taken Bailout Nation and government stimulus way beyond anything the Bushies ever contemplated. Nevertheless, the damage is done.

"Cheney recalled Bush's having said that "we have to suspend free-market capitalism in order to save free-market capitalism." So the big question is this: How long before we resurrect free-market capitalism, and how much damage will current policies do in the meantime?

"I won't lose my faith in this country's long-term future. But the issue of how much damage we sustain before returning to the policies of free-market economic growth is very much on my mind." 

I totally agree.

This is the link to the YouTube video of the three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense of wielding a nightstick and intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place last Election Day.  According to the Washington Times, the political appointees in the Justice Department overruled the carreer lawyers on how the case should be handled.  According to the article:

"A Justice Department spokesman on Thursday confirmed that the agency had dropped the case, dismissing two of the men from the lawsuit with no penalty and winning an order against the third man that simply prohibits him from bringing a weapon to a polling place in future elections."

The video is disturbing, but the legal aspect of what has happened since is even more disturbing.  I have felt for a while President Obama will be a one-term President.  When the chickens come home to roost on his economic policies, his big plans for cap and trade, health care, and when Americans can no longer buy the cars we want because government environmental radicals are giving us small, unsafe cars, he will face a challenger from his own party as well as the Republican Party.  That scenario, however, assumes an honest election.  With ACORN being given government money to be a major part of the 2010 Census, and the Black Panthers patrolling the polling places, an honest election becomes something of a challenge.

With this kind of legal decision, we are in danger of becoming a banana republic.  We are in danger of becoming all the things we have condemned in other countries since our founding.

Today's Wall Street Journal has a very good op-ed piece about the rules the White House has put in place for the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayer.  The President's first rule is that the discussion should be about her biography--growing up poor, child of a single mom, getting into Princeton and Yale, etc.  The article points out that her background is very similar to that of Justice Clarence Thomas, but somehow the left has treated his story differently.   The article reminds us:

"By the president's measure, the nation couldn't find a more empathetic referee than Justice Thomas. And yet here's what Mr. Obama had to say last year when Pastor Rick Warren asked him about the Supreme Court: "I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas. I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation.""

Hmmm.  The double standard has reared its ugly head again.

Rule Number 2 is that the Republicans are not allowed to criticize Judge Sotomayer.  She is the first Latina women to be nominated for the Supreme Court and is thus above reproach.  The article mentions:

"The Beltway media also dutifully latched on to this White House talking point, reporting threats from leading Democrats, including New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, who intoned that Republicans "oppose her at their peril.""

Where was this idea when Miguel Estrada was nominated to the Court?  Mr. Estrada withdrew, after the Democrats waged seven filibusters against a confirmation vote (holding up his nomination for two years).

I would hate to see the Republicans become as petty as the Democrats were in dealing with Supreme Court nominations, but there are some valid questions about this nominee.  Hopefully they can be asked in a civil manner.  I don't believe the Republicans in the Senate can stop her appointment, but I do believe they have an obligation to make clear what her stand is on discrimination and other issues.  There is an article out on the internet today that she is a member of the group La Raza, which is somewhat radical in its beliefs.  I don't know if that is true or not, but if it is, it is troubling--she needs to be asked about it.  Again, I believe she will be confirmed, but we need to make sure the voters of America understand who she is. 

The above headline is a quote from Andy Borowitz quoted on the Huffington Post and on the American Thinker.  The article at the American Thinker is written by Ethel C. Fenig and titled, John Bolton, prophet.

It is a shame that politics kept John Bolton from being our ambassador to the UN.  He might have made a difference in that feckless organization.  At any rate, he has successfully sized up the situation with North Korea and Iran in regard to their nuclear porgrams.  The article at American Thinker quotes his comments:

What the North has lacked thus far is the political opportunity to test without fatally jeopardizing its access to the six-party talks and the legitimacy they provide. Despite the State Department's seemingly unbreakable second-term hold over President Bush, another test after 2006 just might have ended the talks.

So far, the North faces no such threat from the Obama administration. Despite Pyongyang's aggression, Mr. Bosworth has reiterated that the U.S. is "committed to dialogue" and is "obviously interested in returning to a negotiating table as soon as we can." This is precisely what the North wants: America in a conciliatory mode, eager to bargain, just as Mr. Bush was after the 2006 test.

If the next nuclear explosion doesn't derail the six-party talks, Kim will rightly conclude that he faces no real danger of ever having to dismantle his weapons program. North Korea is a mysterious place, but there is no mystery about its foreign-policy tactics: They work. The real mystery is why our administrations -- Republican and Democratic -- haven't learned that their quasi-religious faith in the six-party talks is misplaced.

It is becoming very obvious that we live in a world where negotiations with rogue nations are not currently working (as if they ever did).  Meanwhile, we have cut our funding into missle defense, and President Obama is talking about America giving up its nuclear weapons.  Peace is a wonderful concept, but the lessons of history should have taught us that peace is only possible after bullies are dealt with decisively or when the 'good guys' (the freedom-loving countries of the world) have enough power and strength of purpose to keep the bullies from bullying.

Just a note on the folly of negotiating with tyrants--the deal that Chamberlain made with Hitler to devide Czechoslovakia was made without the input of the then president of Czechoslovakia, Eduard Beneš,.  Is President Obama going to negotiate a Middle East peace treaty that divides Jerusalem without the consent of the Israeli government?  Will the result be the same?

According to a blog called The Muqata, this is the Arab nations plan for peace in the Middle East supported by President Obama:

1. Removal of all Israeli communities in the West Bank
2. Creation of a demilitarized Palestinian State within the 1967 borders of the West Bank.
3. Right of Return for all Palestinian refugees to this new state.
4. Removal of Israel's sovereignty over East Jerusalem, and its transferal to the Palestinians to be the capital of their state.
5. Removal of Israel's sovereignty over the Old City of Jerusalem -- and it will be run by the international community.

There are a few things to consider here.  Essentially, the Arabs want to go back to the borders of Israel that existed before they invaded Israel in 1967.  If those borders did not bring peace then, why are we to assume that they will bring peace now?  This plan is a death warrant for Israel.  This plan was drawn up without the participation of Israel.  If you are going to have a peace plan, shouldn't all the parties involved negotiate it?  The international community has never run anything successfully, why in the world would we let them start with Jerusalem?  The right of return would destroy Israel as a Jewish state.  Jerusalem should never again be divided--when Israel controlled Jerusalem, all religions of the world had free access to their holy places there, when the Arabs controlled it, the Israelis were not allowed to go to the wailing wall.  Who is going to give the assurance of a demilitarized Palestinian State?  The UN?  They haven't done such a great job of ending the weapons smuggling that's going on now! 

There is something very underhanded going on here.  President Obama knows that Prime Minister Netanyahu will never agree to this 'peace' proposal.  President Obama wants 'peace' in the Middle East at any cost (even, I believe, if it means that Israel no longer exists).  Watch for the Obama Administration's subtle attempt to bring down the Netanyahu government so that Israel elects a weaker leader that might go along with this horrible idea.

Yesterday's The Hill ran an article by Roxana Tiron on the North Korean nuclear testing.  The lead paragraph stated:

"President Obama's national security adviser on Wednesday said that North Korea's recent nuclear detonation and missile tests are not "an imminent threat" to the safety and security of the United States."

I'm sure that Retired Marine Corps Gen. James Jones is aware that the technology of the missles tested indicates that these missles could reach Alaska and California and possibly a few other states.  General Jones stated that he felt the threat was that the North Koreans would share their technology with other countries or terrorist organizations.  That is a serious problem, but meanwhile we have a belligerent government with an unstabe leader setting off nuclear weapons and rockets.  It seems to me that we need to rethink our missle defense spending cuts about now.

General Jones also noted that:

"Nothing that the North Koreans did surprised us," Jones said. "We knew that they were going to do this, they said so, so no reason not to believe them."

OK.  Then why, when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says he will wipe Israel off the map, don't we believe him?

I hate to be negative, but I believe nothing will be done about the North Korean tests.  China has no real incentive to prevent the spread or use of these weapons.  China has no reason to want to protect South Korea--during the Korean War, we were fighting Chinese forces.  The only real answer to this problem is to allow Japan to have nuclear weapons.  Not a great idea, but one that at least might cause the North Koreans to pause before doing anything drastic.

This information that follows is from a website called The Long War Journal.  I am unfamiliar with the website, but the information there I have also seen in various other places.  My reason for citing this information is so that everyone can be aware of the type of people the current administration is considering resettling into America.

On April 20 of this year, Abdul Haq, the leader of the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Party ("ETIP"), was added to the list of designated terrorists compiled by the US Treasury Department.  The UN placed Haq on its list of persons associated with Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, or the Taliban on April 15.

According to the article:

"Currently, seventeen Uighur men who are suspected members or associates of the organization are detained at Guantánamo. Five other Uighurs who were detained at Gitmo were previously released to Albania in 2006. The men are all from China's Xinjiang region and are alleged to have traveled to Afghanistan to join the ETIP/ETIM's jihad."

Although these are Chinese terrorists, they have been trained in terrorism to be used against all western countries.  Although the Uighurs have denied any connection to Al Qaeda or the Taliban, Uighur detainees also admitted to training at a terrorist camp in the Tora Bora Mountains. That camp was run by Abdul Haq and Hassan Mahsum, and was most likely supported by al Qaeda and the Taliban.

These are the men that President Obama is attempting to relocate in Virginia (providing them with housing and financial assistance).  If that happens, Americans will be financially supporting the very people who want to kill them.  It makes no sense at all!  Please read the entire article at The Long War Journal for further information on who the Uighurs are.

Today's Washington Times has an article which points out that Judge Sonia Sotomayer has been reversed three out of the five times her Circuit Court sent a case to the Supreme Court.  There is also a fairly strong possibility that the Supreme Court will overturn her decision on the Connecticut employment discrimination case.

I'm not overly upset by this.  The cases that get sent to the Supreme Court are generally the complex cases that need the wisdom of the Supreme Court, I don't think being overturned there is a horrible thing. 

My concern is this:  every member of the United States Senate took an oath of office:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

Does the appointment of this woman to the Supreme Court uphold the Constitution?  She has publicly stated that she believes that as a Latina woman, her decisions will be better than the decisions of a white male.  That sort of racial preference is not constitutional.  That is part of my dilemma.

The other part of my dilemma is that I truly believe that any President of the United States should be allowed to appoint the people to office that he chooses.  Unless there is some sort of ethical issue or moral issue, I think that this nomination has to go through.  I believe that this woman will be bad for the country--I do not see her as an unbiased judge--but she is the President's choice. 

If Judge Sonia Sotomayer is confirmed to the US Supreme Court, we will have a new endangered species--the white male.  There are two things about this lady that are very troubling.

1.  According to an article in the New York Times earlier this year, in 2001, Ms. Sotomayer stated in a speech:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life,"

2.  According to an articel in the New York Post today:

"In one of her most notable decisions, as an appellate judge she sided last year with the city of New Haven, Conn., in a discrimination case brought by white firefighters. The city threw out results of a promotion exam because too few minorities scored high enough. Coincidentally, that case is now before the Supreme Court.

In the former quote, she dismissed the value of any life experience of a white male in making judgments.  In the latter situation, white men who had qualified for a promotion were denied that promotion because they were white.

If a white man's experience has no value and he can be denied a promotion because of his race, are all men still 'created equal'?  Both the quote and the ruling seem to go completely against The Declaration of Independence, which is one of the founding documents of our country.  Admittedly, it took us a long time to deal with slavery, but the idea was that all men were equal under the law.  This lady seems to think that some men are more equal than others.

