June 2009 Archives

The Corner at National Review posted a letter received by Jonah Goldberg from a man who is from Honduras and still has relatives there. 

Please read the entire letter, but this is the paragraph that I thought was very telling:

"The country is bewildered that the world, especially the United States, is not on their side.  Zelaya was confident of his plans to convert Honduras into a Venezuelan satellite. The Honduran people are proud of their constitution and are proud to have a functioning democratic system. Zelaya was replaced by a member of his own party who vows to see that this November's presidential election takes place. What happened was not a "coup" but a bipartisan effort to save the nation."

This was not a coup.  It was an attempt to preserve a democracy.  It is my hope that Hugo Chavez will not be plotting undercover moves to destablize the country.  We need to support democracy--not tyranny.

Yesterday's Investor's Business Daily posted a speech given on the floor of the House of Representatives last Friday by Representative Tom McClintock of California's fourth congressional district in the debate on Cap and Trade legislation.  Representative McClinton talked about the effect a similar state-wide bill has had on California.

Some highlights from the speech:

"Three years ago, I stood on the floor of the California Senate and watched a similar celebration over a similar bill, Assembly Bill 32. And I have spent the last three years watching as that law has dangerously deepened California's recession. It uses a different mechanism than cap and trade, but the objective is the same: to force a dramatic reduction in carbon dioxide emissions."

"...Until that bill took effect, California's unemployment numbers tracked very closely with the national unemployment rate. But then, in January of 2007, California's unemployment rate began a steady upward divergence from the national jobless figures. Today, California's unemployment rate is more than two points above the national rate, and at its highest point since 1941."

"...The city of Truckee, Calif., was about to sign a long-term power contract to get its electricity from a new, EPA-approved coal-fired electricity plant in Utah. AB 32 and companion legislation caused them to abandon that contract. The replacement power they acquired literally doubled their electricity costs."

If the states are the laboratories to test out public policy, we need to pay attention to what is happening in the lab.  The Cap and Trade Bill passed by the House of Representatives will do serious damage to the economy if it is passed by the Senate.  We can't afford that right now.

Today's Wall Street Journal, today's Power Line Blog, and yesterday's Investor's Business Daily all have posted articles on the current situation in Honduras.  The general consensus of these articles is that what happened was not a coup--it prevented a coup.

Although President Mel Zelaya was elected democratically, he was about to make a move that would change the constitution of Honduras and allow him to run for President again even though the constitution said that he was term-limited.  This is the same strategy that Hugo Chavez used to become President-for-life in Venezuela. 

Investor's Business Daily reports:

"Yet the U.S. administration stood with Chavez and Castro, calling Zelaya's lawful removal "a coup." Obama called the action a "terrible precedent," and said Zelaya remains president.

In doing this, the U.S. condemned democrats who stood up to save their democracy, a move that should have been hailed as a historic turning of the tide against the false democracies of the region.

The U.S. response has been disgraceful. "We recognize Zelaya as the duly elected and constitutional president of Honduras. We see no other," a State Department official told reporters.

Worse, the U.S. now contemplates sanctions on the tiny drug-plagued, dirt-poor country of 7 million, threatening to halt its $200 million in U.S. aid, immigration accords and a free-trade treaty if it doesn't put the criminal Zelaya back into office."

Somehow we have lost our willingness to even acknowledge that the freedom that is allowed in a democracy is worth anything.  Shouldn't it be a red flag to us that Chavez and Castro both protested the removal of President Zelaya?

Does it concern anyone that our President and Secretary of State are siding with Fidel Casto and Hugo Chavez against the forces of constitutional democracy?  

The basis for this post is the Washington Times article published Sunday, June 28, and the BBC article published today.

The obvious facts are that the President of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, was ousted from office and flown to Costa Rica by the army.  President Zelaya was removed from office hours before a disputed consitutional referendum was to be voted on that would have allowed him to remain in office despite the constitution's term limit.

The Washington Post reports:

"Mr. Zelaya was arrested shortly before polls were to open in a referendum on whether to change the constitution. The Supreme Court ruled the referendum illegal, and everyone from Congress to members of his own party opposed it. Critics said Zelaya wanted to remove limits to his re-election."

The BBC reports:

"The swearing in of Roberto Micheletti - constitutionally second in line for the presidency - was greeted with applause in Congress.  In a speech, he said that he had not assumed power "under the ignominy of a coup d'etat".  The army had complied with the constitution, he said, and he had reached the presidency "as the result of an absolutely legal transition process"."

The thing to watch here is who supports what.  When Hugo Chavez is complaining that the rules of democracy are not being followed, I tend to be a little suspicious.  It looks to me as if the army prevented the same sort of president-for-life move in Honduras that Hugo Chavez pulled in Venezuela.

Unlike the caution and timidity shown in supporting the protests in Iran, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have come out very quickly in favor of the former president.  I do not see them as aligning themselves with the forces of democracy in either Honduras or Iran. 

Let Freedom Ring has a pledge on their website that you can download and send to your Senators and members of Congress.  It's a very simple pledge--it says:

Townhall.com posted a story on Friday about the movie, The Stoning of Soraya M set for release this weekend.  The movie is based on a true story.  The book telling the story was published move than ten years ago.  The movie is the story of:

"...Soraya (Mozhan Marnò, "Charlie Wilson's War") a woman who is in an impossible situation. Soraya's husband wants to divorce her so he can marry a 14-year-old virgin. Given her options (live in destitute poverty with her children or sanctioned prostitution to provide for them) Soraya refuses to give her husband the divorce. But in her post-Iranian Revolution world, the men rule with an iron fist and the legal system is stacked against her."

I suspect this is going to be difficult movie to watch, but it is a story that needs to be told.  The film does not focus on the violence of the stoning, but instead on how the stoning affects the people involved.  The movie is in limited release now, but should be in wider release next weekend.   

According to today's American Thinker, Ivy League endowments are investing in forest land.  They are preparing for the Cap and Trade economy that will pay them not to cut down trees.  One example of earning money by not cutting down trees is given in the article:

"The Nature Conservancy did just that last year with the Conservation Fund, a nonprofit agency that owns about 24,000 acres of redwood and douglas fir forest northwest of San Francisco. The groups changed the logging schedule on the property, and the fund expects to receive about $2 million from Pacific Gas and Electric, which participates in a regional climate initiative similar to the one that the Waxman-Markey bill would create around the country."

Cap and Trade is about the transfer of wealth.  It will transfer money out of the hands of the American taxpayer into government hands and then into the hands of a few people who have set up carbon credit companies.  Al Gore will make serious money from Cap and Trade as will certain other well positioned friends of the Democrat Party.

Yesterday's Washington Times explained to us that the United States will not use force to inspect a North Korean ship suspected of carrying unauthorized weapons.  According to the article:

"On Thursday, the communist regime organized a massive anti-American rally in Pyongyang, where some 100,000 participants vowed to "crush" the U.S. One senior speaker told the crowd that the North will respond to any sanctions or U.S. provocations with "an annihilating blow.""

This, evidently, is one of the reasons for deciding not to use force to inspect the ship.  The other reason given was the fact that the UN resolution did not authroize the use of force. 

To me, this is the equivalent of not disciplining your child when he does something wrong because he might throw a tantrum.  Either the UN resolutions mean something or they don't.  If they don't, why in the world are we supporting a multi-million dollar building in New York City (not to mention the unpaid parking tickets)?  Either the UN is going to take a stand against the spread of nuclear weapons or it is not.  Which is it?

Friday night The New York Times and Investor's Business Daily both ran articles on the Cap and Trade Bill which passed the House of Representatives last night.  Needless to say, they had rather different angles on the events.

The New York Times stated:

"The vote was the first time either house of Congress had approved a bill meant to curb the heat-trapping gases scientists have linked to climate change. The legislation, which passed despite deep divisions among Democrats, could lead to profound changes in many sectors of the economy, including electric power generation, agriculture, manufacturing and construction."

Investor's Business Daily reported that:

"On Friday, the day of the vote, the Competitive Enterprise Institute said it was releasing "an internal study on climate science which was suppressed by the Environmental Protection Agency."

In the release, the institute's Richard Morrison said "internal EPA e-mail messages, released by CEI earlier in the week, indicate that the report was kept under wraps and its author silenced because of pressure to support the administration's agenda of regulating carbon dioxide.""

The EPA is withholding information from the American public that would enable us to make more informed decisions on the actions our Congressmen are taking.  Investor's Business Daily posted the following chart of the impact of human activity on climate change.

You have to wonder why this President and this Congress are so intent of destroying the American economy and the American healthcare system..

Today's Washington Post has an article saying that the White House is curently working on an executive order that would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate terrorism suspects indefinitely.  As President Obama encounters numerous roadblocks in closing Guantanamo, he is looking for ways to proceed.  The problems in closing Guantanamo have come from Congress and from countries who have not been willing to allow the inmates to be transferred to their countries.

The key paragraph in the article states:

"Concerns are growing among Obama's advisers that Congress may try to assert too much control over the process. This week Obama signed an appropriations bill that forces the administration to report to Congress before moving any detainee out of Guantanamo and prevents the White House from using available funds to move detainees onto U.S. soil."

As much as I am not a big fan of the current Congress, they have a role to play in this process, and I don't think it is wise to leave them out.  Here are some of the ideas for the plan of dealing with the Guantanamo terrorists:

"Such detainees -- those at Guantanamo and those who may be captured in the future -- would also have the right to legal representation during confinement and access to some of the information that is being used to keep them behind bars. Anyone detained under this order would have a right to challenge his detention before a judge.

Officials say the plan would give detainees more rights and allow them a better chance than they have now at Guantanamo to one day end their indefinite incarceration."

We need to remember who these people are.  They are not simple lawbreakers--they are terrorists.  They are not prisoners-of-war.  Even if they were prisoners-of-war, they would not be released until the war was over, but since the Obama administration will not admit that there is a war on terror, they cannot declare it over! 

According to the Washington Times, the investigation into the activities of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) during the last election cycle has been stopped in the House of Representatives.  The organization is charged with voter fraud in a number of states, i.e. registering the Dallas Cowboys starting lineup to vote in Nevada, registering Mickey Mouse to vote in Florida (at least he met the residency requirement!), and intimidating voters in Philadelphia.

According to the article:

"The groups came under fire during the campaign after probes into suspected voter fraud in a series of presidential battleground states, including Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Mexico and Nevada.

ACORN and its affiliates are currently the target of at least 14 lawsuits related to voter fraud in the 2008 election and a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act complaint filed by former ACORN members."

If we expect to have an honest election in 2010, I suggest that someone take a good look at the tactics of this group.  It's a shame that Congress will not do its job and investigate them. 

According to Politico, the House of Representatives has passed the vote was extremely close - 219-212, with eight Republicans voting yes and 44 Democrats voting no.  According to the article, Congressman did not have access to a working copy of the bill they were voting on:

"Republicans accused the Democrats of ramming the bill through the House. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.), managing the debate for his party, asked repeatedly if there was even a copy of the current version of the bill anywhere in the House chamber. Democratic Rep. Ellen Tauscher - sitting in the speaker's chair although she's already been confirmed as Obama's undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security -- repeatedly dodged the question.

Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), one of the bill's sponsors, finally rose to say that a single copy of the current version of the bill was available at the speaker's desk - and on the Internet, which members would have to leave the floor to access."

This bill represents a hidden tax on almost everything we as Americans do.  Hopefully, it can be stopped in the Senate.  If not, it will do more damage to the economy than the current recession.  Unfortunately, the bill may not be introduced into the Senate until the Democrats are sure it will pass.  If it does, the hidden taxes on the average American will be huge--the price of everything we buy or do will increase substantially.  It will not produce jobs or energy independence--it will produce revenue for the government.

This is the list of the eight Republicans who voted for this bill:

Mary Bono Mack California
Michael Castle Delaware
Frank LoBiondo New Jersey
Leonard Lance New Jersey
Mark Kirk Illinois
David Reichert Washington State
Chris Smith New Jersey
John McHugh New York

If you look at the Cap and Trade article published on this site on June 24, there is a map showing which states gain money from the bill and which states lose money.  That map may have changed slightly in the negotiations, but isn't it interesting that most of the Republican votes come from states that will gain money on that map?

In the past few days, we have lost three cultural icons.  They represent three different cultural areas of America and show us in some ways how our culture has changed over the years.  Ed McMahon died Tuesday at age 86, Farrah Fawcett died Thursday at age 62, and Michael Jackson died Thursday at age 50.  Each of them played a unique roll in American culture.

No one over the age of 35 will ever forget "Here's Johnny" or the wonderful straight man to Carnac the Magnificant.  The Tonight Show had a different flavor than the late night shows of today.  There was political comeday, but it was less vicious than it is today.  There were jokes that pushed the envelope, but they did it gently.  America was able to laugh it itself as well as laughing at the jokes in the monologue or many skits.  Ed McMahon represented a comedic civility that we seem to have lost.

Farrah Fawcett was the pinup girl of the 1970's.  "Charlie's Angels" was not great drama, but it was fun and the good guys always won.  She did some more serious acting on TV later in her carreer and was nominated for Emmy awards three times.

The Washington Times commented on Michael Jackson's contributions to the world of music: 

"Mr. Jackson, named in the Guinness World Records as the "Most Successful Entertainer of All Time," with 13 Grammy Awards, 13 chart-topping solo singles and more than 750 million albums sold worldwide."

The thing I remember the most about Michael Jackson was the 1985 recording of "We Are The World", written with Lionel Richie, and recorded with most of the major music stars of the time.  Michael Jackson was a pioneer in may ways.  He fused rock and roll and funk with the concept of the music video just as MTV was becoming popular.  He had the ability to find the next step in musical entertainment during the 1980's.  He was getting ready to tour in the coming year, and I know his fans were looking forward to seeing him.

These three people represented very different lives and lifestyles, but all contributed to our American culture, and all will be missed.

Yesterday, I posted the map showing which states will benefit if the Cap and Trade Bill is passed and which states will lose money.  Today the Washington Times has posted an article showing where some of the money taken from Americans in that bill would be going.  Although Americans will pay dearly in energy costs if the bill is passed, some companies will do very well. 

According to the article:

"As part of the far-reaching climate bill, the House is set to vote Friday on a plan to pay companies billions of dollars not to chop down trees around the world, as a way to reduce global warming.

The provision, called "offsets," has been attacked by both environmentalists and business groups as ineffective and poorly designed. Critics contend it would send scarce federal dollars overseas to plant trees when subsidies are needed at home, while the purported ecological benefits would be difficult to quantify."

The Wall Street Journal points out:

"The hit to GDP is the real threat in this bill. The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars. Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result.

When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill's restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035."

There are some people who stand to make a lot of money if this bill passes--as the rest of us watch our country's economy and our family budgets struggle to keep up with the additional expense.  This is not the way to fight 'global warming' (assuming it exists and is man-made).  This is a way to strangle the American economy. 

As the mullahs in Iran consolidate their grip on power, America is planning to send an Ambassador to Syria (President Bush withdrew our Ambassador after the Syrians were linked to the car-bomb assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri).

The Washington Post notes this change in diplomatic policy in its Embassy Row column this morning.  Little Green Footballs has a longer post. 

This is another example of overlooking the fact that a government sponsors terrorism.  Syria has sponsored terrorism in Lebanon and throughout the Middle East.  To extend the hand of friendship to them is unwise for two reasons--it says in so many words that American does not really stand for freedom and it says that we are not really interested in standing against terrorism.  Why are we making friends with terrorists while we are condemning Israel for settling its own land?  This administration seems to follow the pattern of treating our friends badly and being overly nice to our enemies.

The Hill posted an article today on the Congressional Agenda of the Democrats.  Their plans for the summer were healthcare reform, cap and trade, immigration reform, and confirming Judge Sotomayer.  All three items have run into some roadblocks.

According to the article:

"Reid, for one, is quite pessimistic about Republican cooperation in the coming months on healthcare and climate change.

"No one claims the answer is obvious, but everyone knows we must work toward one," he said on the Senate floor. "Yet if Republicans refuse to find common ground on the easy things, how will we do so on the hard ones?"

Members of the Senate Finance Committee say they will begin marking up healthcare reform after the July 4 recess, at the earliest. Meanwhile, members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee plan to extend the markup of their own healthcare proposal into July.

Democrats had hoped that both committees would finish their work by the end of June.

Preoccupation over healthcare has steered senators away from climate change."

Healthcare reform, cap and trade, and immigration reform as proposed by the Democrats in the house are not good for the country.  Unfortunately, the House of Representatives is currently not allowing alternative bills on these issues to be heard.

According to Monday's Washington Times:

"Rep. Steve King, Iowa Republican, said in an interview on The Washington Times' morning radio show "America's Morning News" that Mrs. Pelosi and the Democratic majority had recently authorized an unprecedented change in House rules to curb the right of the minority to offer amendments to appropriations spending bills."

We have come to a place where one party is running our government.  We as Americans need to make sure there are some checks and balances on their power.  Good legislation is the product of debate, and right now there is no serious debate in Congress on any of the issues listed above.  The bills introduced in the House of Representatives will be a minimum of 800 pages long and will be voted on before anyone has a chance to read them.  This is not a successful way to govern.  We need to find a way to slow things down so that we are not stuck with huge federal deficits far into the future and a drag on our economy that we will never be able to overcome.  I am hoping none of this suggested legislation is passed until Congress and the American people have a chance to examine and evaluate it and decide if it is the correct solution to the problems we now face.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has scheduled a vote Friday on the climate-change bill (Cap and Trade) co-sponsored by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D., Calif.) and Rep. Edward Markey (D., Mass.),   There are stories in today's Wall Street Journal, yesterday's Power Line, and Monday's American Thinker.  The bottom line on all three stories is that this bill, if passed, will be devastating to the American economy and to the American consumer.  Power Line has the National Mining Association chart on how the bill will affect each state (the chart is based on the Congressional Budget Office Numbers):

As you can see--the bill puts most of the states in the red.  What bothers me is that Edward Markey is from Massachusetts and he can't even write a bill that helps his own state!!!

Anyway, the bill is 942 pages long.  How many Congressmen will have read it by the time they vote on it Friday?  This is another attempt to slip something by the American people before we have a chance to object!  The bill is "The American Clean Energy and Security Act"  (H. R. 2454) and should be stopped dead in its tracks. 

President Obama said in his press conference yesterday that the bill would be paid for by the people who pollute our water and emit dangerous fumes.  What he didn't say was that any costs put on utility companies or manufacturers will be passed on to the consumer--that's you and me.

Unless you want to see the economy worsen and your expenses increase, please send an email to your Congressional Representative to vote against this bill.  I don't know if it can be stopped, but it should be.  

Fouad Ajami posted on op-ed in yesterday's Wall Street Journal about President Obama's handling of the events in Iran.  Fouad Ajami is a professor at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, a fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, and the author of "The Foreigner's Gift: The Americans, the Arabs, and the Iraqis in Iraq (Free Press, 2007).

Professor Ajami feels that President Obama naively felt that he would be able to use his own biography to reach out to governments that previously had been hostile to the United States.  President Obama had extended an olive branch to Iran and waited for Iran to unclench its fist.  Professor Ajami compared that to another American President who felt that he could make peace with the Russians but denouncing the militarism that had come before him--the Russians answered by invading Afghanistan. 

Professor Ajami points out:

"Days into his presidency, it should be recalled, Mr. Obama had spoken of his desire to restore to America's relation with the Muslim world the respect and mutual interest that had existed 30 or 20 years earlier. It so happened that he was speaking, almost to the day, on the 30th anniversary of the Iranian Revolution -- and that the time span he was referring to, his golden age, covered the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the American standoff with Libya, the fall of Beirut to the forces of terror, and the downing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. Liberal opinion would have howled had this history been offered by George W. Bush, but Barack Obama was granted a waiver."

America's silence as people are dying for the sake of freedom is not something to be proud of.  Traditionally we have supported the voices of freedom (Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia).  Keeping silent for imagined political expediency is not a positive thing.

According to The Hill yesterday, Congressional Democrats are pretty much ignoring the request by President Obama for $19.8 billion in budget cuts.  The House Appropriations Committee has included money in the budget for the programs the President suggested cutting.  The have said they are planning to cut spending--just not in the places the President recommended.  Actually, they are planning to cut some of the President's projects.

"Spending bills marked up by the House have found funds for prisons for illegal immigrants, grants for public telecom facilities, and homeland security programs sending money back to local officials -- all of which had been chopped by the White House.

Obama had called for $19.8 billion of cuts in discretionary spending next year, saying the reductions are "setting the right priorities with our spending.""

One of the spending cuts requested by the President was a $400 million reduction in federal spending for state prisons to incarcerate illegal immigrants.  President Obama stated that the money would be better spent on an overhaul of immigration.  Representatives from states with large illegal immigrant populations reinstated that money claiming that to cut it would create a problem for states which are already struggling financially.

Republicans have a different take on the cuts:

"Republican lawmakers are dismissing the Democrats' and the president's attempts to find cuts, saying they amount to small change. Even with the cuts, the proposed spending bills will increase discretionary spending by 12 percent over last year, according to an analysis by GOP appropriators.

"In no way does this represent a return to fiscal responsibility," said Jennifer Hing, spokeswoman for Republicans on the Appropriations panel. "No matter what they say about eliminating programs, the truth is that this Congress is engaging in unprecedented rampant spending which is dangerously unsustainable.""

A budget increase of 12 percent in one year is excessive.  At some point the American taxpayer will be expected to pay for this increase.  We need to find leaders who will cut the federal budget instead of continually expanding it.

According to the New York Post, Governor Paterson has called the state Senate into session at 3 p.m. to vote on 55 crucial pieces of legislation that must be passed by the end of summer to prevent taxes and other vital laws from expiring.  The Senators had asked for 24 hours to work out their differences, but the Governor turned down the request.  On June 8, two Senate Democrats voted with the Republicans to replace the Senate leader and the Senate was thrown into chaos.  They have not been able to agree on how to move forward since then.

According to the article, the Governor provided the Senate with a to-do list:

"Bills to renew the 2002 law that gives City Hall control over the school system and hike the city sales tax by 0.5 percentage points were on the list.

More controversial items, such as his proposals to legalize same-sex marriage and create a new, less-generous pension tier, were not."

The State Assembly is expected to wrap up legislative business late this morning and adjourn for the summer after passing more than 300 bills in the last week.  Meanwhile, the Senate is still trying to work out a power-sharing agreement. 

According to Power Line, Trader Joe's has been targeted by a group of anti-Israeli groups for boycotts and possibly picketing.  The groups have been unsuccessful in their attempts to get Trader Joe's to remove Israeli products from their shelves.  Their tactic of boycotting and picketing was moderately successful in Europe and they have chosen to begin to use that tactic here. 

According to the article:

"They have selected this coming Saturday, June 20, as their initial, nationwide World Refugee Day. To understand their aims in their own words, the following is a quote from their website: "We invite you to organize in your community and deshelve, sticker, boycott, and protest the presence of Israeli products!""

One of the things that allowed these protests to be successful in Europe was the dwindling numbers of Jews in the countries targeted and the large Muslim populations in those countries.  We have a different situation here--we have a large Jewish population and most of this country sees Israel as our ally and understands that Israel is a functioning democracy in a part of the area where democracy is rare.

These are the actions suggested by the Power Line article:

"Learn more about this immediate concern by reading the report issued on the StandWithUs website (StandWithUs is a Los Angeles based Israel-advocacy organization that does outstanding work).

Please make a point of shopping at Trader Joe's over the coming days and weeks. Please go out of your way to introduce yourselves to store-managers and to let them know that one of the reasons that you are patronizing their store is precisely because of their principled and courageous determination to continue selling Israeli products. Let them know that you know of many others who feel this way, who might not choose to introduce themselves personally, but who have determined to support Trader Joe's all the more so because of its decision.

Wherever you may shop - for groceries and otherwise, please consider both or either (a) going out of your way to purchase Israeli products and/or (b) thanking store-managers or proprietors for carrying Israeli products."

It seemed to me that over the weekend, the story of the North Korean ship being tailed by the US Navy got lost because of the coverage of Iran.  Associated Press at My Way has picked up the story. 

North Korea has stated that it has nuclear weapons and will use them if it is attacked.  Meanwhile, a U.S. destroyer continued to trail the Kang Nam, a North Korean cargo ship suspected of carrying illicit weapons.  North Korea has said that the interception of a North Korean ship at sea would be considered an act of war.  At the same time, the North Koreans are planning to conduct a long range missile test aimed in the direction of Hawaii.  The article points out:

"The U.N. sanctions - punishment for an underground nuclear test North Korea conducted May 25 - firm up an earlier arms embargo against North Korea and authorize ship searches in an attempt to thwart the regime's nuclear and ballistic missile ambitions."

This resolution is the basis for the US attempt to seach the Kang Nam.  The US is considering asking China for help in dealing with the North Korean problem, but it remains to be seen if China will be willing to help.

Power Line posted an article yesterday about the New York Times handling of the kidnapping of David Rohde, one of their reporters.  Mr. Rohde was kidnapped by the Taliban in Afghanistan seven months ago.  The Times kept the story secret and asked other news outlets who were aware of the story to keep it secret also.  This was done to protect the safety of Mr. Rohde.  It worked--he is safely home now--and the media outlets who held the story helped insure his safe return.  Great.