I suspect Judge Sotomayer will be confirmed--the Republicans do not have enough members to block her nomination--nor would they risk the Hispanic vote.  Because we do not have enough principled men in the Senate, she will become a Supreme Court Justice.  The founding fathers would be shedding many tears over what is happening to our country with this choice. 

On Sunday I posted an article from the New York Post about the closing of Broadway from 42nd to 47th Street to automobile traffic.  The post was rightfully concerned about this change in the New York City traffic pattern (New York City is not known as a 'fun' place to drive under any circumstances).  Pedestrians thought it was a great idea, cab drivers were furious.

Today was the first day the new traffic pattern was tested by commuter traffic.  According to today's New York Post, things went very well.  But--particularly in New York, you can't please all of the people all of the time.  Shop owners were complaining that business was down because the tour buses were not stopping in front of their stores.  A Coca-Cola delivery man was complaining that he was not able to park closer to the places where he was delivering the soda.  He had to walk further and leave his truck idling longer.  The people you would expect to be happy about a pedestrian mall were complaining--the motorists were doing fine!! I love it!!

President Obama has chosen Sonia Sotomayor as his Supreme Court Nominee.  The New York Times ran an article on her in May of this year discussing some of her views as a judge.  She is quoted in the article as saying (in reference to deciding cases):

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life,"

I am offended by this statement.  A person reaches legal conclusions based on the law and their education in the law--not on their ethnic background.  To assess the value of a person's opinion on the basis of their racial or ethnic background is racism.  Ms. Sotomayor may regard it as constructive, but it is rasicm.  A white male has also lived a life.  It may be a different life than hers, but it has equal value, and each life has lessons learned by experience.  Legal cases need to be decided on the basis of the law--not on the basis of anyone's 'experience'--that is what the courts are suposed to do.

The confirmation hearings on this nominee need to be watched by every American.  We have a choice to be either a nation of laws or a nation of 'experience' and emotions.

Postscript:

According to today's New York Post, in its article about Sonia Sotomayor:

"In one of Sotomayor's most notable decisions, as an appellate judge she sided last year with the city of New Haven, Conn., in a discrimination case brought by white firefighters. The city threw out results of a promotion exam because too few minorities scored high enough. Ironically, that case is now before the Supreme Court.

That ruling has already drawn criticism from conservatives, and is likely to play a role in her confirmation hearing."

This case was covered here on RightWingGranny.com on April 27th which linked to a George Will column in the Washington Post on April 26 of this year.

Stay tuned!! 

 

Today's Wall Street Journal has an interesting article on what has happened in Maryland since they 'raised the taxes on the rich'.  According to the article:

"The Baltimore Sun predicted the rich would "grin and bear it."

"One year later, nobody's grinning. One-third of the millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls. In 2008 roughly 3,000 million-dollar income tax returns were filed by the end of April. This year there were 2,000, which the state comptroller's office concedes is a "substantial decline." On those missing returns, the government collects 6.25% of nothing. Instead of the state coffers gaining the extra $106 million the politicians predicted, millionaires paid $100 million less in taxes than they did last year -- even at higher rates."

We need to look at the states as testing grounds for the consequences of government policies.  When you raise taxes, revenue goes down.  This has been proven statistically (see The Laffer Curve:  Past, Present, and Future at Heritage.org).  The article at Heritage was written in June of 2004 and still holds true.

New York State is experiencing a loss of high-income people because of changes in their tax policies, and Maryland is doing the same.  Our state governments need to learn how to cut spending and lower taxes--not increase spending and raise taxes.

Today's Independent World, which I am assuming is a UK paper, has an an interesting article on Father Patrick Desbois, a 53-year-old French priest, who is documenting for the world the slaughter enacted by the Nazi mobile death squads, the feared Einsatzgruppen, which roamed and murdered Jews and Gypsies with impunity in the remote villages of the former Soviet Union between 1941 and 1944.

For the last 10 years the priest and his helpers have painstakingly gathered the testimony of the survivors of this period. 

The article points out that:

"Today these witnesses have grown old and infirm and many are already dead. Living in countries where the average life expectancy for a man is little more than 60 years, those who experienced first-hand the Nazi genocide in Ukraine, Belarus, Russia and Ossetia are steadily dying out. When they are gone, Father Desbois fears, so too will the memory of what they saw - and with it a truth which exists only in the conscience of Europe's poorest people."

This is a story that needs to be told.  These were not the cold, impersonal gas chambers and ovens of Poland, these were mass slaughters of people followed by mass burials (in some cases of people still alive). 

The article is hard to read.  It's hard to believe that men can treat other men so badly, but it is worth reading because it is a part of history that has not been widely told. 

According to the article Father Desbois has stated that:

"The reason for taking up this work is simple: to restore the dignity of the uncounted and largely unmourned dead who were slaughtered and piled into pits like animals, and to allow the Kaddish - the Jewish prayer of mourning - to be recited over their final resting places. But there is another reason too; to prevent a repeat of the Holocaust."

Thank you, Father Desbois, for revealing a part of history that needs to be revealed.

 

There is an obituary in today's Telegraph.co.uk that is fascinating.  It is the story of Wing Commander Tim Fairhurst, who died on April 25th of this year. In the summer of 1942, Wing Commander Fairhurst flew one of three Spitfires fitted with cameras, but with their guns removed to allow extra fuel tanks to be installed, on a  a top-secret mission in the Arctic to track down the German North Sea Fleet, which was known to be operating in the waters north of Norway.  Their first destination was Vaenga, 170 miles inside the Arctic Circle.

According to the obituary:

"The RAF ground party met the Spitfires at Vaenga, where the RAF roundels on the aircraft were replaced with red stars. On September 10, Fairhurst took off on the first operational sortie and headed for the fjords of northern Norway with the prime object of locating the battleship Tirpitz. He photographed the capital ships Scheer and Hipper and the cruiser Koln, but the Tirpitz had been moved further south. Over the next few weeks, Fairhurst and his two pilots continued to keep track of the ships as the convoy PQ 18 headed for Murmansk. One of the Spitfires was shot down with the loss of its pilot."

These are the stories of the greatest generation--the men who fought in World War II to preserve our freedom.  Today we salute them all. 

Power Line has a post today on the appearance of Senator Richard Durbin on Meet The Press yesterday explaining the differences between President Obama's approach to military commissions and President Bush's approach.  The article is based on a National Review Online article by Andy McCarthy explaining that there really are no differences between the two policies.

The Power Line article points out:

"Moreover, McCarthy reminds us that a major reason why there have not more convictions by military commissions is the delay caused by the legion of volunteer American defense attorneys who ground the system to a halt by various court challenges." Another reason is the fact that Obama himself stopped the pending commissions against 21 terrorists (trial was imminent in several cases) so he could first "study" them and, now, propose these illusory "changes.

Sen. Durbin is not known for being constrained by facts. However, the liberties he has been forced to take on this issue demonstrate the utter lack of merit in his underlying position that Obama's commissions are legitimate where Bush's weren't."

One of the most frustrating things about being an American right now is that you can't depend on anything you see on a network news show to be the truth.  Now, more than ever, voters have to take the responsibility to inform themselves as to what is actually going on in our country and our government.  Most media outlets are making that more of a challenge that it should be.  The key to a healthy democracy (yes, I realize that we are a representative republic) is a well-informed citizen and voter.  If our media outlets continue to misinform us, we cannot successfully do our duty as citizens. 

This year we are saying goodbye to more of the veterans of World War II.  They are in their 90's or approaching 90, and we lose more of them every day.  The Korean War veterans  are in their 70's now, and the Viet Nam veterans are in their 60's now.  Our new generation of war veterans ranges in age from eighteen to fifty.  We are grateful to all of you who are still with us, and we are grateful to all of your comrades who did not come home.  Thank you to all those who made the ultimate sacrifice (and to their families) and to all those (and their families) who continue to sacrifice so that we can be safe and free at home.  God bless you all.

According to today's New York Post, yesterday was the first day of the new program of banning automobile traffic on Broadway between 42nd Street and 47th Street.  The idea behind this move is that the angle of Broadway creates odd-angled intersections in the city which congest traffic, so closing down Broadway entirely to automobiles will help the traffic throughout the city flow more smoothly.  This I've gotta see!

Yesterday traffic was moving well through the area, but it was a Sunday afternoon on a holiday weekend.  There are definitely doubts about how the area will look during commuter hours.  This will be interesting to watch.  I have a daughter who works in New York City, so I am counting on her to check in with me tomorrow and tell me how this program has actually impacted the traffic situation.

 

Friday's Investor's Business Daily ran an editorial concerning the energy policies of the current administration.  Daniel Yergin, chairman of HIS-CERA, testified before the Joint Economic Committee of Congress last week.  He pointed out that in the past year in regard to energy prices we have experienced a 'demand shock' caused by rising global demand.  We have also experienced a 'recession shock' caused by falling demand due to the global recession.  He is predicting a "long aftershock" in our future with high demand returning with a vengeance along with a global economic recovery, leaving those who buried their heads in the oil sands in the economic lurch.

Energy is a national security issue as well as an environmental issue.  I am not in favor of pollution, but I am also on the record as a skeptic in terms of man being responsible for any climate change.  To close our eyes and refuse to develope our own fossil fuel resources is economic and national suicide. 

According to the editorial:

"The U.S. and Canada together hold 15% of the world's proven reserves, and that's not even including the potential of American oil shale and Canadian oil sands -- which are massive."

There are places in southern California where oil is so plentiful underground that they have a problem with it seeping above ground and polluting.  Think what California could do by capturing that oil and refining it for use within the state!  It would create jobs and tax revenue. 

I am not opposed to 'green' energy, but right now we are a carbon-based economy, and to close our eyes to that fact is very unwise.   

 

AlertNet which is part of Reuters has a story today about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu refusing a US request to halt settlements in the occupied West Bank.  There are a few things here that need to be looked at.

1.  If giving up the West Bank would bring peace, where was that peace in 1967 when the Arabs had that land and attacked Israel anyway?

2.  Why are we calling it the 'occupied' West Bank?  Is Texas our 'occupied' southern border?

According to the article:

"Half a million Jews live in settlement blocs and smaller outposts built in the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem, all territory captured by Israel in the 1967 Middle East War."

Does anyone remember that Israel was originally given that land?  The Arab countries invaded Israel in 1948 (as soon as Israel became a nation) and took that land away from them.  The borders of Israel today much more resemble the United Nations mandate than the borders of Israel before the 1967 war, why are we asking them to give land back that was taken away from them as soon as they became a country?

The above map is from the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 

This is the land originally set aside for the nation of Israel at the San Remo Conference in 1920.  A large part of that land was later given to Jordan.  Has any other country in the world ever been treated so badly as to have had their promise of a homeland cut by more than half and then have the world ask that they give more of it up?

 

 

This is a map of Israel after the six-day war in 1967.  This map is also from the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs.  The Sinai was given back to Egypt after the Israel-Egypt peace treaty in1979 following the Camp David Accords of 18 September 1978.  There have not been terrorist attacks from Egypt in Israel since that time--in fact Egypt has done what it could to stop weapons smuggling into Gaza through tunnels in Egypt.  That is the difference between what peace between Israel and Egypt is and what would not be peace between Israel and a country called Palestine.

Another thing we might remember is that when Israel is in charge of Jerusalem, all the religions of the world have access to their religious sites; when the Arabs were in charge of Jerusalem, Israelis did not have access to the wailing wall--one of their sacred sites--or other historic and religious sites.  It seems as if both sides are not playing by the same rules.

Land for peace has not worked so far, why do we think it will work in the future?

This is what the new 'smart car' looks like after a collision.

 

 

Do you really want better gas economy at the expense of your life?