In December 2005, after being asked by the White House not to run the story, the New York Times ran a story exposing the NSA terrorist eavesdropping program.  This alerted the terrorists to one of our terrorist surveilance programs, making it more difficult to track terrorists, and thus making Americans less safe.  In June 2006, after being asked by the White House not to run the story, the New York Times ran a story exposing the terrorist-finance tracking program that was being used by the Treasury Department, again hampering our efforts to track and detain terrorists.

I agree with the secrecy in the case of of Mr. Rohde--he is now safe and sound.  What I don't understand is the double standard.  The Times asked for news outlets to help insure the safety of their reporter.  When the Times was asked to refrain from printing a story to help protect the American people, it refused.  They seem to be able to understand the reasons for secrecy when it is up close and personal, but not when it applies to the country as a whole. 

Today's Las Vegas Review Journal has an opinion piece by Sherman Frederick, publisher of the Las Vegas Review-Journal and president of Stephens Media.  He has changed his party affiliation from Democrat to Republican.  Evidently, when you renew your driver's license in Nevada, you can register to vote or change your party affiliation.  On June 9, Mr. Frederick changed from Democrat to Republican. 

He points out that Nevade is not a great place for Republicans right now--the governor of the state is going through an ugly divorce and Senator John Ensign has just admitted to an extra-maritial affair.  Not a good time and place for Republican politics.  Harry Reid is riding high and Obama is a rock star.  Why change?

According to the editorial:

"Republicans offer our only hope in slowing the Obama "change" juggernaut before the America of unbridled optimism and opportunity goes the way of the buffalo. I don't want my great-grandchildren growing up in cradle-to-grave government care, where only the privileged few may afford a car, or own a home, or get non-rationed health care."

President Obama is a very charismatic man who has a beautiful family.  He remains very popular personally, but some Americans are beginning to see the consequences of the policies he wants to enact.  I personally don't think the Republicans are 'all' the answer--I think the conservative movement is the answer.  Meanwhile, I hope the more extreme policy ideas of President Obama can be blocked by the Republicans we have in office now.

Holidays.net is one of the places to find the history of Father's Day.  The holiday was proposed in 1909 to honor William Smart, a Civil War veteran who became a widower when his wife died during the birth of their sixth child.  One of his daughters proposed the holiday in recognition of the sacrifices her father had made in raising his children.

The first Father's Day was celebrated on June 19, 1910, in Spokane, Washington.  Finally, in 1966, President Lyndon Johnson signed a presidential proclamation declaring the third Sunday of June to be Father's Day.

At any rate--Happy Father's Day!!!

My impression is that because things are moving so fact in Iran, anything more than an hour old should not be considered an update, but Pajamas Media has been the most current and reliable source on the continuing crisis.  Michael Ledeen has a post there this morning about a letter he has received that claims to be from Mousavi's office.  Although Mr. Ledeen is skeptical about the source of the letter, he believes that it reflects the view of the supporters of Mousavi.  The letter is addressed to President Obama and relates to his recent comments on the Iranian situation.  Part of the letter states:

"Dear Mr. President,

In the name of  the Iranian people, we want you to know that when you recently made the statement "Achmadinejad or Mousavi? Two of a kind," we consider this as a grave and deep insult, not just to Mr. Mousavi but especially against the judgment of the Iranian people, against our moral conviction and intelligence, especially those of the young generation that comprises a population of 31 million.

It is a specially grave insult for those who are now fighting for democracy and freedom, and an unwarranted gift and even praise for Mr. Khamenei, whose security forces are now killing peaceful Iranians in the streets of every major city in the country."

Actually, that statement by President Obama is one of the few things I totally agree with him on!!  Although I have been seeing and reading reports that Mousavi has changed from the revolutionary leader he was in the 1980's, I am somewhat skeptical.  Mousavi was not supported by the mullahs because of his close association with Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the former Iranian leader, not because he was going to bring freedom to the country. 

This situation in Iran bears watching because whatever the outcome, the people in power will have nuclear weapons in the very near future.  I sincerely hope that freedom for the Iranians is the eventual outcome, but I am not optimistic.  

The "Cash For Clunkers" Bill passed the Senate on Friday, June 19, and is headed to the President's desk for his signature.  Some of the repercussions of this bill are going to be interesting.  When I did an internet search on "cash for clunkers", I found ads from junk yards willing to sell their clunkers to consumers so that the consumers could get government money to buy a new car.  According to one website, there will only be $1 billion (only??) spent, so you have to move fast if you want any money. 

American Thinker posted an article today detailing what "Cash For Clunkers" will actually mean in terms of dollars and impact of the automobile sector of the economy.  The article points out:

"It got this crazy in part because of Federal mileage and other requirements that ignore what people really want in a car and in a fuel supply.  As recently reported by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the death rate per million vehicles was 44 for SUVs and 35 for large cars, while for small cars it was 96, or more than double!"

"It got this crazy also because in a decades long fit of self sabotage, the Federal government banned off-shore drilling for most of our coast line and on land in Alaska. The ban has been critical in keeping the price of gas high. When the market realized that the ban might expire in September, 2008 creating more supply, the price of oil fell from a peak of $147 per barrel to a low of $32 per barrel, over a 75% drop. Now that the Administration and Congress have effectively re-instituted the ban, the price of oil has more than doubled again. The real point of the legislation is to goose car sales. But rather than create unsustainable phony demand that requires a voucher, wouldn't we all be better off with a lower gasoline price so the average American had more money to spend?  And wouldn't it be better to get our own oil out of our own ground and our own seabed, collect taxes on it, create American jobs by so doing, support the dollar in the process, enhance our national security and lower the price of gas for every US citizen?"

 

As the North Korean weapons ship disappears from the news and Iran erupts into turmoil over a very questionable election (How can you count fifty million paper ballots in half an hour?), according to the Washington Post, the Senate is dealing with the truly serious matters.  The Senate passed a bill yesterday making way for a joint congressional resolution and the latest attempt by the federal government to take responsibility for 2 1/2 centuries of slavery. 

Please don't misunderstand.  I am strongly opposed to any form of slavery anywhere.  I think at least 99 per cent of the people in this country regret slavery.  America is one of the countries that no long enslaves people.  We have been one of the countries that speaks out against slavery.  I just wonder at what point we stop apologizing for taking part in something that was acceptable worldwide at the time we were doing it.  It was wrong--but it was also part of the cultural norm of the time.  I am grateful for William Wilberforce and the role he played in ending slavery (see the movie, Amazing Grace, which tells the story), but I think we can stop apologizing some time soon.

This may be a step toward Americans paying reparations to descendants of slaves.  Which Americans will pay the reparations, which Americans are descendants of slaves, does that include indentured servants (which were part of our early history also)?  What if your ancestors weren't here during slavery (either as a slave or a master)?  Do you still have to pay?  Can you still collect?  Do we owe reparations to the families of soldiers killed in the Civil War who were fighting to end slavery?  Can anyone imagine the nightmare of bureaucracy this is going to create in order to be sorted out?  I think we are about to see the law of unintended consequences played out again in our national politics.

WCAI.FM, National Public Radio's Cape Cod Radio Station has kept track of the debate on putting windmills off the coast of Massachusetts.  The first part of the article deals with local progress on the issue:

"The Cape Cod Commission has submitted an appeal to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, claiming the state Energy Facilities Siting Board overstepped its authority when it overruled the commission and gave Cape Wind all the local and regional permits it needs to move forward; Gov. Deval Patrick sent some folks to the Massachusetts Maritime Academy to hear people's thoughts on placing wind turbines on public lands; the first floating wind turbine has been installed; and a new survey finds that a goodly portion of Massachusetts residents are concerned that NIMBYism has impeded the Cape Wind project."

This is an interesting issue.  I live in Massachusetts, and to be honest, I thought the idea of windmills had successfully been killed by the Kennedy family and Walter Cronkite.  I knew the governor was pro windmill, but his popularity has been dropping like a stone, so I am surprised to see him going ahead on this.  I believe moving ahead is a good idea, I guess that's why I'm surprised to see it happening.

Anyway, now the story moves to Washington, D. C.  President Obama is creating The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force, which will make recommendations to the president on protecting ocean and Great Lake resources as they experience "growing demands" from "renewable energy, shipping and aquaculture."  Good grief--more government!!

The link above is to the NPR station blog which deals with the ongoing saga of wind power in Massachusetts.  It points out that there are four other states preparing to set up wind turbines--New York, Texas, Rhode Island, and Delaware.  I strongly suggest you follow the link in the first paragraph of this post and read the entire story.  It looks like we are going to have zones in the ocean just as we do in our cities!

Yesterday the House Democrats unveiled their healthcare proposed.  According to The Hill yesterday:

"Though the Democrats have established a clear target for expanding coverage, they acknowledged that questions remain about how to pay for the bill, which will require a combination of politically difficult cuts to Medicare and Medicaid along with some new taxes. Healthcare bills being written in the Senate have been estimated to cost more than $1 trillion."

One of the problems with the proposed bill is that it will create a government-run healthcare plan that would complete for business with private healthcare insurance companies.  This is basically unfair competition.  The government can set the reimbursement rates on hospital and physician services that are so low that private companies cannot complete with the costs of the government program.  This is not only detrimental to hospitals and physicians, it will eventually drive private health insurance out of business.  This will eventually end competition in the healthcare industry.  Industries without competition have no incentive to become more efficient--instead they generally become bloated and less efficient.

The other aspect of this that is not being discussed is the amount of information the government will have access to about all of us if this bill is passed.  Do you really want the government to know everything about your medical history and current medical problems? 

If you truly want to improve out healthcare, pass tort reform.  Change the way medical lawsuits are handled--bring reason into the courtroom.  That will cut the cost of malpractice insurance and thus cut the cost of medical care for all of us.

We have all heard the news that the destroyer USS John McCain is preparing to intercept a North Korean ship believed to be carrying weapons material they are barred by the UN from transferring.  To anyone over the age of 60, this bears a strong resemblance to the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. 

President John Kennedy met with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev on June 3, 1961.  The meeting did not go well for Kennedy.  Khrushchev took a particularly harsh stance over Berlin--he began erecting the Berlin Wall in August of that year.  He had judged Kennedy a weak President and intended to take full advantage of that fact.  The Soviets placed missiles in Cuba, and the US imposed a naval blockade on Cuba.  On October 24, Russian ships carrying missiles to Cuba turned back, and the world breathed a sigh of relief.  Khrushchev agreed (Oct. 28) to withdraw the missiles and dismantle the missile sites.  The blockade ended on November 20, 1962.  What we didn't know at the time was that a deal had been worked out behind the scenes--the United States, in return, pledged not to invade Cuba, and subsequently secretly removed ballistic missiles it had placed in Turkey.  The American President had been judged as weak, and a crisis followed.

Today, North Korea, believing we will not respond in any meaningful way, is planning to launch a missile in the direction of Hawaii on July 4th.  They are also transporting nuclear material, weapons, or technology in defiance of a UN resolution (again, without any fear of consequences).  I have no idea what our correct response should be.  The world should be grateful that I am not in charge--I think my trigger finger would accidently slip as a approached the ship believed to be carrying the material! 

America cannot protect itself solely by sweet words and apologies.  There is a West African proverb Theodore Roosevelt quoted frequently, "Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far."  Speaking softly is a great idea--but don't forget your stick!!

I have recently reported on the attempted firing of Inspector General Gerald Walpin.  What I was unaware of at the time was that he is the third inspector general to be fired or pressured by the Obama administration in the past two weeks.

According to Ed Morrissey at HotAir.com in an article he posted yesterday, Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa has started demanding answers as to why these 'watchdogs' who are supposed to operate above politics are being strong armed.  These are the three stories:

"The positions themselves indicate where the White House wants to go with its efforts.  Barofsky ruffled feathers in April when his watchdog report showed that the Obama administration had placed insufficient safeguards on Porkulus spending.   This later caused Joe Biden to shrug and tell the media, "Some people are being scammed already," as if it wasn't the job of the administration to stop it from happening.  Barofsky now has a leash around his neck, with the White House insisting that he answers only to Treasury."...

"(Gerald) Walpin stands between the White House and their desire to use AmeriCorps as a reward system for their political allies and to use government money for the kind of "community organizing" that put Obama in the White House. His report to Congress made that difficult in Sacramento, where Mayor Johnson had been blocked from receiving federal grant money for his admitted earlier fraud. Walpin's independence had to be removed, and in this case, Walpin had to be smeared to make it stick.

"The third incident came last week at the International Trade Commission, where Judith Gwynne worked independent of the White House, and which will be a critical position as Obama reshapes trade arrangements around the world. An ITC employee earlier this year "forcibly removed" paperwork from Gwynne. Rather than back the IG after Grassley wrote a letter demanding answers, the political appointees at the ITC dumped her."