The picture is from the American Thinker.

According to yesterday's Rasmussen Reports, 77 % of American voters see unwillingness to cut government spending as a bigger problem than resistence to tax hikes!  Just 28% of all voters say that increasing government spending will help the economy.  Seventy-nine percent (79%) of Republicans and 61% of unaffiliated voters believe increased government spending hurts the economy.  49% of Democrats think more government spending is good for the economy, while just 27% say it hurts.  83% of the 'Political Class' believes increased  government spending helps the economy.  52% of voters now believe they pay more than their fair share of taxes. However, 54% of the Political Class disagree.

If these statistics are accurate, the 2010 elections should be very interesting!

It's Memorial Day weekend--not just the official beginning of summer or a day for shopping or cookouts--Memorial Day--the day we remember the price that was paid for our freedom and honor those who paid that price.

Maybe because I was part of a high school graduating class that had to choose between college or Viet Nam, Rolling Thunder (even though I have never been on a Harley) is a very special organization to me.  Over the years, these sometimes rather scary Harley riders have gathered in Washington to bring attention to verteran's issues, active duty military concerns, and POW issues.  There are thousands of them and they have touched people from all walks of life. 

According to an article in today's Washington Times:

"In past years, former President George W. Bush welcomed Rolling Thunder members Harley Davidson choppers and all in the driveway of the White House. The event became somewhat of a ritual; last year Mr. Bush was inducted into Rolling Thunder as an honorary member and accepted a cowhide biker vest. Bush administration officials and top military brass made a regular practice of riding with Rolling Thunder, tricked out in biker gear."

This year things were a little different.  President Obama met briefly with representatives from Rolling Thunder on Friday afternoon.  The meeting was described as brief but cordial.

President Obama plans to spend the weekend with his family at Camp David.

I don't begrudge the President time off spent with his family, but he lost an opportunity to remind all of us of the reason for the long weekend.  I worry that this administration does not seem to appreciate the heritage of America and how we got here.  Filling the White House driveway with Harley-Davidsons would have been a great start!

According to yesterday's Providence Journal, the Tarbox motors family has asked the Obama administration to reconsider closing their dealerships.  Tarbox Jeep is a third-generation, famility owned business in North Kingstown, Rhode Island.  The dealership ranked 365th out of 3,200 dealerships nationwide at the end of March (in the top 12 % nationwide).

If the dealership closes, the state of Rhode Island will lose 55 direct jobs, $3 million in payroll and more than $2.2 million in sales tax.  Rhode Island in April 2009 had an unemployment rate of 11.1, the fourth highest in the nation.  Closing a successful car dealership does not seem like a wise move on any level.

Governor Carcieri of Rhode Island has sent a letter to President Obama stating the following:

"While you have stated this plan will give Chrysler 'a new lease on life,' what it does is favor the [United Auto Workers union] by giving them 55-percent majority ownership of this iconic American automotive company. Government and unions should not be in the business of running companies; the marketplace should decide which dealers survive during these difficult economic times.

"I respectfully ask you to reconsider the Chrysler plan and allow the current bankruptcy laws to prevail in the reorganization of this company going forward. Successful auto dealers, like Tarbox Jeep, are where the rubber truly meets the road. This plan bypasses their rights and deprives them and their hardworking employees the opportunity to compete for their share of the American dream."

As a former resident of Rhode Island who remembers this dealership in a very positive light, I am hoping it will remain open.  I agree with the governmor that bankruptcy laws should be followed--not ignored.

There is a petition at Tarbox Motors.com that you can sign to protest this closing. 

According to Rueters.com, President Obama has stated that some Guantanamo prisoners will be transferred to top-security prisons in the United States.  He pledged not to release any detainee within the United States who would endanger Americans or threaten U.S. security.  Maybe I'm just basically a difficult person, but I don't want any Guantanamo detainees released in the United States, period. 

There is an article in today's New York Post about the four men arrested who were planning a terrorist attack on New York City.  They became radical Muslims while in jail.

We do not want Guantanamo inmates in American jails (even top-security jails) because:

1.  Any interaction with other prisoners could result in recruitment of more radical Muslims.

2.  There would always be a danger that some group of related terrorists would set up a hostage situation near the prison to get the prisoners released.  These people would not hesitate to take over an elementary school and start killing children--that's what they did in Beslan, Russia.

3.  As soon as they are put in American prisons, some looney judge is going to give them all the rights of American citizens, which they are not and never were.  They are not even covered under the Geneva Convention because they are not uniformed soldiers of a country.

4.  Guantanamo is a very secure and well run prison.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

5.  If they are part of the population in an American prison, their religious dietary needs will not be met and someone will file a lawsuit!

6.  At a time when government spending is reeling out of control, we do not have the money to close down a perfectly good prison in Cuba to build a less secure one in America.

The website for WCBS-TV in New York has a great story today. ImamShamsi Ali and Rabbi Marc Schneier came together at the 96th Street Mosque to denounce terrorism. 

Imam Shamsi Ali of the Islamic Cultural Center of New York stated, "These intended evils must be condemned, and I'm here to condemn it." 

Rabbi Marc Schneier of the Foundation For Ethnic Understanding stated, "Any attack on a Jewish religious institution is an attack on any and every religious institution." 

The above picture is of the two men embracing during a press conference at the Mosque in New York City on Thursday.

I have no idea how representative this story is, but it is encouraging to see these two men who I believe are sincere take a step toward peace between two groups who do not usually interact well.

 

This is the link to the information on the new credit card bill at Thomas.gov.  It spells out the changes that are being made to help people with credit card debt.  You can read the bill for yourself.  There are a few things here that I think are positive:

1.  The 45-day notice on interest rate changes.

2.  Prohibits a creditor from opening a credit card account for any college student who: (1) has no verifiable annual gross income; or (2) already maintains a credit card account with that creditor, or any affiliate.

This is a mixed blessing.  My kids used credit cards in college when they had no verifiable income.  A better idea might have been to cap the credit level of a college student at a very low level, and I believe there is something similar to that in the bill.

3.  Prohibits extensions of credit to consumers under age 18, unless they are emancipated under state law, or the consumer's parent or legal guardian is designated as the primary account holder.

The above three aspects of the bill are good ideas.  The question comes on how they will be implemented.  It will also be interesting to see what the credit card companies do to make up for the income they will lose by not being able to raise interest rates on a moment's notice.  The Congress has done what it can to make credit cards more consumer-friendly, let's see what the credit card companies do in response.

According to today's Financial Times, three Indiana state pension funds have gone to court to fight the government's bankruptcy plan for Chrysler, stating:

"In a court filing on Wednesday, the Indiana funds accused the government of adopting a strategy of "the ends justify the means".

They also said the Treasury "has taken constructive possession of Chrysler and is requiring it to adopt a sale plan in bankruptcy that violates the most fundamental principles of creditor rights - that first-tier secured creditors have absolute priority"."

George Schultze of Schultze Asset Management stated that he felt their actions could galvanize other lenders to renew their challenge.  The charge against the settlement is that it violates the most fundamental principles of creditor rights - that first-tier secured creditors have absolute priority.  The funds have requested that the case be heard in district court instead of bankruptcy court.

There is only one outcome of this case that fits the guidelines in the US Constitution regarding property rights.  It will be interesting to see if the case has that outcome.

Today's New York Daily News has the story on the four would-be terrorists attempting to blow up two synagogues in the Bronx and shoot down a plane carrying supplies to our soldiers.  Thank God they were total amateurs and had been infiltrated by the FBI, who gave them phony weapons. 

This group was not connected to any other terrorist group, but had they been successful, that really would not have made any difference in the result.  According to the article:

"Among those arrested was (James) Cromitie, of Newburgh, who is the son of an Afghan immigrant and his African-American wife.

Cromitie, who also called himself Abdul Rahman, has served a long stretch in prison.

David Williams, Onta Williams and Leguerre Payen - his alleged henchmen - were busted with him. Cromitie allegedly recruited them at the Newburgh mosque."

We need to be aware of what is going on in our prisons and in our mosques.  The majority of Muslim religious leaders may be peaceful, but evidently there are a few who are not.  I know it is not a popular idea, but we need to monitor what is going on in our mosques and in our prison religious services.  This would be a sad day if these man had succeeded in their goals.

Investor's Business Daily posted an editorial today about the Iranian missle test and what it means to the world.  Iran launched a  Sajjil-2, a solid-fuel, surface-to-surface missile with a range of 1,200 miles, far enough to strike at southeastern Europe.  A threat assessment by a team of Russian and American analysts says the Iranian menace is overblown and a missile defense futile.  I don't even know where to begin with that statement.  The Russians have technically supported Iran's missle and nuclear programs for years, why are we asking them to evaluate the threat?

The article states that:

"According to a new report, this isn't supposed to be happening. The Washington Post on Tuesday reported on the results of a year-long study on the military threat to Europe from Iran's nuclear and missile programs. The team of six Russian and six American technical experts brought together by the EastWest Institute concluded no threat exists and that a defense against it wouldn't work anyway."

This is unbelievable and irresponsible.  The editorial points out that during World War II, there were only six months between America producing weapons-grade nuclear material and detonating the first atomic bomb--and that was when the technology was new!

The article also points out that Iran has rockets capable of launching satellites--any country capable of launching a satellite is capable of delivering a bomb anywhere in the world.  It may not be a really good idea to slowly try to make friends with these people.  While we are making friends, they are planning for our destruction.

WIBC in Indianapolis is reporting today that the State of Indiana will no long invest on bonds issued by banks and automakers who have accepted federal bailout money.  State Treasurer Richard Mourdock stated that since the government rewrote the rules of bankruptcy in the Chrysler bailout, the state lost $ 5.6 million dollars in investments.  The bondholders are supposed to be at the front of the line when a company goes bankrupt.  In the case of Chrysler, the government rewrote the rules, the bondholders got 29 cents on the dollar.  The unions, who were unsecured creditors, got more.  That is illegal according to the laws of bankruptcy, but the government pushed it through anyway.

I am sure savvy private investors are thinking the same thing.  Why should you put any money into a company if the laws of bankruptcy (which previously protected your investment to some extent) are no long followed?  This sort of bankruptcy manipulation is going to have a very negative impact in investment in this country.  Why should any of us invest when we are in danger of losing the value of our investment because of government intervention to protect their pet special interest groups?

Today's New York Post ran an opinion piece today by Tom Golisano on why he is leaving New York State.  He states in the article:

"Politicians like to talk about incentives -- for businesses to relocate, for example, or to get folks to buy local. After reviewing the new budget, I have identified the most compelling incentive of all: a major tax break immedi ately available to all New Yorkers. To be eligible, you need do only one thing: move out of New York state."

When Rush Limbaugh announced in March of this year that he was moving all of his business operations out of New York State afer Governor Paterson raised taxes, Governor Paterson replied by saying, "If I knew that would be the result, I would've thought about the taxes earlier." (according to the New York Times).  This is the political equivalent of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Rush, unfortunately, may be the leader of what may become an exodus out of the state by people who are able to relocate their businesses and business interests.  This will lower tax revenues rather than increasing them.

According to his calculations, Mr. Golisano will save $13,800 every day by moving to Florida.  This is money that he can invest to create jobs, spend to help charities, invest for his or his family's future, or use in any way he sees fit.  He earned it; he should have the right to spend it.

We need to pay attention to incidents like this one--raising taxes does not increase government revenues or create wealth.  Raising taxes puts a drag on any economy and slows down or prevents growth.  Raising taxes at the national level will have the same negative effect on the nation's economy.   

According to yesterday's Investor's Business Daily, even though Reps. Henry Waxman and Ed Markey have modified their cap-and-trade global warming bill, the the Gross Domestic Production cost of their new regime jumps from $7.4 trillion from 2012 through 2035 to $9.6 trillion.

 

This chart (from the Heritage Foundation) shows the impact the legislation will have.  According to the Heritage Foundation, under the new legislation gasoline prices are expected to jump by 74%, natural gas by 55% and electricity by 90%.  The rise in energy prices will result in higher unemployment and lower incomes.  Our spending power as people will decrease as corporations raise prices to compensate for their increased energy costs.

According to the article:

"It's conceivable that a cap-and-trade regime -- or a carbon tax, which would likely generate similar GDP losses -- could create permanent economic stagnation.

Economies grow best when the tax burden is low. But economies are handicapped when the burden is high, and cap-and-trade (indirectly) and a carbon tax (directly) increase that burden. As Myron Ebell, the Competitive Enterprise Institute's director of energy and global warming policy, noted, this would be the "biggest tax increase in history.""

I am hoping that the American economy can survive the good intentions of some of the people currently serving in our Congress.

As a history buff, I have heard it said over the years that American and western Europe were horrible in that they did not respond quickly enough to stop what Hitler was doing in the concentration camps.  I would like to address that and to relate it to something that is happening now.  Beginning in 1933, Hitler set out to rid Germany of its Jewish population.  Dachau opened in March of 1933, originally used for political opponents,  The first death camp opened in 1941 and the five other Polish death camps began operating in 1942.  Although it would have been impossible for the immediate neighbors of these camps not to know what was going on there, I also believe it would have been impossible for them to do anything about it.  By 1941 Hitler had so consolidated his power that to oppose him in any way meant death.  But let's widen the picture.  I am not sure anyone in Europe or the United States believed the stories that were coming out of Germany.  There are some things we just don't want to believe that people are capable of.  That is not an excuse--it's just a fact.

Today we are listening to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threaten to 'wipe Israel off the map' on a fairly regular basis.  We are watching as he plays cat and mouse with the UN in hiding his nuclear program--claiming he only wants peaceful nuclear energy.  We are seeing rocket testing in his country for longer range rockets as he continues to claim that he is only building up his military for defensive purposes.  At some point (probably within three years) this man will have nuclear weapons.  It is unthinkable to the average American that he would use them.  We also need to remember that by the time he obtains a nuclear weapon, he may have the rocket technology to deliver that weapon (or weapons) anywhere in the world.  American, in his mind, is 'the great satan'; Israel is 'the little satan'.  We have no reason to believe that if he is capable of launching a nuclear weapon against us, he will not hesitate to do so. 

America has had nuclear weapons for more than fifty years, and we have only used them once--to end a war.  We inflicted massive civilian casualties, but saved many lives by taking away the need for a land invasion of Japan, which would have caused even more death and hardship.  Anyway, my point is this.  Are we reacting to the threat of a nuclear attack on Israel by Iran the same way we reacted to the initial reports of the concentration camps?  Is the thought so horrible that we are in denial? 

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal ran an opinion piece by ARTHUR LAFFER and STEPHEN MOORE about the states who are planning to raise taxes to cover budget deficits.  According to the article:

"Lawmakers in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York and Oregon want to raise income tax rates on the top 1% or 2% or 5% of their citizens. New Illinois Gov. Patrick Quinn wants a 50% increase in the income tax rate on the wealthy because this is the "fair" way to close his state's gaping deficit."

Interesting idea, but as usual we come right up against the 'law of unintended consequences'.   Mr. Laffer and Mr. Moore recently did a study for the American Legislative Exchange Council entitled "Rich States, Poor States."  The study, published in March, showed that the tax differential between low-tax and high-tax states is widening, meaning that a relocation from high-tax California or Ohio, to no-income tax Texas or Tennessee, is all the more financially profitable both in terms of lower tax bills and more job opportunities.

The article points out that when you continually raise taxes on 'the rich', they relocate to places where the taxes are lower.  Since 'the rich' are usually people who generate jobs, any jobs they provide move with them.  New Jersey is cited as an example of what happens when taxes are continually raised--in the 1960's New Jersey had no state income tax and no sales tax.  It was a state that was growing rapidly and consistently had budget surpluses.  Today New Jersey has income and sales taxes that are among the highest in the nation and the state has growing budget deficits.  People are leaving the state because of the excessive tax burden.

As some states (including Massachusetts) look to raising taxes as a solution to their economic woes, they might want to consider that raising taxes may be the problem--not the solution.

There was an historic two-hour meeting between President Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House today.  The Washington Times reported that President Obama expressed concern about Iran's progress toward nuclear weapons.  Prime Minister Netanyahu said that a nuclear-armed Iran would be a grave danger to Israel.

There has been much pressure put on Israel for a 'two-state solution'.  Until the Palestinians acknowledge that Israel has the right to exist, I am not sure that this is a reasonable goal.  The increase of anti-Jewish sentiment around the world at this time is troubling.  The dictatorships in the Arab world are much better at manipulating the media than the democracies of the western world, and I believe the rise of anti-semitism around the world is a result of that.

According to The Hill, Democratic Senator Jim Webb of Virginia has changed his position and now thinks an artificial deadline to close Guantanamo is not a good idea.  Senator Webb also opposes bringing any detainees to American soil.  He stated that:

"We spend hundreds of millions of dollars building an appropriate facility with all security precautions in Guantanamo to try these cases," Webb said. "There are cases against international law. These aren't people who were in the United States, committing a crime in the United States.  These are people who were brought to Guantanamo for international terrorism.  I do not believe they should be tried in the United States."

The wisdom of the policies of George Bush regarding the war on terror is beginning to shine forth.  This is an interesting statement for a variety of reasons, first, when George Bush was President, the Senate wanted Guantanamo closed down 'yesterday', now that the facility is under President Obama, they don't seem to be in such a hurry.  One reason might be that the political advantage in screaming for Guantanamo's closing is gone.  Another reason might be that any Senator or Representative that ends up housing terrorists in his (or her) district is not going to be popular with the people who live there. 

Jed Babbin reported in Human Events in April of this year that the White House lawyers were refusing to accept the findings of an inter-agency committee that the Uighur Chinese Muslims held at Guantanamo Bay are too dangerous to release inside the U.S.  President Obama had planned to settle the Uighurs in Virginia somewhere and give them financial aid to help them get settled.  I don't think it is a coincidence that Jim Webb is the Senator from Virginia and that he has gone on the record as wanting a slowdown on the closing of Guantanamo and no resettlement of terrorists in this country.  This situation should be interesting to watch.

Today's Washington Post posted an article today by Lisa Rein about the changes that had been made at the Preakness race track for yesterday's race.  The infield of the race had been known as an all-day party with rowdiness as a routine part of the menu.  The racetrack sought to change that by banning spectators from bringing their own beverages into the infield.  They wanted to restore some civility to the area (ending the topless women and flying beer cans).

One racing fan on Facebook protested the move--according to the article:

"Ryan Goff, 24, a Baltimore resident who works in media marketing and started one of many Facebook groups that protested the change. "What's the point of going?" someone wrote on one of the pages. "As if there's some reason to be there other than drinking and partying." "

But there was another viewpoint also:

"For all the criticism, the new policy also drew some new spectators. Mark Lennon, 30, who works at the University of Baltimore Law School, said he had stayed away from the infield for years because of its rowdy reputation.

"I was hesitant to come," Lennon, of Baltimore, said. "I'd like the day to be about the actual event, which is horses.""

In watching the event, I noticed that all the owners were in suits and ties and looked very formal.  The beginning of civility in the infield initially has caused a serious attendance drop, but hopefully that will be reversed.  I credit the officials at the Pimlico Race Course for their efforts to bring civility back to the race.

Jeff Jacoby at the Boston Globe has posted an editorial today about the hate crimes legislation that is working its way through Congress.  He points out that the particular crimes that inspired the law were already illegal, and the people who committed them were either jailed or executed.  Adding 'hate' to the charges really won't make a difference--the victims are still dead and the people who committed the crime are still in jail.

Mr. Jacoby states in his editorial:

"Hate-crime laws serve a symbolic function, not a practical one: They proclaim that crimes fueled by certain types of bias are especially repugnant. But that is the same as proclaiming that crimes fueled by other types of bias, or by motives having nothing to do with bias, are not quite as awful. Is that a message any decent society should wish to promote?"

He also points out that the proposed law would make it possible that a person who committed a 'hate crime' would be tried at the federal level as well as at the state level.  This is illegal under the US Constitution--the Fifth Amendment's protects against double jeopardy.

This law is another example of Congress and 'the law of unintended consequences'.  What they might have meant to do was to point out how horrible crimes which are the result of bigotry or hate are.  What they have done instead is to inject the federal government into local law enforcement issues and ignore the Constitution.

Mr. Jacoby ends his editorial with this thought: 

"The best hate-crimes bill Congress can pass is none at all. But if we are going to have such laws, why limit them to only four, or eight, categories of victims? Let Congress expand the pending legislation to include every crime of violence - regardless of the attacker's motive, or of the group the victim belonged to. Murders, rapes, aggravated assaults, let us learn to see them all as crimes of "hate" - not the criminal's hate for his victim, but society's hate for the crime."

I agree. 

Coming soon to a DVD player near you Mega Shark vs Giant Octopus.  This is a link to the trailer on YouTube.  This is a horror movie I might be able to sit through, it looks so completely ridiculous that I think I'd be too busy laughing to be scared!  Check out the trailer at the link!  The release date is May 19th.

According to Politico, Richard Umbdenstock, President of the American Hospital Association said Thursday that the agreement on reducing healthcare spending had been misrepresented by the White House.  According to the article:

"But in a conference call Thursday, President Richard Umbdenstock told 230 member organizations that the agreement had been misrepresented. The groups, he said, had agreed to gradually ramp up to the 1.5 percentage-point target over 10 years -- not to reduce spending by that much in each of the 10 years."

This may simply be a misunderstanding, but it is important.  We were lead to believe that the healthcare meeting at the White House was a wonderful unified meeting that accomplished laying the foundation for going ahead with improving our healthcare (read as socialized medicine).  That is not true, and many healthcare workers are concerned about what nationalizing healthcare will mean. 

If you are interested in seeing what nationalized healthcare brings to the countries currently using it, please see THE COST OF FREE GOVERNMENT HEALTHCARE at the American Thinker website.  If you are under forty and healthy, it may work for you, but if you are over forty and have any serious health issues, it will probably do you more harm than good.

I'm sure almost everyone in the world would like to see peace in the Middle East (I'm sure there are a few terrorists that may be the exception--they want to see peace--but only after the country of Israel is destroyed).  But let's not let the desire for peace overrule common sense.  The Associated Press (hosted by google) is reporting that Jordan's king, King Abdullah II, is urging Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to commit to the establishment of a Palestinian state as a way to achieve lasting peace in the Middle East.  It sounds nice.  It sounds fair, but the historical record does not show that the idea will work. 

When Israel gave up it's land and the greenhouses which provided income to the residents of the land, the Palestinians destroyed the greenhouses.  When international organizations gave humanitarian aid to the Palestinians, they spent it on guns and rockets.  They used their new land as a base to launch rockets into Israel.  It has been documented that in the last war with Israel, the Palestinians used civilians as shields to make Israel look as if it were committing human rights violations.  The charges of 'war crimes' were investigated, and Israel was cleared.  Why in the world do we think the Palestinians, if given their own country, will let Israel live in peace?

The American Thinker posted an article on the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict recently.  It points out that:

"Shortly after the conclusion of the First World War and the total defeat of the Turkish Ottoman Empire, which had ruled most of the Middle East for 400 years, Britain was made trustee by the League of Nations for the whole of the geographical area known as Mandatory Palestine. Incorporated within the Mandate was the 1917 Balfour Declaration, which specifically referred to the historical connections of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the moral validity of reconstituting within it the Jewish National Home.