It looks as if we have a group of thugs running this administration.  I hope the Congress has enough backbone to rein them in. 

OK.  I admit, I'm an early 'boomer', so this subject hits a little close to home.  The Wall Street Journal ran an article on June 10th about blaming the 'boomers'.  I haven't linked to it because I believe it is on the subscription side of the website, but I will try to condense it for you.

"Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, 60 years old, told the graduating class of Butler University last month that boomers have been "self-absorbed, self-indulgent and all too often just plain selfish."

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, 55, told Grinnell College graduates in Iowa that his was "the grasshopper generation, eating through just about everything like hungry locusts."

And Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet, at 44 barely a boomer himself, told seniors at Colorado College that the national creed of one generation standing on the shoulders of the next was at risk "because our generation has not been faithful enough to our grandparents' example.""

Good grief!!  When are we going to roll up our sleeves, do whatever is necessary, and stop blaming everyone else.  Yes, the boomers were a bunch of selfish, overindulged, self-centered jerks who knew everything--just like a lot of generations before them.  The thing was--there were a whole lot more of them and they formed a major demographic.  You still see evidence of that--oldies stations.  Generally speaking, the oldies stations play music from about 1965 to 1975 or so.  That represents the teenage years of a large part of the boomers.  We are still a scary group demographically.  But let's look at some other aspects of the group.

Boomers in the mid to late 1960's were a very split group.  Because of the draft, the high school graduates in the mid 1960's either went into college or the military.  Our colleges were beginning to lean left at that point--when the USSR fell, it was revealed that there were Soviet agents on our campuses enlisting people in the SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) and other organizations.  It was fashionable on college campuses of the 1960's to hate America.   The graduates that went into the military saw an entirely different world.  Some went to Viet Nam and never really came home (even if they came home physically).  Others got married and struggled in the seventies to keep things together through rising inflation and stagnant wages.  Others discovered drugs and never came home from those experiences. 

Boomers were used to being influencial.  The majority of boomers were idealistic and believed that with love they could create a 'fairer' world.  They had to be competitive because there were a lot of them.  Many of them turned very far left.  I believe our current President has the mindset of an early boomer educated in American colleges in the mid-1960's.  To me, that is not a good thing.

The boomers are not really to blame for anything.  Society accepted our rebellion against its morals and the later boomers carried that rebellion to degrees we never dreamed of.  Human nature seems to always push the envelope--we just steamed it open a little.

Today's Washington Post has some further clarification on the charges against Gerald Walpin.  The charge that he was disoriented and confused stem from a meeting of the Corporation for National and Community Service on May 20.  According to the Washington Times:

"Our witness, a staff member, said the board was hostile and rude. He said the board repeatedly interrupted Mr. Walpin and peppered him with questions on multiple issues. He fully confirmed Mr. Walpin's account that the board excused Mr. Walpin for 15 minutes and that when Mr. Walpin returned to find his notepapers out of order, the board refused to give him time to get them straight." 

The article further points out that an inspector general can only be removed for a specific just cause.  Evidently, there is really no just cause for his firing.  It will be interesting to see how far the Obama administration will go to see this man removed from office.  He essentially got in trouble for blowing the whistle on some very powerful friends of Barack Obama. 

According to Commentary Magazine, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights sent a letter to Loretta King, Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division, demanding an explanation for the Obama Justice Department's dismissal of a default judgment against the New Black Panther Party in connection with a case of  voter intimidation on Election Day on November 4, 2008.  This is the link to the YouTube video of what happened, You Tube.

The article points out:

"It should be noted that Congressman  Lamar Smith (R-TX) has already sent a similar letter to the Justice Department demanding an explanation for the dismissal. It should also be noted that if the Justice Department stonewalls, the Commission does have the right to issue subpoenas and to investigate the matter further. Perhaps the Commission will get to the bottom of this issue and determine who in the Justice Department overrode the decisions of career lawyers and why the Justice Department chose to abandon a successful prosecution of the most egregious case of voter intimidation in recent memory."

The video says it all.  None of the committees in Congress that are supposed to oversee this sort of charge have said a word.  I hope that the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will pursue the case.  I don't want to have to walk past a group of Black Panthers with clubs to vote in 2010. 

Byron York at the Washington Examiner has posted an update on the firing of Gerald Walpin.  Mr. Walpin was a U. S. Inspector General who was investigating AmeriCorps.  President Obama has ordered Mr. Walpin removed from his job in 30 days.  The article reports:

"The questions relate to a letter Eisen sent to some senators Tuesday night attributing Walpin's dismissal, in significant part, to Walpin's behavior at a May 20, 2009 board meeting of the Corporation for National and Community Service, the organization that oversees AmeriCorps.  Eisen wrote that at the meeting, "Mr. Walpin was confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the board to question his capacity to serve." After the meeting, Eisen wrote, Walpin lost the confidence of the Corporation Board.  The White House conducted a review of the matter, and Walpin was fired.  (For a detailed account of Walpin's reaction to the White House charges, see here.)"

There seem to be doubts about the validity of those charges.  Iowa Republican Senator Charles Grassley has stated that Norman Eisen, the White House Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform, has refused to answer a number of questions regarding the firing of Mr. Walpin.  Senator Grassley has sent a letter to White House counsel Gregory Craig stating that questions would be submitted in writing to Mr. Eisen and that Senator Grassley expects a written reply to those questions by June 24.    Please follow the link in the opening paragraph to see those questions.

Inspector Generals are supposed to be independent of politics.  They cannot be fired by the President without cause.  It looks to me as if the lesson the Obama administration is trying to teach is "Do not cross this President".  We have put Chicago politics in the White House.  I truly hope that Mr. Walpin gets a fair hearing on this matter.

Today's Washington Times has a good background article today on what is going on in Iran.  For more current information on the situation, I recommend Pajamas Media--they have a few very well connected people who post there.

The Washington Times reminds us that Mir Hossein Mousavi is not really a reform candidate--he supported the takeover of the U. S. Embassy in 1979, and he was Iran's prime minister when Iran revived its nuclear program.  Although he supported the taking of the Embassy and wanted to end U. S. interference in Iran in the 1970's, he now advocates less confrontation with the West. 

Mr. Mousavi is seen as the proxy candidate for former President Mohammed Khatami and former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.  There is evidently a history of bad feeling between Mr. Rafsanjani and the supreme leader of Iran, which explains the supreme leader's support of Ahmadinejad.  Either Ahmadinejad or Mousavi is seen as being hostile to the United States.

According to the article, many people currently protesting do not support either candidate--they are hoping that the chaos they create will result in the downfall of the mullahs and lead to a pro-Western leader.

I have no idea what is going to happen with this, but there are some things to watch.  The Iranian police are purposely assigned to work in areas away from their homes so that they will shoot protesters if ordered to do so.  If they refuse to shoot, it may be the beginning of freedom for Iran.  It has also been stated that foreign police from Hezbollah (and Venezuela according to some sources) have been called in to keep order because the mullahs do not feel that they can depend on their own police to do what is necessary. 

Power Line has a video of some of the abuse by a policeman.  Note that the policeman is wearing a ski mask.  It is not a pleasant video to watch.  This uprising in being reported on cell phones and the internet--the mullahs have not been able to keep news from getting out--that is a good thing. 

Power Line had a post yesterday about Tim Pawlenty, the Governor of Minnesota.  Minnesota is having the same budget problems that the country (and most Americans) are having--too much going out and too little coming in.  Well, Governor Pawlenty has definitely dealt with the problem.  The Democrats in Minnesota attempted to pass $1 billion in tax increases.  Governor Pawlenty vetoed the increase and his veto was upheld--all Republicans voted to sustain it and two Democrats joined in.  The Democrats then refused to pass a balanced budget (required by law in Minnesota).  Next, according to the article:

"Gov. Tim Pawlenty today announced plans to cut $300 million from aid to local governments, $236 million from health and human services programs, $100 million from higher education and to defer nearly $1.8 billion in payments to K-12 schools as he made good his promise to unilaterally slash spending to balance the state's budget.

Pawlenty's plans would eliminate the $2.7 billion shortfall left after the legislative session that ended last month."

I'm sure there are some people complaining about the cuts, but I am also sure that there are many people cheering them.  As people begin to realize that higher taxes and increased government spending impede economic growth rather than create it, we will need more leaders like Tim Pawlenty.

The Drudge Report has posted a story about an upcoming event at the White House.  This is the link, Drudge Report, but I am not sure how long it will be valid.   On June 24th, ABC News will broadcast its nightly report from the Blue Room of the White House followed by a special program on the President's healthcare proposals.  According to the article, ABC Senior Vice President Kerry Smith stated that:

"ABCNEWS alone will select those who will be in the audience asking questions of the president. Like any programs we broadcast, ABC News will have complete editorial control. To suggest otherwise is quite unfair to both our journalists and our audience."

The word that comes to mind is infomercial.  Whether or not you support an overhaul of our heathcare, this is a use of the media that is simply not appropriate.  There will be no other healthcare proposals discussed, nor will the negative aspects of the President's plan be revealed.  Americans who are still naive enough to believe that ABC is an objective source of news are going to be fed lies as if they were truth.

The Chief of Staff of the Republican National Committee, Ken McKay, has written a letter to the head of ABC News criticizing the absence of any Republican input in the program.  This is not the way to pass bi-partisan legislation.

The Hill posted an article yesterday on the Congressional Budget Office report estimating the cost of President Obama's proposed healthcare plan.  They estimated the cost of a leading healthcare reform proposal at more than $1 trillion, but that figure looked only at a portion of the bill.

The article states:

"The 10-year cost of reform could approach $2 trillion if the projections are made from the date that proposals are fully implemented. While the projected cost for a new system may reach $1.5 trillion for 2010-2019, it could run significantly higher for 2013-2022, as healthcare costs rise steadily each year."

I'm not sure I would be in a hurry to call it reform if it drastically raises the cost of healthcare for Americans instead of decreasing it.  There are also some question as to how many uninsured people would actually become insured people under the new plan.  Remember, many of the uninsured are young people who choose not to pay insurance premiums, financially well off people who have catastrophic benefits, but not regular health insurance, and illegal aliens, who I believe are entitled to medical care when necessary, but not taxpayer funded health insurance. 

Any healthcare proposals put forth need to be examined carefully.  I believe we have paid a high price for passing a stimulus bill that no one had time to read.  Let's not do that again!!

The American Thinker has posted an article by Amil Imani & Dr. Arash Irandoost on the continuing unrest in Iran.  According to the article, this is the actual vote:

However, the turnout was massive, a near record high 85 percent of Iran's 49.2 million eligible voters. Based on the information from Mousavi's website , a group of Interior Ministry employees have leaked out the following results which seem to be closer to reality than the one released by the establishment:

Total eligible: 49.2 Million

Participated in the election: 75% to 85%
Mir Hussein Mousavi: 45%
Mehdi Karoobi: 33%
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: 13%
Mohsen Rezai: 9%

Cancelled votes: 3%

 

I have no way of knowing if these figures are accurate--they came from the person who seems to have lost the election, but the authors of the article feel they are:

 

"It is clear that Mr. Mir Hussein Mousavi won the election by a large margin. Ahmadinejad came out third. But on Friday June 12, 2009, in the Islamic election (selection) something happened. Something beyond what anyone could have ever imagined. Something huge. A daylight coup d'état by the elements of the establishment, particularly, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which the Senate designated as a terrorist organization (with Senator Obama not voting). The clerical leadership in Iran has grown increasingly reliant on the IRGC to help it stave off internal pressure for political and economic reform and external pressure resulting from international concern over Iran's nuclear program."

 

The article also mentions that a Spiegel German reporter in Iran has reported and verified that  the regime has brought many Arab speaking Hizbollah factions from Lebanon to attack the Iranian people.  This is seen by the authors of the article as a sign that the police and law enforcement are becoming less willing to do the mullah's bidding.  That may be a very good sign that the days of the mullahs are numbered--but remember, an animal fights the hardest when it is cornered.

 

Despite the criticism he received for doing it, George Bush stood for democracy.  Now from the American president there is silence.  Real Clear Politics reminded us on November November 24, 2006: 

 

"But even the realists and cynics might concede there has been some benefit, perhaps going back as far as Plymouth Rock, in having one nation standing for the conceit, or even the ideal, that men elsewhere with democratic aspirations could at least count on us for active support. This is the core idea in the Bush Doctrine."

 

America needs to stand for democracy.  We do not need to intervene militarily--but we need to state strongly that we support honest elections in all parts of the world and we do not support protesters being shot.  I am sure there have been pictures taken of the protesters so that they can be identified and dealt with later.  As a country, America needs to speak forcefully against this. 