 

The British Mandatory power, however, arbitrarily tore away 80% of the Palestine Mandate in 1921 giving it to the Hashemites, a Bedouin tribe with links to Mecca. Only the land west of the River Jordan remained from the original territory promised to the Jewish people as a National Home."

There is a fairly detailed account of the dustup between the CIA and Nancy Pelosi in tomorrow's Washington Times.  Basically, it's becoming a 'he said, she said' story.  Unfortunately, I suspect there is much more to come.  There are a few things to remember here.  First, it is not a good idea to get into a fight with the CIA--they keep very detailed records and have been known to leak things that are to their advantage.  They are quite capable of strongly inflencing public opinion by what they leak and when they leak it.  To accuse them of lying is rather foolish.  Second, to anyone who actually believes that this will be the end of Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House, remember--it's different with the Democrat party--she'll be there as long as the Democrat party has the majority.  I would love to be wrong about this, but I don't think I am.  In this matter, because President Obama released the 'torture' memos, the Democrats have formed a circular firing squad, I suggest that someone yell, "Fire!".

The Detroit News ran an article today about a $900,000 'green' house owned by the City of Troy which was built to be used as an educational tool and meeting spot.  The house was built with no electrical or gas hookups to prove that it is possible to build an entirely 'green' house.  What happened next shows what happens when people use new technology without taking into consideration the need for backup systems.

The house has never opened to the public.  The pipes froze in the winter, causing  $16,000 in damage to floors.  According to the article:

"Jeff Biegler, superintendent of parks for the city, said the flooding occurred from a glitch in the heater.

"The system was designed to kick a heater on to keep water from freezing," Biegler said. "The heater drew all reserve power out of the battery causing the system to back down and the pipes froze.""

There is an alternate explanation cited in the article:

Joe Veryser, an associate dean of architecture at the university, said he heard otherwise.

"What I heard repeatedly was that somebody turned off the breaker during the winter and forgot to turn it back on, which caused the pipes to freeze and then break."

Either way, we have a way to go before we can build an affordable, practical, working 'green' house, and as we hear all the ruckus about using energy, we need to keep that fact in mind.  Most Americans cannot afford a $900,000 house, particularly one where the pipes freeze. 

If you haven't ssen the picture yet, please click on the link to NBCDFW News.  Zachary Boyd was sleeping when someone opened fire on his base in Afghanistan, and he didn't have time to put on his uniform or boots.  The front page of Tuesday's New York Times has a picture of him fighting the taliban in pink boxer shorts that say I 'heart' NY.  Sometimes it really doesn't matter what you wear, you just have to do something now!

Judicial Watch and Power Line have recent posts on the October 13, 2008, government meeting with the major banks which allowed the government to take $250 billion equity stakes.  Through a Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) request, Judicial Watch has obtained some of the major documents relating to that meeting.  The documents show Obama Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, FDIC Chairman Shelia Blair, and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke co-hosted the meeting with Paulson.

There is a lot here--pressure put on the banks--opting out was not allowed, making sure the poeple who feared 'nationalizing the banks' were kept quiet, and notifying the Presidential candidates (but not able to reach McCain).  The situation is frightening, but the fact that without Judicial Watch's FOIA Request we would know none of this is even more frightening.

Please follow both links and read both articles.  We are on a runaway train here, and the only way to stop it is for people to be informed about what is happening behind the scenes.

My favorite climate-change information site, wattsupwiththat.com, has the story on the memo leaked by the Office of Management and Budget showing that Carbon Dioxide has 'no demonstrated direct health effects'.  Whoops!  The memo states:

"An EPA finding last month that greenhouse gases are a danger to public health rests on dubious assumptions and could have negative economic impacts, a memo from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) warned.

The memo has no listed author but is marked "Deliberative-Attorney Client Privilege." A spokesman for OMB told Dow Jones Newswires that the brief is a "conglomeration of counsel we've received from various agencies" about the EPA finding, the conclusions of which would trigger regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

The author(s) of the memo suggest the EPA did not thoroughly examine the relationship between greenhouse gases and human health.

"In the absence of a strong statement of the standards being applied in this decision, there is concern that EPA is making a finding based on...'harm' from substances that have no demonstrated direct health effects," the memo says, adding that the "scientific data that purports to conclusively establish" that link was from outside EPA."

If there is no danger from Carbon Dioxide, why regulate it or tax it?  Please follow the link to the entire article.  There is a video and a chart to add to the discussion!!

One of the hallmarks of a free economy is the ability to achieve anything you desire based on your own ability and talent.  That's why celebrities are paid so much more than the rest of us.  That is why people work hard to get an education that goes past the minimum requirement.  That is also why financial risk takers are highly rewarded--they take financial risks.  It's called incentive.  It is also a part of human nature that people will work harder if they know they will be rewarded for it.  That is part of what keeps an economy growing--people willing to take risks and people being rewarded for hard work and risk taking.  I challenge you to find someone with an income over $225,000 per year (I believe that's Obama's latest target for increased taxes) who works a simple forty-hour week.  Anyway, that is part of the foundation of our economy.

The free economy is about to be challenged.  Yesterday's American Thinker published an article by Rick Moran stating the following:

"At the same time, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D., Mass.) is working on legislation that could strengthen the government's ability both to monitor compensation and to curb incentives that threaten a company's viability or pose a systemic risk to the economy.

Among ideas being discussed are Fed rules that would curb banks' ability to pay employees in a way that would threaten the "safety and soundness" of the bank -- such as paying loan officers for the volume of business they do, not the quality. The administration is also discussing issuing "best practices" to guide firms in structuring pay."

This is the beginning of government wage controls.  I wonder what impact that will have on people vying for admission to some of our more prestigious colleges.  If you can't make enough money to pay your $60,000 a year tuition, are you willing to pay the tuition?  The economy will thrive if the government restraints are taken off.  Any restraints on capitalism need to come from individual morality and ethics.  Maybe that is where we need to make the change. 

Power Line posted an article yesterday on what has been happening in Iraq as we begin to focus on Afghanistan.  Remember how the Democrats squawked about how we took our eye off of Afghanistan and went to Iraq.  They are doing that in reverse now.  We had pretty much won in Iraq by January of this year, and now things are going downhill rapidly.  No one believes we are serious about supporting freedom in that country.  April of this year was the worse month for Iraqi deaths since July of 2008, when that number was rapidly dropping.  The number of deaths in April numbered twice what the January and February number was.  The article reports:

"Moreover, the Washington Post reports that the al Qaeda pipeline from Syria is "back in business" after a "lull."

"None of this is surprising. With the U.S. disengaging militarily, Iraqi militias, insurgents, etc. have every reason to become emboldened and to begin jockeying for an enhanced military position. And with President Obama taking a soft line on Syria (and, indeed, exploring a "dialogue" with that terror supporting state), the Syrians no longer have much reason to fear paying a price for promoting instability in Iraq."

Nancy Pelosi has promised that we will pay an intense political role as we diminish our military presence.  This is the same sort of thinking that Democrats used when they cut the funding to South Vietnam and the country fell (after they had essentially won their freedom).  There is a book out by the commander of the North Vietnam forces that tells the story of how the Vietnam War was won by America, then given away to North Vietnam.  The killing fields followed.  If President Obama does not begin to realize who America's friends are and who America's enemies are, we will have another killing field in Iraq.  We will also have an exposion of terrorism in this country and around the world.

According to yesterday's Washington Post, the John P. Murtha-Johnstown airport (in Johnstown, Pennsylvania) will receive $800,000 in stimulus funds to repave the airport's alternate runway.  According to the article:

"The Washington Post reported last month on more than $150 million in federal funds that Murtha directed to the airport, which has six arriving and departing flights per day. Among the improvements, Murtha directed the Pentagon to give the airport a new, $8 million, state-of-the-art radar tower that has not been used since it was built in 2004, and $30 million for a new runway and tarmac so the airport could handle large military planes and become an emergency military base in case of crisis."

If we ever want to have an accountable government in Washington, we need term limits.  This is ridiculous.  To spend this kind of money on an airport that has six flights a day is insane.  If they need to repave the alternate runway, they need to find the money to do it themselves!

I am not a big fan of Donald Trump, but I am impressed with the way he handled this one.  According to Politico.com, this is the comment he made on her answer to the question regarding gay marriage:

"It's the same answer that the president of the United States gave," Trump said. "She gave an honorable answer. She gave an answer from her heart."

I am impressed.  That is the wisdom of Solomon.  If you condemn her, you have to condemn the President, whom the press loves.  However, (there's always a however) I want to take another look at the whole dust-up.

Miss California was a contestant in a beauty pageant--this was not a political talk show.  She answered graciously and gently that her personal view of marriage was the traditional one.  The majority of Americans agree with her.  Her state just passed a law stating that belief.  She has been treated very badly on the blog of the judge who asked the question.  She has been accused of all manor of things, and generally, has not been treated kindly by the press.  An innocent, honest comment has put her in a spotlight she was not seeking.  This incident shows how people with unpopular (unpopular in the press) beliefs are currently being treated by the press.  It is a subtle intimidation.  We are walking down a road that is in danger of being patrolled by thought police.

Thank you, Donald Trump, for standing up for free speech, because that is what I believe you did today!

The Washington Times has a story this morning about a letter from the U.S. government to Great Britain stating:

"If it is determined that [her majesty's government] is unable to protect information we provide to it, even if that inability is caused by your judicial system, we will necessarily have to review with the greatest care the sensitivity of information we can provide in the future."

The U. S. government is upset with the British because they are preparing to release a summary of the treatment of Binyam Mohamed at Guantanamo (a prisoner who was released in February).  Some things we need to remember--part of terrorist training is to say that you have been (or are being) abused as soon as you can get to the press, the Red Cross and the Department of Defense both determined that prisoners at Guantanamo were treated fairly.  Mr. Mohamed says he was tortured while in U.S., Pakistani and Moroccan custody.

This is the can of worms President Obama opened when he released the 'torture memos'.  He has still refused to release the memos that show the plots that were prevented because of 'enhanced interrogation'.  Mr. Mohamed and others have filed a civil lawsuit against Jeppesen Dataplan, which is accused of supplying the equipment and personnel used to transport prisoners among nations.  It should come as no surprise to anyone that the ACLU is representing Mr. Mohamed in this case.

I would also like to point out that with the Obama Administration in place, our enemies are being treated better than our friends.  Israel is being thrown under the bus in favor of Iran, and Britain has not been treated well from the beginning.  Promises made to allies to help with missle defense are being broken.  Right now it does not pay to be a friend of America.

I apologize in advance to people who are reading this who don't do numbers, but that is the easiest way to explain what is about to be attempted in regard to American healthcare.  My statistics come from an article at National Review written by John C. Goodman.

The article begins by discussing the cost of healthcare in America.  The author points out that raw statistics on the dollar amount spend are misleading.  For example, some other countries use to government to limit the income of doctors, nurses, and hospital personnel--that makes the cost of healthcare in their country look smaller--people are paying less--but actually, part of the reason for the lower cost is the people who are paid less because of government intervention.

The results of American healthcare are more positive than where healthcare is run by the government.  According to the article:

"The largest international study to date found that the five-year survival rate for all types of cancer among both men and women was higher in the U.S. than in Europe."

In discussing accessibility of healthcare in America, the article points out:

"Britain has only one-fourth as many CT scanners per capita as the U.S., and one-third as many MRI scanners. The rate at which the British provide coronary-bypass surgery or angioplasty to heart patients is only one-fourth the U.S. rate, and hip replacements are only two-thirds the U.S. rate. The rate for treating kidney failure (dialysis or transplant) is five times higher in the U.S. for patients between the ages of 45 and 84, and nine times higher for patients 85 years or older...Studies show that only 5 percent of Americans wait more than four months for surgery, compared with 23 percent of Australians, 26 percent of New Zealanders, 27 percent of Canadians, and 36 percent of Britons."

In the area of preventive care, Americans also fare better than government programs in other countries.  For example, in Canada proportion of middle-aged who have never had a mammogram is twice that of the U.S., and three times as many Canadian women as American women have never had a Pap smear.  The article further states:

"...the mortality rate in Canada is 25 percent higher for breast cancer, 18 percent higher for prostate cancer, and 13 percent higher for colorectal cancer. In addition, while half of all diabetics have high blood pressure, it is controlled in 36 percent of U.S. cases, compared with only 9 percent of cases in Canada."

The article has further statistics on access to healthcare in America and the role of wealth in healthcare in America and in other countries. 

The bottom line is simple.  We have very good healthcare in this country that is generally available to all citizens.  There is room for improvement, but a government-controlled system is not improvement.  I know it is being said that private healthcare will remain, but that is a myth.  As soon as the government begins to pressure healthcare providers to charge less under its system, private insurance will be forced to raise its prices to make up for the difference in cost and will be driven from the marketplace.  I would also like to remind everyone reading this about the history of the cost of government programs.  None of them ever decrease in cost.  I live in Massachusetts, the last estimate I heard on the cost of the 'big dig' (the new traffic routing system in Boston) was that it would eventually cost about $22 billion dollars.  When it was started, we were told it would cost $2.8 billion.  I have one final question.  "What has the government ever done really well?

 

 

The videos of the White House Correspondents' Dinner are all over the internet.  If you choose to watch a video, it won't be hard to find.  I am not going to link to one--I find the comments made not deserving of repetition.  One of the shortest and to-the-point comments on the dinner can be found at The Corner at National Review.  It is a simple review of the evening by Jonah Goldberg.  The only thing I would add is that President Obama promised to bring civility back to politics in Washington, D. C.  The comments made at this dinner were a definite step in the opposite direction.  There should be an apology issued from the White House--wishing your political opponents a slow, painful death is neither civil or funny.  It is sad that the Democrat party will not call out its supporters when they cross the line of civilized behavior.

Today's New York Post has posted a commentary by John Bolton about the possible prosecution of members of the George Bush administration by the Spanish government.  The lawyers in the Bush Administration are being charged with torture for using 'harsh interrogation techniques' on terrorists.  President Obama has done nothing to stop this and has made no negative comments that I am aware of about what is happening here.  According to the article: 

"Despite uncertainties here, developments overseas proceed apace. Spanish Magistrate Baltasar Garzon recently opened a formal probe of six Bush administration lawyers for their roles in advising on interrogation techniques. Garzon did so over the objections of Spain's attorney general. Under Spain's inquisitorial judicial system, Garzon is essentially unaccountable, whatever the views of the elected government."

There is a danger here to American sovereignty.  Do we want governments of other countries second-guessing our President's decisions?  The aim of this investigation is to intimidate American leaders into not making the hard decisions that need to be made to keep our country safe.  Remember, the Spanish people are not heroes in the war on terror.  As soon as they suffered a horrific terror attack in March of 2004, they withdrew their troops from Afghanistan and essentially withdrew from the war on terror.  All of us in the western world need to be aware that the only way we will defeat terrorism is to act in unity.  The goal of the rather small percentage of Muslims who are terrorists is to bring the entire world under Muslim control (Sharia law).  That impacts all western countries--not just us.

What President Obama needs to remember is that the same Spanish court that is going after President Bush will come after him in four or eight years.  America, and only America has the right to make decisions on how to protect our country from terrorism.

Yesterday's New York Times ran an op-ed piece by Vaclav Havel was the president of the Czech Republic from 1993 to 2003.  Today the United Nations General Assembly will vote to fill the vacancies on the 47-member Human Rights Council.   According to the article:

"Only 20 countries are running for 18 open seats. The seats are divided among the world's five geographic regions and three of the five regions have presented the same number of candidates as there are seats, thus ensuring there is no opportunity to choose the best proponents of human rights each region has to offer."

Three years ago, the UN made a commitment to create an organization able to protect victims and confront human rights abuses wherever they occur.  The original United Nations Commission on Human Rights was ended in 2006 because it had allowed countries who committed human rights violations to block any action on them.  This new Council was supposed to take human rights records into account when voting for members.  However, the new Council includes Cuba, China, and Saudi Arabia.  I guess they didn't reach their goal.

I admire the good will of the writer toward the UN, but considering the UN track record on human rights, I see no reason to expect things to change.  Unfortunately, the UN no longer stands for freedom and does not uphold democracy and human rights.  I think it is time to ask the UN to give its building back to the people of New York City and move elsewhere.

Paul Mirengoff at Power Line has an interesting article on the fact that the Obama Administration (like the Bush Administration) is not willing to take action to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons.  That's where the resemblance ends.

This week Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoelle asked Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.  It is suspected that Israel has had nuclear weapons for some time, and the idea here is to say that because Israel has nuclear weapons it is ok for Iran to have them.  Nice idea, but it doesn't line up with the facts.  Israel has never questioned Iran's right to exist and has never threatened to blow Iran off the face of the earth.  Ahmadinejad of Iran does both frequently.

President Obama has stated that until the Palestinians have their state, he is not willing to tackle the problem of Iranian nuclear weapons.  Evidently he feels that with a new terrorist state in place right beside Israel, the nuclear weapons issue will solve itself.  Sure.  A two-state solution for Israel and Palestine would be a good idea if the Palestinians were willing to form a functioning state with a functioning government.  So far they have destroyed infrastructure that would have generated income rather than increase it.  They have used the money they have received in foreign aid to buy weapons and they have chosen not to function as a state.  Why do we think giving them more land and calling them a state is going to change that?  Future behavior can be predicted based on past behavior.   Anyone who has raised children knows that.

My prediction on this is very simple.  At some point in the near future Iran will have nuclear weapons, and it will use them on Israel (and if they can develop a delivery method, on the US).  Unless Israel takes out their reactors, this will happen.  If Israel takes out their reactors, the civilized world will condemn Isreal while secretly breathing a sigh of relief.  That's where we are.

Yesterday's UK Telegraph ran an article with the headline "Barack Obama's rich supporters fear his tax plans show he's a class warrior."  No kidding.  The article goes on to say that wealthy businessmen and investors supported Barack Obama's presidential campaign and now are surprised by his anti-Wall Street rhetoric.  One hedgefund manager who was a top fundraiser for the Obama campaign commented that the rhetoric was OK on the campaign trail, but now we are in the real world. 

Part of this has to do with the American media, but part of it has to do with the American voters.  President Obama made no secret during his campaign that he wanted to 'return America's wealth to its rightful owners'.  That alone should have told businessmen all they needed to know.  There is nothing in that statement about earning wealth or creating businesses that generate it--it is just about transferring wealth.

The article also points out:

"Mr Obama made no secret of his plans to raise taxes on the "working rich" (individuals earning more than $200,000) by imposing a top income tax rate of almost 40 per cent, and there is little surprise that those plans remain on track, even during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

But Democratic opposition is building in Congress to many of the President's proposals. A plan to reduce tax deductions for charitable gifts by richer people may have to be scrapped, because the charitable sector - which includes hospitals, museums and voluntary service groups - depends heavily on tax-deducted donations."

The tax hikes were all discussed during the Presidential campaign.  For whatever reason, Americans chose to ignore the fact that historically raising taxes in a recession deepens the recession.  President Obama spent $787 billion on the stimulus package and passed a $3.5 trillion budget through Congress.  He has to find a way to pay for these things.  Corporations are going to bear the brunt of this burden and consumer prices and unemployment will increase as these corporations pay higher taxes.  Meanwhile, he has found jobs for 800 people--they will be working for the IRS to make sure everyone pays his fair share of the tax burden.

I don't have buyer's remorse--I didn't vote for the man, but I suspect it's going to be a long four years! 

According to a German newspaper, Deutsche Welle, German Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble has stated that Washington has not provided him with enough information for him to act on resettling Guantanamo inmates in Germany.  Washington had asked German to resettle nine Chinese Muslims (Uighurs) held at Guantanamo.  We are not willing to send them back to China for fear that they will be killed or tortured.

Bavarian Interior Minister Joachim Herrmann is opposed to taking in any of the Uighur detainees.  The article goes on to explain:

"...security intelligence showed seven of the nine Uighurs reportedly being considered for resettlement in Germany had been trained in camps of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) and had contacts to militant Islamist organisations."

These are the terrorists President Obama originally wanted to release in northern Virginia and provide financial aid for their resettlement.  Is it any surprise that the countries of the world are not interested in bringing trained terrorists into their country? 

There are two options in dealing with captured terrorists (men that you are sure are trained terrorists)--you can kill them on the spot or you can ship them to Guantanamo where they cannot do any damage to innocent civilians.  If you close down Guantanamo, you are going to see more terrorists shot in combat situations rather than taken prisoner.  No country with an eye for its own safety and the safety of its civilian population is going to want to take in a person who is known to have terrorist training. 

James C. Capretta & Yuval Levin at The Weekly Standard have published a very detailed explanation of what is in store for us if President Obama's healthcare program is passed.  The basics of the program seem harmless, but the consequences are not.

1.  Employers would be required to provide healthcare for employees of pay a fine.  The money paid as a fine would be used to support the creation of a new government-run insurance option.  They would be setting up the mechanics for people without jobs or the money for private health insurance to obtain it.  So far, so good.  This is for the purpose of transition.  The idea here is to make it cheaper for an employer to pay the fine than to provide health insurance, thus phasing out private coverage.  This creates more people opting for the public plans.  It gives the illusion of choice while quietly making the choice more difficult to fund.

2.  The Obama plan puts the government in charge of deciding what healthcare is appropriate for whom.  This is dangerous.  The statistic you need to look at before deciding on government healthcare is the cancer survival rate in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom.  Those statistics tell us all we need to know.

The summation of the article states:

"Conservatives can make it clear they support reform. But they must make it even clearer that the Democrats' plan would displace tens of millions of happily insured Americans and exacerbate the worst elements of the current system: gross inefficiency, high costs, and bureaucracy. President Obama and his congressional allies are pursuing a mammoth, complex, hugely expensive, ill-designed reform that is not likely to be popular when understood. Conservatives have a very real chance at stopping it if they highlight its key weaknesses and supply a superior alternative."

Government healthcare will eventually hurt us all.  We need to oppose it early and often!!

Michael Barone posted an article at Real Clear Politics yesterday about the Chrysler bankruptcy.  He talked about bankruptcy lawyer Tom Lauria, who has gone public about the pressure the White House has put on one of his clients to agree to terms in this backruptcy that were detrimental to that firms investors.  The sticking point is that the agreement that President Obama wants would give the secured creditors of Chrysler about 33 cents on the dollar while giving the unsecured creditors (the United Auto Workers retirees) 50 cents on the dollar. 

One of the basic principles of bankruptcy law is that secured creditors (who loaned money only on the contractual promise that if the debt was unpaid they'd get specific property back)  get paid off in full before unsecured creditors get anything.  Michael Barone states in his article:

"Think carefully about what's happening here. The White House, presumably car czar Steven Rattner and deputy Ron Bloom, is seeking to transfer the property of one group of people to another group that is politically favored. In the process it is setting aside basic property rights in favor of rewarding the United Auto Workers for the support the union has given the Democratic Party. The only possible limit on the White House's power is the bankruptcy judge, who might not go along."