National Review Online posted an editorial today on the Iranian elections.  Before we get too upset at rigged voting numbers, lets look at how we got the candidates.  According to the article:

"Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, evidently believed that the electoral maneuver could be carried out as usual, according to his sole and uncontested will. He may even believe that he is popular and respected. So an election with the superficial air of a contest was arranged. A field of 475 possible candidates (no women, naturally) was whittled down to Ahmadinejad and three elderly members of the Islamic establishment. Khamenei and Ahmadinejad prepared to coast to victory."

Iran is ruled by the Mullahs--not by the President.  They choose the candidates and run the election.  Mir-Hossein Mousavi may have seemed like the moderate candidate, but a true moderate would not have gotten throught the election process and been allowed to run.

It has been thirty years since the shah was overthrown and the Islamic Republic installed.  That is the last time the kind of unrest we are seeing now was present. 

The article concludes:

  "How far repression will go is unforeseeable, but the regime's misguided manipulation and recourse to violence is a lasting stain. The supreme leader and his president have little choice except to pretend to strength. President Obama should call them on it, lending the opposition his rhetorical support. So far, he has given the impression that he wants the dictatorship to stabilize itself so he can get back to the work of appeasing it. The more Obama extends that hand of his, the likelier the regime is to try to crush its bones."

The young people in Iran are believed to be very pro-western.  This will be a growing problem for the mullahs if they do not deal with it quickly and firmly.  I do not expect the current riots and protests to lead to increased freedom in Iran, I expect we will see a crackdown on opposition to the government similar to what we saw in China in 1989.

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal posted an op-ed by John Fund on the new Congressional management of General Motors.  According to the article:

"Rep. Barney Frank, chair of the House Banking Committee, says his successful intervention to keep a General Motors distribution center open in his Massachusetts district isn't evidence that Congress will have undue influence in running the new 60% government-owned auto company."

Representative Frank stated that since the closing he prevented was not an auto plant or a dealership, this was not likely to happen anywhere else. 

"He said keeping the distribution center open was environmentally sound because otherwise auto parts would have had to be trucked to New England from a facility in Philadelphia. Mr. Frank also waved off a suggestion that the episode proved that rules are needed to stop lawmakers from jawboning to keep plants or dealerships open."

So after he kept something open that was supposed to be closed, he doesn't want rules to stop other lawmakers from doing the same thing.  Hmmm.  

I'm glad the distribution center is staying open--it's local for me and it means people will keep their jobs, but who is running the show?  Dealerships sell cars and create revenue, why are many successful dealerships being shut down?  What is actually going on here?

Today's Washington Times covered the recent speech by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.  In remarks widely viewed as a response to President Barack Obama's recent address to the Muslim world, Prime Minister Netanyahu stated that he would support a Palestinian state with conditions.  The article states:

"Mr. Netanyahu went further than any leader of the Likud party in recognizing the need for a Palestinian state, but he placed two conditions: that the United States gives a guarantee that it remain demilitarized and that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state."

He also stated that Jerusalem must remain undivided and under Israeli rule, rejecting Palestinian claims to the holy city's traditionally Arab eastern section as the future capital of Palestine. 

He called for the Palestinians to sit down at the negotiating table without preconditions. Saeb Erekat, a senior official in the Palestinian Authority, said the conditions outlined by Mr. Netanyahu ended prospect for negotiations.

I doubt that a non-military Palestinian state is possible.  The Palestinians have destroyed the infrastructure of the land they have been given, and they have used the money they have been given to rebuild it to pad foreign bank accounts or buy weapons.  Until the Palestinians start acting like peaceful state trying to help its people move forward, I see no reason to give them statehood. 

The Hill posted an article yesterday concerning the redistricting that will take place between the 2010 and the 2012 Congressional elections.  All members of the House of Representatives have to run for reelection every two years, so the districts that are electing them will be the same in 2010.  According to the article:

"Though many districts are in play, a few will be particularly important the cycle before redistricting, including those of freshman Democratic Reps. Bobby Bright (Ala.), Suzanne Kosmas (Fla.), Ed Teague (N.M.), Betsy Markey (Colo.), John Adler (N.J.) and Dina Titus (Nev.). If Republicans are unable to recapture these districts next year, they could be much harder to win back in the future."

The states control their redistricting, but the national census will determine how many representatives a state will get (based on the population counted in the census).  Remember that ACORN is planning to play a major role in the next census and work closely with the current White House to assure that all people are counted.  That's political speak for using some sampling methods in certain cities to show more people than actually live there.  I really am beginning to worry about the integrity of the election process in the mid-term and next presidential elections.  The fact that voters were intimidated by Black Panthers in Philadelphia and there was no real consequence to the Black Panters for their actions causes me to wonder what comes next.

Democrat congressional leaders have said that they want to pass a healthcare bill before the August recess.  That deadline is approximately six weeks away.  The debate will definitely heat up during that time, and there will be a lot of things left out of the debate by both sides. 

Two of the best articles on the healthcare plans were posted last week at The Heritage Foundation (a conservative group that generally deals in numbers and statistics) and at Townhall.com by Michael Barone (a political writer for U. S. News & World Report).

Michael Barone points out that the government plan will crowd out private health insurance.  He points out:

"We are told that a government insurance plan reduces the amounts spent on health care by using "comparative effectiveness research" -- in other words, by rationing care and limiting options through the use of statistics. Unfortunately, statistics are constantly in flux and do not capture the differing needs of actual patients as well as skillful practitioners can."

He cites three major problems with government healthcare:

1.  How will it be paid for?

2.  Most Americans are satisfied with their health insurance and don't see a government plan as necessary or as an improvement.

3.  The group that overwhelmingly voted for President Obama was the 18 percent of voters that are under 30.  They voted for President Obama by a 66 to 32 percent margin.  They are also the segment of the population that is the least concerned with health insurance.

The Heritage Foundation article talks about the consequences of government healthcare.  The article points out that premiums in a grovernment program would be 25-40 percent lower than private insurance premiums, as the public plan would reimburse providers less than private payers would--and often less than the cost of care delivered.  This would eventually drive out private healthcare.  It would also create financial problems for doctors and hospitals.  The article states:

"More specifically, of the estimated 157.4 million Americans who have private employer coverage, up to 107.6 million people could lose their private employer coverage, even if they like it and would prefer to keep it." 

I strongly suggest reading both articles completely, but here is the closing argument from the Heritage Foundation:

"Discussions surrounding the creation of a new public plan, based on Medicare and intended to compete with private health plans, have not adequately considered the potential consequences for patients and providers." 

The thing to remember as this debate continues is that Congress will not be affected by whatever legislation they pass.  Congress has its own very good healthcare program that is paid for by the taxpayers.  Even as Congress' healthcare gets more expensive due to nationalized healthcare, the taxpayers will continue to fund it.  Congress will not be impacted by the change.  If national healthcare is a nightmare for Americans, Congress will have no incentive to change it--they are not covered under it--just as they have no incentive to properly fund Social Security--they opted out of it in the 1960's (about the same time they started stealing money from it). 

There is an article in Thursday's Washington Examiner by Byron York concerning the firing of Gerald Walpin, the Americorps Inspector General.   This is a story I had not really heard a lot about.  In his letter to Congress firing Mr. Walpin, President Obama claimed that he no longer had confidence in the Inspector General.   A Power Line post this morning sums up the situation.  The Inspector General does not serve at the pleasure of the President--he is expected to be independent.  The core of the story according to the Washington Examiner is:

"The bottom line is that the AmeriCorps IG accused a prominent Obama supporter of misusing AmeriCorps grant money.  After an investigation, the prominent Obama supporter had to pay back more than $400,000 of that grant money.  And Obama fired the AmeriCorps IG."

At first, President Obama tried to force Mr. Walpin to resign.  When Mr. Walpin refused, President Obama sent a letter to Congress informing them that he was firing Walpin, effective 30 days from the date of the letters.  The article futher states:

"(Senator Charles) Grassley (of Iowa) fired off a letter to the president on Thursday saying that, "I was troubled to learn that [Wednesday] night your staff reportedly issued an ultimatum to the AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin that he had one hour to resign or be terminated," Grassley wrote.  "As you know, Inspectors General were created by Congress as a means to combat waste, fraud, and abuse and to be independent watchdogs ensuring that federal agencies were held accountable for their actions.  Inspectors General were designed to have a dual role reporting to both the President and Congress so that they would be free from undue political pressure.  This independence is the hallmark of all Inspectors General and is essential so they may operate independently, without political pressure or interference from agencies attempting to keep their failings from public scrutiny."

Grassley's version of events suggests that the White House first tried to muscle Walpin out of his job without having to go through the 30-day process.  It was only when Walpin refused to resign that the White House then notified Congress of the president's intention to fire Walpin."

This is an obvious abuse of Presidential power.  I am waiting to see it reported on the news.  It occurs to me that I may wait a long time.

Yesterday's Investors' Business Daily posted a commentary on the sale of Chrysler to Fiat.  The Supreme Court last week allowed the sale to proceed.  According to the article:

"Richard Mourdock, Indiana's state treasurer who has been criticized for contesting the terms of the Chrysler bailout, notes that "no critic has ever challenged us on the points of law."

Indiana's pension funds for retired teachers and state police officers were among Chrysler's secured creditors. It has been settled law that secured creditors, as compensation for lending money at rates lower than the borrowing company's condition might justify, are first in line to be paid in the event of bankruptcy.

Indiana's funds and other secured creditors received less per dollar than did an unsecured creditor, the United Auto Workers, which also got 55% ownership of Chrysler. So the government is simultaneously subsidizing Italians and injuring retired Hoosiers.

The Supreme Court has said nothing about "bailout law," a phrase that currently is an oxymoron. America as Bailout Nation is governed by unconstrained executive discretion."

This is one of those seemingly minor incidents that will come back to bite us as a country in the future.  The laws of bankruptcy were blatantly violated.  Secured creditor were paid less per dollar than unsecured creditors.  America's average citizen may not have noticed, but you can bet that Wall Street investors did.  A favored political group was given preference over a non-favored group in a property dispute.  Where is the press?

For the past few days, the news has been obsessed with David Letterman's bad jokes about Sarah Palin.  There are, however, a few underlying things that should be looked at.  David Letterman's jokes come from a group of writers.  A number of people see them before they go out over the airwaves.  Didn't anyone think it was inappropriate to say that the governor of a state looked like a slut?  Didn't anyone think attacking the child of a political figure was off limits?  But even aside from that, there are other things to be looked at in this.  Sarah Palin came to the defense of her child.  Any mother worth her salt would be expected to do that, but where were her fellow politicians with families who expect their children to be off limits to the press and to tasteless jokes? 

Where was the Republican party to say that the media stepped over a line?  If this remark had been made about Chelsea Clinton, would Bill and Hillary be the only ones responding?  I am a conservative before I am a Republican--I don't blindly support Republican candidates or the party, nor do I make a point of endlessly criticizing them, but they missed the boat on this one.  Michael Steele needs to be on every channel for two days reminding people how classless David Letterman's jokes were.  He needs to be standing up for Sarah Palin.  Where was he?

According to the American Thinker, Australia's Connor Court Publishing is getting ready to publish a new book about the myth of global warming.  The name of the book is The Climate Caper.  The article describes the author as follows:

"Emeritus Professor Garth Paltridge is an atmospheric physicist and was a Chief Research Scientist with the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research before taking up positions in Tasmania as Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies and CEO of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre. He retired in 2002 and continues to live in Hobart. He is an Honorary Research Fellow at the University of Tasmania and a Visiting Fellow at the Australian National University."

According to The Hill:

"The House agreed to the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act on a 307-97 vote. The bill, sent to Obama on Friday, empowers the FDA to regulate tobacco products. Obama is expected to sign it."

Technically, I don't have a horse in this race--I don't smoke and never did--but I wonder about the wisdom of allowing the FDA to regulate tobacco.  Are we on the way to making tobacco illegal?  Are the 'green' people going to come up with some sort of vegetable people can smoke who want to continue their smoking habit?  What about the fact that the government makes more money from the sale of a pack of cigarettes than the tobacco company does?  How is the government going to replace that revenue?  Tobacco Subsidies in United States totaled $530 million from 1995-2005, what happens to that money?  Does it continue?

As you can see, I have more questions than answers.  Admittedly, smoking is not necessarily a positive habit, but this law represents another limitation of personal freedom coming down the road.  Can trans fat be far behind?  When do I have to give up my ice cream?  What about moose munch?  Where will we draw the line?

According to The Hill today:

"Senators who oversee the $700 billion Wall Street rescue package held stocks in many of the banks bailed out towards the end of last year, according to financial disclosure reports released Friday.

According to the reports detailing senators' finances in 2008, nearly half of the members of the Senate Banking Committee had holdings in financial institutions that have taken funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). The panel has jurisdiction over the bailout fund and other relief efforts directed by federal regulators to save the nation's financial system."