This is illegal.  It is against the law.  The administration has already begun to denouce the bondholders who have not gone along with this proposed illegal agreement.  This is an abuse of Presidential power and needs to be dealt with quickly.  Hopefully the bankruptcy judge will choose to follow the law and the Constitution (which he and the President have sworn to uphold).

Scott Johnson at Power Line has the summation of the Nancy Pelosi denial of knowledge of waterboarding at his website. He references the Washington Post report:

"Intelligence officials released documents this evening saying that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was briefed in September 2002 about the use of harsh interrogation tactics against al-Qaeda prisoners, seemingly contradicting her repeated statements over the past 18 months that she was never told that these techniques were actually being used."

There is no seeming contradiction--her repeated statements do not line up with the hard facts.  Either the evidence or her explanation is untrue.  This is the link to the photocopies of the meeting's agenda at Politico.com.

The ruckus about prosecuting the lawyers who advised President Bush is dying down--has anyone other than the blogosphere noticed that President Obama has decided to continue those 'controversial' policies.  (See yesterday's post at rightwinggranny.com).

If you are reading this and not feeling manipulated by the media and the anti-Bush people, you are not paying attention.  Power Line has the summation and updates on the entire sorry situation.  This is not just a normal Congressional lie--this is a bit of political theatre that has been very damaging to our country's national security.  National security used to be a non-partisan issue, to politicize it is foolish and will eventually hurt all of us.

I have never used this link before and know nothing about it, but the story is intriguing.  According to DEBKAfile, an Iranian air show scheduled for April 18 of this year was cancelled because of a warning to Iran from Russia that Israel might be planning to attack all the aircraft gathered in one place.  This is interesting for a few reasons.

1.  Russia wanted to protect the 140 Iranian fighter-bombers from being destroyed.  Why?

2.  It would make sense that before Israel went after Iran's nuclear sites, they would have to destroy as much of the air force and ground-to-air missles as possible, so it is not unreasonable to assume they may have considered a strike.

3.  Israel used this tactic to wipe out the Egyptian air force early in the 1967 war.

This is one of the things that reminds us that we live in a very unsafe world.

By now we are all tired of hearing about legal briefs and torture, water boarding and torture, American security and torture, etc., but there is one more thing we all need to be aware of before our eyes glaze over.  Andrew McCarthy at National Review Online points out that in addition to politicizing the issue of interrogation of terrorists, the Obama Administration has just approved the same recommendations they condemned the Bush Administration for.

Lately, we have been hearing about the case of John Demjanjuk.  According to the article:

"...John Demjanjuk, a Nazi collaborator who has been fighting his removal from the United States for years. In a last gasp, Demjanjuk now claims, under the CAT, that his extradition would violate U.S. and international torture law. Given his advanced age, failing health, and expectations of abuse, he contends that extradition to Germany for trial and incarceration will cause him severe pain and suffering."

CAT is the United Nations Convention Against Torture.  The article further states:

"On April 23 of this year, only a day after Holder -- taking his lead from the president -- promised to investigate Bybee, Yoo, and other government lawyers, the Justice Department filed a brief in a case called Demjanjuk v. Holder in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Ohio. The brief urges the federal courts to consider the same torture analysis over which Holder is targeting the Bush lawyers with such fanfare. You can read the brief here. [A PDF will have to do: After discussing the Justice Department's hypocrisy on NRO's Off the Page, I can no longer locate the brief on the site where I first found it on Sunday.]"

Please read the entire National Review article.  It is very technical, but gives good insight into how political even our national security has become.  We are entering a place that is not good for the security and integrity of our country. 

See the Odd Day website for further details.  It's a day to be awed by the odd!!

Power Line posted a short article by Paul Mirengoff today dealing with the charges that George Bush's 'torture' policies were a drastic departure from the 'American' way.  The article links to a previous Power Line article by Paul detailing the use of 'torture' since World War II.  There was no difference in policy--the change was that the political party not in power decided to release classified information in order to make the political party in power look bad.  The actual effect of the release of this information was to make America look bad in the eyes of the world. 

The issue of terrorism during the Bush Administration was the first time in the history of America that a party not in power had used national security as a political issue.  Unfortunately, that is still going on and will continue in the future.  It is a shame that our elected officials are too small as people to put the interests of the country above their own personal gain.

Yesterday's Washington Examiner reports that the Democrats in the Senate have denied the seniority that Senator Specter had understood was his in return for switching parties.  I guess there is something to the old adage "Get It In Writing!".  It is also interesting to note that on Monday, Real Clear Politics ran an article by Michael Barone on what the passage of 'card check' would mean to the businesses in America.  Arlen Specter has repeatedly stated that he was opposed to both major aspects of 'card check'. 

Card check has two major provisions--the first is to end the secret ballot in elections by employees of a company to determine whether or not to unionize, the second provision of card check would require, after only 120 days of bargaining, a federal arbitrator to step in and impose a new labor agreement on the company with the recently formed union.  This provision means that the union has no reason to negotiate an agreement in good faith--the government will come in and write the agreement.  Since we currently have a government that is not pro-business, the outcome would probably bankrupt the company.  For example, let's say a non-union auto manufacturing plant is pushed into unionizing by card check.  The government might impose the same sort of labor contract on that company that the auto unions have imposed on the Detriot auto companies.  The consequences of that would be the end of the company.

Anyway, I hope Senator Specter does not change his mind on opposing card check.  It is obvious that the Democrats are playing hardball with him (denying the 'promised' seniority), and it will be interesting to see if he caves.

According to the Washington Times today, the $787 billion in stimulus money is being tracked and overseen by the taxpayers.  Did you know that?  Out of the ten Congressmen who were scheduled to attend the subcommittee's second meeting, dramatically titled "Follow the Money Part II", only three bothered to attend.   Reresentative Brad Miller, chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology's subcommittee on investigations and oversight, has stated that they are enlisting the entire American citizenry to help oversee the program.

Earl Devaney,an ex-cop who is now chairman of the Recovery Act Accountability and Transparency Board, is charged with tracking the torrent of cash now pouring out of federal coffers.  According to the article, Mr. Devaney:

said his board - made up of 10 IGs - has a dual mission: "First, the board is responsible for establishing and maintaining a Web site." Oh, and second, it's supposed to "help minimize fraud, waste or mismanagement."  

Since only three members of the committee bothered to attend the subcommittee meeting, it will be interesting to see how this goes. 

Representative Paul Broun of Georgia, the subcommittee's ranking Republican, asked, "How do you plan to verify the actual number of jobs created?"

"Sir, we haven't really received any information about that on the Web site," Mr. Devaney said."

Seeing that more than $700 million dollars of taxpayer money is involved here, shouldn't someone be paying attention and attending meetings?. 

I'm not enough of a computer geek to know how to put the actual video here, so you'll have to settle for the link.  Please go to You Tube and watch this video.  It made my day!!!  There's hope for old people!!

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air has a post this morning about the ongoing negotiations between Chrysler and the government regarding bankruptcy.  It's a complicated post, but the basic idea is that the pressure the government is putting on the secured creditors is contrary to the 5th Amendment.  According to the article:

"The Supreme Court long ago recognized, however, that a secured creditor's interest in specific property is protected in bankruptcy under the Fifth Amendment. Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford, 295 U.S. 555, 594 (1935). That case involved a Depression-era statute that was intended to help bankrupt farmers avoid losing their land in mortgage foreclosure. The statute in Radford provided that the bankrupt debtor could achieve a release of the security interests either (i) with the lender's consent, purchasing the property at its then appraised value by making deferred payments for two to six years at statutorily-set interest rates; or (ii) by seeking from the bankruptcy court a stay of the proceedings for up to five years during which time the debtor could use the property by paying a rent set by the court, which payments would be for the benefit of all creditors, with a purchase option at the end of that period. Id. at 856-57."

That's more words than I want to think about, but we need to pay attention to this.  One of the problems with our current government is that there are NO checks and balances on the power of the federal government right now.  The news media is not acting as a check and Congress is not acting as a check.  This is dangerous to us as a country.  According to the article at Hot Air, the purpose of the ruling by the Supreme Court was to prevent the government from paying off politically-connected unsecured creditors ahead of the senior creditors.  That is exactly what President Obama is attempting to do.  Keep in mind the amount of money the Democrats receive from Unions and the discussion of how to handle Chrysler becomes one of political patronage--not of economics. 

Today's Los Angeles Times has a great op-ed piece by Johah Goldberg looking at the corruption level of the current Congress.  He points out that the Democrat party took back Congress and the White House on claims that they would end the corruption in both places and be ethical and transparent.  Well, it hasn't really worked out that way.

The list is fairly well-known--a treasury secretary and house member with tax problems, a sweetheart mortgage for a Senator--there's more, read the article to see specifics.  But that really isn't the point. 

Jonah Goldberg points to the real source of the problem--corruption is inevitable when people in government have too much discretion in spending our money.  Instead of looking to the public market for its profits, business has to look to Washington (part of the cost of products made in America is the cost any large corporation has to pay for Washington lobbyists to protect their interests).  As the government takes over more of the private sector, the culture of corruption will continue to grow within government.  This is the reason we do not want the government to take over our healthcare or the student loan program.  That will only provide more opportunity for mischief!

Cyberbulling is a new form of bullying which developed as the internet and internet chat sites grew.  It is a horrible thing and needs to be dealt with severely.  There is a law presently working its way through the House of Representatives that wants to amend Title 18 with regard to cyberbullying.  The law is sponsored by Rep. Linda T. Sanchez and 14 others.

I have posted the link to the text of the law at Thomas.gov.  The law will criminalize any attempt to coerce anyone using the internet.  The problem here may not be the law, but it will definitely be in the interpretation of the law.  Theoretically, this law could be used to shut out any political criticism of a current administration or be used to silence any website that takes sides on political issues.  The law could be used to stifle political free speech on the internet.  Again, cyberbullying is a nasty thing that needs to be stopped, but political speech is not cyberbullying and should never be included in a law dealing with cyberbullying.  With this group of sponsors, I am afraid it will be.

Recently, the New York Post ran an article in their financial section showing some of the aspects of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) that the public was not totally aware of.  The article sites the acquisition of Merrill Lynch by the Bank of America as an example of parts of the program not made clear to the public.

Kenneth Lewis, CEO of Bank of America, received a subpoena from Andrew Cuomo to testify under oath about the merger.  Andrew Cuomo was not expecting to find what the testimony uncovered.  According to the article:

"As the Cuomo documents revealed, Lewis admitted that he was repeatedly implored by former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke to take on the Merrill mess in order to prevent a "systemic failure" that would bring the financial system to its knees."

This is government interference in a private corporation.  The government felt entitled to do this because the bank had taken TARP money.  Banks all over the country are trying to return TARP money because the rules have changed since they were encouraged to take it.  The government is attempting to take over the management of our banks, and the government in its history has never managed anything well.

We need to get back to letting private enterprise be private enterprise!! 

According to The Hill, congressional Democrats have not yet reached an agreement on a climate change bill.  It is amazing to me that the Democrats are so impressed with themselves that they think they can change the world's climate.  Oh well.  The plan is to cut greenhouse gases (including carbon dioxide) 80 percent over the next four decades.  According to the article, there are three main points of contention:

"Three main issues have divided the group: One, how many emissions allowances should industries like electric utilities receive for free, versus how many should be sold at auction? Two, how quickly should polluters be required to reduce their emissions? And three, to what extent should power plants be forced to use renewable energy sources like wind and solar power to produce electricity?"