This should enrage every taxpayer in America!!!  Our tax money was used to bail out banks that (surprise!) the Senators overseeing the program owned stock in.  Please read the article for names and numbers.  Any Senator who owns stock in a bank that he voted to bail out should be voted out of office as soon as possible.  It's time for term limits on all elected officials and for a closer examination of the ethics of the people we elect.

According to Bloomberg.com today, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel has announced that the health-care overhaul legislation being drafted by House Democrats will include $600 billion in tax increases and $400 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid,  The measure's cost is reaching well beyond the $634 billion President Barack Obama proposed in his budget request to Congress as a 10-year down payment for the policy changes.  According to the article:

"Asked whether the cost of a health-care overhaul would be more than $1 trillion over a decade, Rangel said, "the answer is yes." Some Senate Republicans, including Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, say the costs will likely exceed $1.5 trillion."

The healthcare legislation that the Democrats are putting together would require all Americans to have health insurance, prohibit insurers from refusing to cover pre-existing conditions and place other restrictions on the industry.

The article concludes:

"Rangel said that while House Democrats will likely release more details about health policy changes in their legislation next week, the package of offsetting tax increases and spending cuts likely will come later. Democrats, he said, want to put forth the more-positive aspects of an overhaul first. Rangel also wants to let lawmakers have time to study and weigh in on proposed offsets.

"We have a problem in not wanting to attract enough negative attention to the bill in terms of the pay-fors," he said. "Let them get a good feel for the coverage.""

National healthcare is not a good idea.  The government is not known for its efficiency or its fairness.  National healthcare will result in rationing.  Senior citizens and people with any sort of ongoing medical condition will not have access to the quality of care that they have access to today.  National healthcare with its government controlled pricing structure will also seriously slow down medical research.  If we accept national healthcare, we will be trading the Cadillac of healthcare for a yugo.  That is not a good idea. 

The New York Daily News is reporting that a New York judge has refused to block the takeover of the New York Senate by Republicans.  The Republicans attempted to meet today, but adjourned until Monday because only two Democrats showed up.  According to the article:

"The new leaders said they couldn't conduct business because the Democrats locked away all the bills and other documents.

They also didn't have the needed 32 votes to pass a bill because one of the dissident Democrats, Sen. Hiram Monserrate of Queens, said he won't vote on anything until more Democrats join the session.

The abbreviated session began after Supreme Court Justice George Ceresia rejected a request from Democrats to delay the takeover - but agreed to hear more arguments."

The Governor of New York has stated that he will work with the Senate's elected leaders.  Stay tuned.

According to Power Line, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution held hearings yesterday on the legal, moral and national security consequences of "prolonged detention" of terrorist suspects.  Richard Klingler, who served in the Bush administration from 2005-2007, first in the Office of White House Counsel and then as General Counsel on the National Security staff, testified before the committee yesterday. 

The article at Power Line summarizes his testimony to the committee.  It is long and complicated and should be read in its entirety, but I will attempt to highlight it here.  Mr. Klingler stated:

"The lawfulness of ongoing detention of enemy combatants is clear and well-established. In short, such detention is a lawful incident of war, authorized whenever the exercise of war powers is proper. The Supreme Court has reached this conclusion for this specific conflict. The current Administration has correctly argued that "[l]ongstanding law-of-war principles recognize that the capture and detention of enemy forces are important incidents of war," that our enemies are not confined to fixed battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that Congress has through the AUMF authorized ongoing detention."

If detention is outsourced, prisoners would not be treated as well and might be released prematurely.  This has already happened with Guantanamo prisoners who have been caught or killed on the battlefield after their release.  The head of Al Qaeda in Yemen is a former Guantanamo inmate.

The article further points out:

"We should resist the return to pre-9/11 practice that exclusive reliance on criminal proceedings would reflect. We do not want to leave terrorists in the field, or send them there, simply because U.S. forces have not gathered evidence of past wrongdoing, admissible in court and provable "beyond a reasonable doubt." We want them off the battlefield sooner, and to stay off longer. As the President says, we need "tools. . .to allow us to prevent attacks.""

We have an obligation to protect our soldiers as much as possible from terrorist attacks, and to protect our civilian population from a repeat of anything like 9/11.  There is no easy answer to the problem of what to do with terrorists except to handle it thoughtfully and proceed with caution.

Tuesday's Investor's Business Daily ran an editorial about how the statewide healthcare system is working in Oregon.  The statewide healthcare plan has been in operation since 1993.  The Health Services Commission has a list of 680 treatments, only 503 of which will be paid for by the Oregon Health Plan.  Treatments not in the top 503 have to be paid for by the patient.  The article points out that therapy for a cracked rib (No. 512), nasal polyps (No. 524), a broken big toe (No. 527) and liver cancer (No. 575) are not covered by the plan. However, those who abuse or are dependent upon psychoactive substances or are dependent on tobacco (Nos. 5 and 6) are covered.  As the system continues to operate, the ranking of treatments changes according to cost considerations.

Concerning the goal of the plan:

"According to the Willamette Week, Oregon's program was designed "to broaden eligibility to the working poor" but not as an open-ended system that could be exploited. Reasonable limits -- "no more liver transplants for alcoholics or boob jobs for transsexuals," were part of the plan from the beginning."

As the plan progresses, costs get higher and life-saving medical procedures move further down the top 503 list, and people are denied the healthcare they need.  The article concludes:

"Rationing should never be conducted by a bureaucracy, particularly one that's heavily lobbied. But we are rapidly moving into the realm, as one of our readers has noted, of the veterinary ethic of health care. In this arrangement, a third party, not the patient, decides if the patient will receive treatment.

In a government-run system, we will all become dogs, awaiting the master's decision from Washington. Human lives are devalued and individual well-being is subordinated to the collective. America is too prosperous, and most Americans are too self-reliant to deserve the punishment of such an arrangement."

To my knowledge, there is no system of government-controlled healthcare that innovates and meets the needs of the people as well as the one we have in America now.  It is not perfect, but a complete government overhaul will only make it worse.

According to the Washington Times today, Palau (one of a handful of countries that does not recognize China and maintains diplomatic relations with Taiwan) agreed to accept the17 Uighurs that have been housed in Guantanamo since being captured in a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan.  Palau is a former U.S. trust territory in the Pacific that became independent in 1994 when it signed a Free Compact of Association with the U.S.  While it is independent, it relies heavily on U.S. aid and is dependent on the United States for its defense. Native-born Palauans are allowed to enter the United States without passports or visas.

The article points out:

"Two U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the U.S. was prepared to give Palau up to $200 million in development, budget support and other assistance in return for accepting the Uighurs and as part of a mutual defense and cooperation treaty that is due to be renegotiated this year."

These people may be as pure as the wind-driven snow, but the fact remains that they were captured in Afghanistan in a terrorist training camp.  Shouldn't we be thinking about why they were there and what the learned during their stay? 

National Review posted an article today about the Supreme Court allowing the sale of Chrysler to Fiat to proceed.  The article notes:

"It should be noted that Chrysler's unions, unsecured creditors who jumped to the head of the line thanks to White House power play, did not give an inch on their base pay or pension terms."

I am really sorry to see this happen.  Bankruptcy laws clearly state that secured creditors have to be paid in full before anyone else is compensated.  The Indiana pension funds, who were secured creditors, did make a very good case when they wrote to the Supreme Court:

"The public is watching and needs to see that, particularly when the system is under stress, the rule of law will be honored and an independent judiciary will properly scrutinize the actions of a massively powerful executive branch."

The rule of law was not honored, and I am hoping that this is an isolated incident rather than the beginning of a trend. 

As the Weekly Standard reports today that the Obama administration is granting Miranda rights to detainees in Afghanistan, we need to look at some of the history of nonuniformed enemy combatants.

According to the Wall Street Journal on April 11 of this year, the Somali pirates capture of the Maersk Alabama this year created a legal problem for the current administration.  The article explains the history involved in the treatment of what are referred to as latrunculi ("the common enemies of mankind").

"Though they don't often employ the term, many legal experts agree that al Qaeda fighters are latrunculi -- hardly distinguishable by their actions from pirates and the like. Robert Kogod Goldman, an American University law professor has commented: "I think under any standard, the captured al Qaeda fighters simply do not meet the minimum standards set out to be considered prisoners of war." And according to Marc Cogen, a professor of international law at Ghent University in Belgium, "no 'terrorist organization' thus far has been deemed a combatant under the laws of armed conflict." Thus al Qaeda members "can be punished for all hostile acts, including the killing of soldiers, because they have no right to participate directly in hostilities." But the Obama administration is about to extend legal rights -- intended to protect civilians -- to the very latrunculi who want to blow them up by considering the possibility of trying them in U.S. courts. Indeed, Attorney General Holder did not rule out trying the Somali pirates."

The Weekly Standard points out:

"But Republicans on Capitol Hill are not happy. "When they mirandize a suspect, the first thing they do is warn them that they have the 'right to remain silent,'" says Representative Pete Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. "It would seem the last thing we want is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other al-Qaeda terrorist to remain silent. Our focus should be on preventing the next attack, not giving radical jihadists a new tactic to resist interrogation--lawyering up."

According to Mike Rogers, that is precisely what some human rights organizations are advising detainees to do. "The International Red Cross, when they go into these detention facilities, has now started telling people -- 'Take the option. You want a lawyer.'"

Rogers adds: "The problem is you take that guy at three in the morning off of a compound right outside of Kabul where he's building bomb materials to kill US soldiers, and read him his rights by four, and the Red Cross is saying take the lawyer -- you have now created quite a confusion amongst the FBI, the CIA and the United States military. And confusion is the last thing you want in a combat zone.""

This is not the correct way to deal with terrorism, and I suspect the policy will be scrapped very quickly if this country is attacked.  One commentator I recenty heard pointed out that in World War II any enemy not wearing a uniform captured on or near the battlefield was immediately shot as a spy.  I think this is rather drastic (but effective), but I also think that reading terrorists their Miranda rights is rather drastic. 

On April 29 of this year, The Hill commented on a provision in a Federal Aviation Administration bill that had failed to be included in the bill.  The provision would have made it easier for employees of FedEx to unionize.  Only a fraction of FedEx's more than 290,000 employees and independent contractors belong to unions, while more than half of UPS's 425,000 employees are unionized.  UPS is hoping that a unionized FedEx will provide less competition than it currently does.  The article points out:

"Because FedEx started out as an airline, FedEx Express is covered by the Railroad Labor Act (RLA), which only allows unions to organize on a national basis. Because airlines tend to ship a higher percentage of goods across state lines, Congress saw an interest in preventing local unions from disrupting interstate commerce."

This issue will show up again shortly.  According to a June 8, 2009 article in Business Week, which portrayed FedEx as anti-union:

"Twice in the past three months, in testimony by FedEx CEO Fred Smith before Congress and in a filing with the Securities & Exchange Commission, Memphis-based FedEx has said its future Boeing (BA) 777 jet orders are contingent upon its workers remaining governed by the RLA.

The political spat in Washington comes at a time when both companies are facing serious financial troubles amid the global recession. In its latest earnings announcement, FedEx said revenues in the quarter ending Feb. 28 fell 14%, to $8.14 billion, with income plunging 72%, to $182 million. FedEx Express was a particularly dark spot, where operating profits dropped 90%. Meanwhile, at UPS, revenue in the quarter ended Mar. 31 fell 14% to $10.9 billion, with operating profits down 20%, to $718 million."

Frankly, I think that unless Congress wants to see the economy further decline, they need to keep their hands off FedEx. 

Today's New York Post has an article further explaining what happened in the New York State Senate yesterday.  The Republicans, at least temporarily, have taken control and restored Senate Minority Leader Dean Skelos (R-LI) to the post of majority leader.  According to the article:

"The action throws the fate of nearly every item on Paterson's agenda -- from same-sex marriage to ethics reform to mayoral control in schools -- in doubt just two weeks before the Legislature is scheduled to begin its summer recess.

Without a clear Senate leader, all action in the chamber will grind to a halt. Paterson defiantly said he would continue to recognize Smith as majority leader until the issue is resolved in the courts."

I don't know enough about the Senate rules to know if this is legal, but it sure is interesting!  The article states:

"While they controlled the floor, the Republicans quickly pushed through a package of rules that would, among other things, submit legislative leaders to term limits and require fair distribution of member items and legislative staff.

Even Mayor Bloomberg, a longtime ally of the Senate GOP, was stunned.

"I talked to the governor for two seconds earlier," Bloomberg told reporters. "He was as floored as I was; he didn't know any more then I did.""

I will admit I like the term limits part.

According to yesterday's New York Times:

"One source of contention among Democrats recently has been Mr. Smith's support for same-sex marriage. Senator Rubén Díaz Sr., a Democrat from the Bronx, has been outspoken in his insistence that legislation allowing gay couples to marry not be allowed to come to a vote. Some had speculated he might leave the Democratic Party if Mr. Smith were to allow a vote.

But Mr. Díaz did not join Mr. Espada and Mr. Monserrate in the leadership vote on Monday. It was not immediately clear whether the same-sex marriage legislation played any role in the leadership dispute."

Hmmm.  I do have one observation on this.  The Democratic Party is made up of a lot of different groups with varying ideas.  Historically the southern Democrats  are more conservative than northern Republicans.  In New York State, Democrats have traditionally been more conservative than Republicans--contrast Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan with Republican John Lindsey.  Obviously, that is not always the case, but I wonder if the liberal agenda of Governor Paterson was a problem for the two Senators who joined with the Republicans.

Today's Wall Street Journal has an article this morning on President Obama's claim that the stimulus package has saved or created 150,000 jobs.  That is quite an accomplishment since only 5 percent of the stimulus money has been spent.  It it also an amazing figure when you realize that the current unemployment rate is 9.4 percent.  We were told that if we passed the stimulus package, it would not increase over 8 percent.  Ooops.  The article points out:

"You created a situation where you cannot be wrong," said the Montana Democrat (Senator Max Baucus). "If the economy loses two million jobs over the next few years, you can say yes, but it would've lost 5.5 million jobs. If we create a million jobs, you can say, well, it would have lost 2.5 million jobs. You've given yourself complete leverage where you cannot be wrong, because you can take any scenario and make yourself look correct."

It would be nice if the news media would take a close look at these numbers and investigate their source.  If they cannot find a source for these numbers, the numbers should be exposed at the propaganda they are.

Tony Fratto, a senior member of the White House communications shop during the George Bush administration, has stated, "You would think that any self-respecting White House press corps would show some of the same skepticism toward President Obama's jobs claims that they did toward President Bush's tax cuts. But I'm still waiting." 

The New York Post is reporting that this afternoon the Republicans took control of the New York State Senate away from the Democrats.  Evidently two dissident Democrats decided to form a coalition with the Republicans.  This must have been interesting.  The Post reports:

"Democrats tried to leave the chamber at one point -- even turning off the lights briefly before order was restored.

"Democrats said they plan to take the fight to court.

"In a statement sent out by Smith's office, a spokesman called the move "illegal and unlawful"

"Nothing has changed, Senator Malcolm A. Smith remains the duly elected Temporary President and Majority Leader," the spokesman added. "The real Senate Majority is anxious to get back to governing, and will take immediate steps to get us back to work.""

I have no idea what the legal ramifications of this event are, but these events need to be followed to see how the courts will rule.  Evidently the revolt was the result of dissatisfaction with Senator Smith, who is the majority leader.  It will be interesting to see what happens next.

The (Canada) National Post published an article on May 12, 2009, regarding the success of wind power in Denmark.  The conclusions drawn were not what you might expect.  Michael Trebilcock, a Professor of Law and Economics, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, wrote the article.  The bottom line is very simple according to Professor Trebilcock:

"Next time readers see an ad from Vestas inviting them to "Believe in the wind," they should ask themselves: If wind power has no significant impact on the problem we are trying to solve (i. e., CO2 emissions); if wind power costs two to three times as much as conventional sources of energy; if wind power kills twice as many jobs as it creates through its higher costs (except in the home countries of the major wind turbine manufacturers), then why would any right-minded person accept this invitation? We should also ask our politicians this question."

Vestas, the world's largest wind turbine manufacturer, is based in Denmark.  They have a market share of their industry of between 20 and 25 per cent.  The article points out:

"Most wind turbines run at about 25% of rated capacity, requiring back-up generation for the balance of the time. And because of their unpredictability, they require spinning reserves all the time, while conventional forms of electricity generation typically run at 75% to 95% of capacity utilization." 

The article also points out that data from the International Energy Agency shows that the cost of residential electricity in Denmark in 2007 was US34¢ per kWh -- the highest in Europe.  Denmark has yet to close a single fossil fuel plant and requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power's unpredictability, and that pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% percent in 2006 alone).

The article futher states:

"...Denmark is heavily dependent on 728 local combined heat and power (CHP) plants which depend on fossil fuels. Energy statistics from the Danish Energy Agency for 2007 suggest that comparing changes between 1994 and 2007, coal production has fallen by 40% while natural gas production has increased by 203%. While proponents of wind power point to the 20% of Denmark's electricity output met by wind power, they downplay, for example, that in 2004, 70% of Danish wind power was exported to Sweden, Norway and Germany, typically at a substantial loss, and that wind power accounted for only 6% of Danish consumption. In turn, Denmark imported significant quantities of hydro and nuclear generated power from Sweden, Germany and Norway. Thus, any sensible reading of these numbers renders it implausible that Danish wind power has displaced significant amounts of fossil fuel generation. To the extent that CO2 emissions from Danish electricity generation declined at all, this is as much attributable to hydro and nuclear imports as to wind power."

There are some things to be considered as we search for alternative energy.  Man has been looking for the 'perpetual motion machine' since time began; we need to realize that the machine does not exist.  Alternative energy is a good idea, but let's look at its track record before we decide how much we want to depend on it.

According to The Hill, the corruption trial of former Representative William Jefferson's (D-La.) is scheduled to being on Tuesday (two years after he was charged).  According to the article, Jefferson's attorneys will make the case that the bribe he took was not a bribe because it related to private business.

"The attorneys argue that the $100,000 Jefferson allegedly received in exchange for promoting donors' business interests in the U.S. and Africa, including $90,000 found in his freezer, was not illegal because his dealings were related to private business and were not "official" in nature."

There evidently is some basis for this argument based on a prior case:

"D.C. Police Detective Nelson Valdes accepted $400 from an uncover FBI informant in exchange for acquiring vehicle registration and arrest warrant information from a restricted police database. An en banc panel voted 7-5 to overturn an original conviction, finding that the government failed to show that Valdes had committed an "official act" within the meaning of the gratuities statute when he searched the police databases."

There is also the issue of the $90,000 the police found in Representative Jefferson's freezer in his Washington home.  I understand that under the laws of this country you are innocent until proven guilty, but logically this just doesn't look good.

According to the American Thinker, the International Conference On Climate Change met in Washington, D. C., this week.  The article at American Thinker is very complex and very scientific, so I really can't do it justice here.  I will try to highlight a few points, but I strongly suggest you click on the link and read the entire article for yourself.  Here is my feeble attempt to summarize.   MIT's Richard Lindzen was one of the speakers.

"Lindzen explained why the process behind the U.N's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) claim of man's responsibility for the warming since 1954 is "an embarrassment." First they created a number of models which could not "reasonably simulate known patterns of natural behavior (such as El Niño (ENSO), the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO)), claiming that such models nonetheless accurately depicted natural internal climate variability."  Then, when those models failed to replicate the warming episode from the mid seventies through the mid nineties, they proclaimed it proof that "forcing was necessary and that the forcing must have been due to man."  And they relied upon those same "existing poorly performing models" which are fraught with "errors in the feedback factors" to make their argument that "sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 could be anything from 1.5 to 5°C based on the claimed range of results from different models.""

The article further explains:

"When Solar expert Willie Soon took the stage, he insisted that CO2 is not an "air pollutant," but rather food for plants and marine life.  And that its atmospheric levels are controlled by temperature and other biological/chemical variables -- not the other way around (quipped the astrophysicist: Lung Cancer does not cause smoking). But most of all, a magical CO2 knob for controlling weather and climate simply does not exist." 

 

"Anthony Watts, editor of the fabulous WUWT (WattsUpWithThat), reported the latest data in his ongoing evaluation of highly-critical upstream temperature data collection - and the results are nothing less than startling. His team found more than half of the 1,221 stations audited to be inaccurate by at least 2°C. These discrepancies were attributed to various data corrupting violations, including stations located on dark albedo gravel or directly in proximity to hot AC exhaust (both of which bias readings to the upside)." 

The New York Times is reporting today that yesterday three Indiana State Funds asked the Supreme Court to delay the sale of Chrysler to Fiat.  According to the article:

"The three Indiana funds, which represent teachers and police officers, have sought greater compensation for their portion of Chrysler's $6.9 billion in secured debt. They have also argued that the Obama administration illegally used federal bailout money earmarked for financial institutions to help Chrysler."

The issue here is the secured debt.  The government is trying to pressure those who hold secured bonds to accept less than the value of the bonds so that other creditors can be paid.  We need to remember that 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.  To do anything else is a violation of the US Constituion and its rules on private property rights.

The article further states:

"Last week, Judge Arthur J. Gonzalez of United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District in New York approved the sale to Fiat, overruling more than 300 objections. He later agreed to shorten a customary 10-day stay of the sale to four days, though the Court of Appeals stayed the transaction pending its hearing.

When Chrysler emerges from bankruptcy, a union retiree trust is to own 55 percent, Fiat a 20 percent share that could eventually grow to 35 percent and the United States and Canadian governments minority stakes."

Anything the government wants to rush through quickly needs to be examined carefully.  The sale of Chysler to Fiat needs to looked at very carefully to make sure all the applicable laws are followed. 

The Hill today posted an article on Sarah Palin's visit to Auburn, New York.  They estimated the crowd at 20,000.  They reported the part of her speech dealing with big government:

"Alaskans get tired of hearing that Washington bureaucrats know what's best for us so we push and we fight and we challenge decision made inside the beltway when they're not in our country's best interest," she said. "And we know decisions being made lately are not in our country's best interest."

She was loudly cheered after that statement.  As I previously reported, she was very warmly received, and I believe she has a role to play in the redesign of the Republican party.   This was not a local crowd--people had driven for many hours for the sole purpose of hearing her speak.  Regardless of how the press feels about her or how they report on her statements and activities, she is a rising star in the Republican party.

Blogging has been a bit sporatic this weekend because I am at a family wedding which took place in Aurora, New York.  Not knowing the area at all and not knowing exactly where many of the festivities would take place, I booked a hotel on the internet in a town called Auburn, New York.  I had no idea of the adventure that awaited.

When my husband and I drove into Auburn on Friday afternoon we noticed a hugh American flag hanging from a building a few doors away from where we were staying.  Being curious types, after we checked into the motel, we went for a walk to investigate.  Auburn was celebrating its first Founder's Day with special guest speaker Sarah Palin, and we were staying two buildings away from the event!

Because we didn't have to be at any wedding-related events until Saturday afternoon, we decided to hang around town and see Sarah Palin.  We managed to get our portable chairs fairly close to the podium.  There were an awful lot of people who came to town to see Sarah Palin.  We met people from Michigan and Ohio who had driven here specifically to see her and hear her speak.  There were a few thousand people who cheered for her when she was introduced and listened to what she had to say.

She was warmly welcomed by the people of Auburn and she warmly greeted them.  She had a very genuine connection with people when she spoke and was loudly cheered by the crowd.  I'm not sure what she represents to the crowd, but they saw something they liked.  I don't know what the local politics are, but the enthusiam and positive feelings I saw today in people listening to Sarah Palin give me hope that there are still people out there who want less government and lower taxes.

And, oh yeah.  The bride was beautiful, the groom was handsome, and everything about the reception was fantastic!!!

The Hill reported yesterday that the Democrats are considering sanctions against some Republican members of the House Intelligence Subcommittee for leaking classified information.  This is the latest food fight over the 'enhanced interrogation' techniques.  According to the article:

"Following Schakowsky's Thursday hearing, Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.), a member of the subcommittee, said he left the hearings further believing that controversial interrogation methods have been effective.
 
"The hearing did address the enhanced interrogation techniques that have been much in the news lately," Kline told The Hill. "Based on what I heard and the documents I have seen, I came away with a very clear impression that we did gather information that did disrupt terrorist plots.""

The Democrat's complaint is that it was a classified briefing and a closed hearing and that by talking to THE HILL after the hearing, the Republicans were leaking classified information.  The Central Intelligence Agency has declined to comment. 

Would the Congress please grow up and stop fighting with itself.

Today is the 65th anniversary of the landing on the beaches of France by the Allied Armies.  General Dwight Eisenhower chose to go on that day because the weather reports showed that day as the only possible window in a stormy period.  He met with his troops before the invasion to talk to them and send them off with prayers and well wishes.  He composed a letter to be read in case the invasion failed.  The letter took full responsibility for that failure if it occurred.  Because of the leadership of Dwight Eisenhower and the courage of the American, Canadian, and British troops, we are free today to do our Saturday errands, enjoy our children, and generally live our lives in freedom.