Utility companies and other industries would be required to purchase 'emissions allowances'.  Obviously, the cost of these allowances would be passed on to the consumer.  This is another attack on the spending power of the average American.  It won't be called a tax, but that is what it is.  There are other questions.  Who will the 'emissions allowances' be purchased from?  Who makes money on this deal?  Our increased cost of energy goes to someone, and that someone is not the company generating the energy.  If we all pledge not to take showers for a week can we be paid for the energy we are not using?  We might smell a little, but we'd have more money in our pockets!

One of the parts of the bill is the renewable electricity standard.  This is a requirement that utility companies produce 25 percent of their power from wind, solar and other renewable sources by 2025.  The environmental groups argue that this puts pressure on the utility companies to find alternate sources of fuel.  That may be true, but what happens when utility companies begin to go out of business because they can't meet the requirement and remain profitable and efficient?  This kind of thinking will move the country backward--not forward.

Sometimes I wonder if some of our elected officials ever learned basic tactfulness or basic manners.  According to today's Washington Times, Arlen Specter stated today on CBS's "Face the Nation, that he was disillusioned with Republican healtcare priorities and that if those priorities had been different, Jack Kemp would still be alive today.  There are not words to express how furious I am at this comment.

Arlen Specter was first elected to the Senate as a Republican in 1980.  That was almost thirty years ago.  You mean to tell me that in that thirty years he has never exerted enough influence to move the Republican party healthcare priorities closer to his own.  What has he been doing for that thirty years?  Do we really think he needs six more to continue doing it?

He is blaming the Republicans for not following Richard Nixon's strategy of a 'war on cancer' in 1970--that would have cured Jack Kemp.  The government does not save lives.  They have not in their history saved lives.  Private medical research (sometimes funded (but not always) by the government saves lives.  Medical and pharmaceutical companies in search of profits (that evil word) do research and find cures for diseases.  These drugs and cures are studied by the FDA and approved or disapproved.  The process is long and costly and that is the reason why drugs cost so much in this country.  If medicine is socialized or the government controls all profits from research, there will be no incentive to find cures for diseases.  The Democrat plan for national health care will end medical research as we currently know it.  Then we will see more deaths from cancer and other diseases--not less.

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted a troubling article about what is going on in the debate over how to handle Chrysler's restructuring.  Evidently ignoring laws that assign priority to secured creditors, President Obama has tried to bully lenders into abandoning their legal rights in favor of the United Auto Workers Union.  According to Power Line, Tom Lauria, a bankruptcy lawyer, has made the following comments: 

Lauria: Let me tell you it's no fun standing on this side of the fence opposing the President of the United States. In fact, let me just say, people have asked me who I represent. That's a moving target. I can tell you for sure that I represent one less investor today than I represented yesterday. One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under the threat that the full force of the White House Press Corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight. That's how hard it is to stand on this side of the fence.

Beckman: Was that Perella Weinberg?

Lauria: That was Perella Weinberg.

The TARP loans, which banks are being stopped from paying back, are being used to control the banks.  The banks that took TARP money had no idea what the strings attached to it would turn out to be.  They're not strings--they're more like the steel cables that hold up a suspension bridge!

The article at Power Line goes on to say that the White House has denied the charges, but John Hinderaker points out:

Obama administration denies making the threats alleged by Lauria. The denial, however, is merely a bald assertion. Lauria is the head of the bankruptcy group at White & Case, and a Democrat who contributed $10,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in 2008. In that sense, you could say that he helped to bring about the corrupt regime that is now bullying his clients. But his credibility vastly exceeds that of an administration spokesman who, having no knowledge of the facts, is sent out to issue a blanket denial.

I wonder how much more of this sort of arm twisting is currently going on in other areas.  I suspect there are a lot of Obama supporters who are now feeling that this is not what they signed up for.

According to The Buffalo News, Jack Kemp, 73, former Congressman, former Vice-Presidential candidate, and former Buffalo Bills quarterback, died Saturday.  It was announced in January the Mr. Kemp had cancer, but no details were given.  He served nine terms as a Congressman from western New York. 

As head of the Department of Housing and Urban Affairs, he supported programs to fight homelessness and deal with urban blight.  He supported enterprise zones to help develop areas of major cities that had decayed.  Jack Kemp, Bill Bennett, and Jeane Kirkpatrick co-founded Empower America, a public policy organization intended to promote economic growth, job creation and entrepreneurship, in 1993.

Jack Kemp was a man who believed in giving everyone a chance to prosper.  He believed in the 'American Dream' of being free to achieve success without being overtaxed or overregulated by an out-of-control government.

Yesterday's New York Times had an article by William Glaberson reminding us that the four month suspension on the military tribunals at Guantanamo is due to end on May 20th.  The Obama Administration is beginning to realize the value of handling certain detainees in military courts rather than civilian courts and it will be interesting to see what happens next.  According to the article:

"Officials who work on the Guantánamo issue say administration lawyers have become concerned that they would face significant obstacles to trying some terrorism suspects in federal courts. Judges might make it difficult to prosecute detainees who were subjected to brutal treatment or for prosecutors to use hearsay evidence gathered by intelligence agencies."

Note to the New York Times--No detainees were subjected to brutal treatment--Gauntanamo has been investigated by the Department of Defense and the Red Cross and no violations have been found--the violations are in the minds of people who need them for political purposes only. 

If this administration has the courage to resume the military trials, it will create a problem with their base.  It will be interesting to see if they do the right thing or the political thing.  National security should not be a political issue--it's a shame it was missued and misstated during the last Presidential campaign.

Just a note on things to come.  There are some Chinese terrorists that had gone through Al Qaeda terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and were captured there.  President Obama wants them released in the United States (because they will be killed if they are sent back to China), and given federal assistance to get back on their feet.  The military has declared them dangerous to this country and the President has asked the military to reconsider.  I am looking for the news that they will be released in this country shortly.  I hope that will not happen, but we need to remember that a trained terrorist is a threat, regardless of the country he was trained to terrorize. 

The American Thinker posted an article by Bruce Walker today celebrating sixty years since the admission of Israel to the UN.  Israel, as a new nation, trusted and supported the United Nations to live up to its charter to support freedom and fight injustice and genocide in the world.  How naive.  The UN has since voted that Zionism (the principle behind the founding of Israel) is racism.  The UN has failed to notice that Israel treats its resident Arabs better than any Arab country treats their own people.  During the numerous times that Israel's neighbors have attacked her, the UN has called for a cease fire before Israel has been able to retaliate sufficienty to prevent future attacks.

The article states that:

"Yet, today Israel is the only functioning democracy in the Middle East (Lebanon has been, on and off, and Iraq is, God willing, for the future.)  Israel faces a world increasingly indifferent to its purpose and its life.  Yet the dream survives against all odds."

The UN, unfortunately, has forgotten its conscience.  It has forgotten the words "Never Again" as it fails to stop Ahmadinejad from developing nuclear weapons that he has stated he will use to destroy Israel.  Israel has grown in stature, the UN has fallen.  The UN needs to remember why it was founded. 

According to Power Line, Ali Saleh Khalah al Marri has agreed to a plea bargain with federal prosecutors.  Under this plea bargain, he could serve up to fifteen years in prison.  Mr. al Marri arrived in the United States (he was a legal resident) on September 10, 2001, to serve as an al Qaeda sleeper agent.  Nice.

According to Power Line, this is what the plea bargain says:

"The defendant researched online information related to various cyanide compounds. The defendant's focus was on various cyanide substances, including hydrogen cyanide, potassium cyanide, and sodium cyanide. The defendant reviewed toxicity levels, the locations where these items could be purchased, and specific pricing of the compounds. The defendant also studied various commercial uses for cyanide compounds. The defendant also explored obtaining sulfuric acid.

 

The defendant agrees that the government would prove at trial that sulfuric acid is a well known binary agent which is used in a hydrogen cyanide binary device to create cyanide gas, and that this is the method taught by al Qaeda for manufacturing cyanide gas. The defendant further agrees that the government would prove at trial that his research into various cyanide compounds is consistent with the type of research conducted by persons trained in camps teaching advanced poisons courses to terrorist organizations, including al Qaeda. The defendant also agrees that the government would prove at trial that an almanac recovered in the defendant's residence was bookmarked at pages showing dams, waterways and tunnels in the United States, which is also consistent with al Qaeda attack planning regarding the use of cyanide gases."

He admits planning terrorism, and we have allowed him to plea bargain for fifteen years.  What happens at the end of that fifteen years?  Do we honestly believe it is safe to let this man out of jail?  The evidence against him was on his laptop computer.  He was researching how to kill innocent Americans.  This episode shows the folly of putting terrorists into a civilian justice system and giving them the rights of American citizens.  I don't even care if a terrorist is an American citizen, if he is caught red-handed plotting terrorism against America, he should be put in a military justice system (or if you are not willing to do that, he should be given a mandatory life sentence with no chance of parole).  I really do not want to let this man out of jail--even in fifteen years.

According to Power Line, Spanish magistrate Baltasar Garzon has launched an inquisition into America's treatment of terrorist detainees (Spanish courts assert world-wide jurisdiction over certain categories of "crimes").  The article at Power Line poses this question:

"If the Attorney General of the United States once accepts the absurdity that a Spanish court and Spanish judge, Baltasar Garzón, sitting in Spain and operating under Spanish law, actually have jurisdiction over American officials making official policy decisions inside the United States about how American military and intelligence agents can interrogate detainees at an American Marine Corps base inside Cuba... then how can Holder later limit such jurisdiction to "evidentiary requests?""

If we are willing to let a European court (not even an international one) have jurisdiction over actions committed by American officials in America, then who is in charge of America?  This is an idea that needs to go away quickly. 

According to Swamp Politics:

"In Ohio, Republican John Kasich, a former longtime congressman and also commentator for FOX News Channel, plans to file papers today for a bid for governor, according to a well-placed source."

Ted Strickland is currently the governor of the state.  John Kasich is campaigning on the platform of changing the economic climate of the state.  Mr. Kasich was chairman of the House Budget Committee when Republicans ruled the House.  He is quite knowledgeable about economics and very good at explaining the complex ideas of economics in language that those of us without extensive knowledge of the subject can understand.  He is a relatively young man, with a very charming style.  I suspect he will run a good campaign and if elected will do a good job.

Andrew McCarthy, lead prosecutor in the investigation of Blind Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and others involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, was asked to participate in the May 4 roundtable meeting of the President's Task Force on Detention Policy.  He wrote a letter to Eric H. Holder, Jr., the Attorney General of the US declining the offer.  The letter is posted at the American Thinker.  The letter is worth reading in its entirety, but there are a few notable thoughts.

Mr. McCarthy points out that it is quite clear--most recently, from provocative remarks on Wednesday in Germany--that the Obama administration has already settled on a policy of releasing trained jihadists (including releasing some of them into the United States).  He feels that the meeting will obviously be used by the administration to claim that its policy was arrived at in consultation with current and former government officials experienced in terrorism cases and national security issues.  He chooses not to be a part of that charade.

Mr. McCarthy also points out that in light of public statements by Attorney General Holder and the President, it is dismayingly clear that, under their leadership, the Justice Department takes the position that a lawyer who in good faith offers legal advice to government policy makers--like the government lawyers who offered good faith advice on interrogation policy--may be subject to investigation and prosecution for the content of that advice, in addition to empty but professionally damaging accusations of ethical misconduct.  He mentions that the current atmosphere in Washington in terms of prosecuting lawyers for giving legal advice would cause any lawyer to hesitate before offering guidance to the administration.

Please read the entire letter.  Mr. McCarthy talks about various policies in dealing with terrorism and terrorists and the pros and cons of each.  We need to listen to him.  His work on the first World Trade Center Bombing was thorough and effective.