Just a quick personal note about D Day.  My father was one of the soldiers who landed on Utah beach.  He never talked much about his wartime experiences, but there are two things I remember from talking to him.  When the Allied troops landed on Utah Beach, they had been blown off course by the winds and heavy surf.  Because of that, they encountered less resistence from the Germans and were able to more forward more quickly than they might have otherwise moved.  The other thing he mentioned was the total secrecy surrounding the invasion.  There were cardboard tanks placed in England to make it look as if they were going ashore at Calais (which was the closest point to England).  Everything was top secret--but the payday before the invasion, they were paid in French francs!!! 

According to today's Wall Street Journal, President Obama is expected to name Kenneth Feinberg as the pay czar for the Treasury Department.  Mr. Feinberg will be in charge of overseeing the pay and bonuses paid to corporations that receive Troubled Asset Relief Plan (TARP) money.   According to the article:

"The Obama administration earlier this year issued guidelines that include limiting salary for top executives at some firms receiving TARP funds and requiring that additional pay be in the form of restricted stock, vesting only after the company repays its debt, with interest, to the government. Congress then chimed in with even tougher rules curbing bonuses for top earners at firms receiving TARP money. As part of that effort, lawmakers barred those firms from paying top earners bonuses that equal more than a third of their total compensation."

The fact that the government has any say in what anyone in the private sector receives as pay or bonuses is troubling to me.  There will be no appeal of the decisions made by the "Pay Czar".  Right now, this is only supposed to apply to companies that took TARP money, but I am convinced that we will see it extended to all companies in the near future.

Charles Krauthammer has an interesting article at Townhall.com regarding the Israeli settlements.  He points out the irony of the fact that after President Obama made such a point of saying to the Arab countries that America would no longer tell other countries what to do, he is telling Israel what to do concerning the settlements on the West Bank.  In his usual concise way, Charles Krauthammer points out:

"Over the last decade, the U.S. government has understood that any final peace treaty would involve Israel retaining some of the close-in settlements -- and compensating the Palestinians accordingly with land from within Israel itself.

That was envisioned in the Clinton plan in the Camp David negotiations in 2000, and again at Taba in 2001. After all, why turn towns to rubble when, instead, Arabs and Jews can stay in their homes if the 1949 armistice line is shifted slightly into the Palestinian side to capture the major close-in Jewish settlements, and then shifted into Israeli territory to capture Israeli land to give to the Palestinians?"

Why has the State Department of President Obama refused to endorse these agreements or even say it will honor them?  The represents a definite change in American policy toward Israel.  The policy of this administration on the settlements is 'no growth at all'--if a child is born in the settlements, someone has to move out in order for that child to live there.  This is not practical.

The article also points out:

"In the 16 years since the Oslo accords turned the West Bank and Gaza over to the Palestinians, their leaders -- Fatah and Hamas alike -- built no schools, no roads, no courthouses, no hospitals, no institutions that would relieve their people's suffering. Instead they poured everything into an infrastructure of war and terror, all the while depositing billions (from gullible Western donors) into their Swiss bank accounts."

Until the above situation changes, a two-state solution is a pipe dream.  All we would be doing by setting up a Palestinian state under the current conditions would be to establish a diplomatically recognized terrorist state.

Today's Washington Times has an op-ed piece titled, "Immaturity In Power".   The article makes some interesting points in its description of immaturity in the current 'political class':

"Current examples are all too numerous. Much of the present global financial crisis was caused by the issuance of too much debt by both governments and by private players. A mature thinker would understand that part of the solution must be a reduction in debt, and only an immature mind would advocate the creation of mountains of new and almost never-ending debt - yet this is precisely what the majority of the political class in the United States and many other countries is doing in issuing many trillions of dollars of new government debt."

The article cites the consequences of the massive debt the government has recently incurred.   Stanford University economics professor John B. Taylor has shown how the proposed additional U.S. government debt could cause 100 percent inflation over the next few years, which means most people will see their real standard of living fall as prices double.  The obvious solution for the immature members of the political class is to raise taxes, but in order to cover the debt, taxes would have to be raised 60 per cent.  This would kill any incentive to grow the economy by the private sector.

The article lists some other aspects of the immaturity in our political class.  The move by the countries with high taxes on corporations to go after revenues earned in low-taxed countries is another example of this trait.  Rather than act responsibly with their own economic system, they attack the people who are successful because of wise tax policies.

Bloomberg.com reported yesterday that Microsoft Corp. Chief Executive Officer Steven Ballmer said that if President Obama's tax plan to impose higher taxes on U. S. companies overseas profits goes through Congress, Microsoft would move some employees offshore.  The idea of President Obama's plan is to increase corporate revenue into the U. S. Treasury by changing the tax policies on U. S. business operating overseas.  There are, however, a few things that need to be considered.  Businesses are in business to make a profit.  If taxes on a business are increased, the business will either find a way to avoid those taxes or they will pass the cost of those tax increases on to the consumer.

There are two possible end results on changes to the tax laws concerning companies doing business overseas.  The first is that U. S. companies such as Microsoft will move jobs out of this country into other countries.  The second is that the companies affected by the changes in the tax code will simply charge more for their products, causing a possible reduction in sales.  Both actions result in less, not more, money coming into the treasury.  I think the Obama Administration needs to rethink this.

Today's American Thinker has a few numbers on the cost of healthcare and where the increases in costs have been coming from.  President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) released a study listing several benefits that would result from lowering the annual growth rate of health care spending by 1.5 percentage points, including:

•    Increase gross domestic product by 8 percent in 2030
•    Increase family income by $10,000
•    Reduce unemployment by 500,000 people per year

Just for the record, there is no basis for these numbers.  According to the article:

"All of the benefits that the CEA attributes to President Obama's health care plans are based on nothing but a political "goal."  The bogus study released by the CEA simply assumes that President Obama will reduce health care spending increases by 1.5 percent per year, then lists pages of resulting benefits for the unquestioning media to report."

Wow.  If I ran my household this way...   However, some of the study's numbers are accurate.  The study notes that the share of U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) devoted to health care almost doubled between 1980 and 2007.   During the same time frame, the share of health care spending paid for by the government increased by 10.1 percent, while the share paid for privately decreased by 7.3 percent.   This is an indication that when the government begins to pay for something it gets more expensive (for a further example look at the rise of college tuition in relation to the availability of student loans!).

The transferring of healthcare from the private sector to the public sector will have a negative impact on the income of all working Americans who pay taxes.  It will also slow down economic growth in general.  Rather than helping end the current recession, it will prolong it and make it more difficult to maintain a healthy economy in the future.
 

USA Today has posted an article stating that one out of every six dollars earned by Americans is from the government.  This income amounts to 16.2 % of personal income during the first quarter of 2009.  That is the highest percentage since record keeping began in 1929.  This includes all government benefit programs--Social Security, food stamps, medical benefits, and unemployment insurance. 

The article states that:

"In all, government spending on benefits will top $2 trillion in 2009 -- an average of $17,000 provided to each U.S. household, federal data show. Benefits rose at a 19% annual rate in the first quarter compared to the last three months of 2008."

That is not sustainable.  There has been a $209 billion increase in government benefit costs from a year ago.  Part of the problem is that we have reached the tipping point where more than 50% of Americans do not pay any income tax.  Therefore, there is no incentive among voters to rein in spending.  If this trend continues, prosperity and the American dream will become a distant memory.

According to today's The Hill, the first draft of the Democrat plan to reform healthcare will be unveiled next week.  According to the article:

"The legislation will certainly include a federally run public plan that would provide health benefits in competition with private insurance,

"The proposal is anathema to Republicans but Kennedy favors the public plan and Obama's letter emphasized his insistence on it. Dodd said the panel was considering four of five models for the public plan."

Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Republicans will get their first look at the bill later this week.  The idea here is to rush the legislation through before July 31st (before anyone has a chance to see what is actually in the bill).  There is nothing wrong with the idea of cutting costs of healthcare for Americans, but this is not the way to do it.  A public healthcare plan opens the door for all kinds of abuses--mismanagement, lobbying abuses, unmanageable cost overrunns, etc.--all of which we have seen in the current Medicare program.  This bill needs to be stopped in its tracks until it can be studied, analyzed, reviewed, and revised.  This bill does not need to be passed without the necessary scrutiny.

President Obama will be speaking to the Muslim world tomorrow from Cairo, Egypt.  The Wall Street Journal has an interesting op-ed by Paul Wolfowicz on the challenges involved in making that speech. 

Mr. Wolfowicz points out that there is an expectation that President Obama will walk away from what was called "the freedom agenda" of the George Bush Administration.  To walk away from this agenda would be a mistake.  President Obama is speaking in Egypt, a country that mistreats its own people, and also a country that may be pivotal in the Middle East 'peace process'.   To act as if America supports the status quo in a country that tortures and discriminates against its own citizens would be a mistake.

According to the article:

"The denial of equal rights to women is unjust. It hurts society as a whole when half the population is prevented from achieving its full potential. The countries in the Muslim world that have developed most successfully are those -- such as Indonesia, Turkey and Malaysia -- where women have been able to play a substantial role. Those same countries have also benefited enormously from giving scope to Christian and Jewish minorities to prosper, although the record is imperfect. Turkey's Jewish minority found refuge there 500 years ago from the Spanish Inquisition. In those days, when Islamic civilization was the most advanced in the world, it was also one of the most tolerant."

President Obama needs to remind the Muslim nations of their former tolerance.  He also needs to remind them of the benefits of freedom and democracy in the prospering of a country.  Hopefully he will be as willing to put pressure on the Muslim nations to move toward freedom (and the acceptance of the existence of Israel) as he has been willing to put pressure on Israel to give up more land.

On Tuesday, The New York Times reported that:

"In an interview with Laura Haim on Canal Plus, a French television station, Mr. Obama noted that the United States also could be considered as "one of the largest Muslim countries in the world." He sought to downplay the expectations of the speech, but he said he hoped the address would raise awareness about Muslims."

I took the whole paragraph because I wanted to post the whole statement in context.  However, even that does not show the full context.  What he said was:

"And one of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world," Mr. Obama said. "And so there's got to be a better dialogue and a better understanding between the two peoples."

There are a few concepts in both of these statements that bother me.  If you look at the founding documents of America, we are founded on a Judeo-Christian ethic.  Many of the people who settled this country were looking for religious freedom, and our laws reflect that.  There is no religious freedom in Muslim countries.  Saudi Arabia burns Bibles and tortures people who become Christians.  Other Muslim countries have similar policies.  I am not willing to give up my freedom of religion.  If Muslims choose to settle here, they are entitled to freedom of religion, but not in infringe upon other people's freedom of religion.  I am not willing to see America as a Muslim country.

In certain airports of America, Muslim cab drivers refuse to accept blind people as passengers if they have seeing-eye dogs (dogs are considered unclean in Islam).  Some Muslims working in grocery stores have refused to handle pork products.  Other working Muslims have asked that special allowances be made for them in the workplace for prayer rooms and prayer times.  Unless these same allowances are made for other religions, they are discriminatory.  Becoming a Muslim country would not be a step forward for America, it would be a step away from freedom.  I hope our President realizes that.

As the Obama Administration begins its push to increase the amount of ethanol required in gasoline from 10% to 15%, the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday will run an article on the actual costs of ethanol.  According to the article:

"The Congressional Budget Office reported last month that Americans pay another surcharge for ethanol in higher food prices. CBO estimates that from April 2007 to April 2008 "the increased use of ethanol accounted for about 10 percent to 15 percent of the rise in food prices." Ethanol raises food prices because millions of acres of farmland and three billion bushels of corn were diverted to ethanol from food production. Americans spend about $1.1 trillion a year on food, so in 2007 the ethanol subsidy cost families between $5.5 billion and $8.8 billion in higher grocery bills."

In addition to the extra cost to American consumers, the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Transportation and Air Quality -- explains that the reduction in CO2 emissions from burning ethanol are minimal and maybe negative.  The article further points out:

"Both CBO and EPA find that in theory cellulosic ethanol -- from wood chips, grasses and biowaste -- would reduce carbon emissions. However, as CBO emphasizes, "current technologies for producing cellulosic ethanol are not commercially viable." The ethanol lobby is attempting a giant bait-and-switch: Keep claiming that cellulosic ethanol is just around the corner, even as it knows the only current technology to meet federal mandates is corn ethanol (or sugar, if it didn't face an import tariff)."

The increased use of ethanol has not been the success that was hoped.  It has been a boon to corn farmers and that's about it.  Because it has been good for the agricultural states, Congress has been reluctant to end an unsuccessful program.  Someone needs to find the courage to say that ethanol in America has not worked and that we need to develop our other energy resources. 

It's ironic that when there are places in southern California where oil is literally seeping through the ground and causing pollution, the government will not allow us to drill for that oil yet we subsidize a fuel program that does not work

Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery Co. of China has bought the Hummer division of General Motors.  According to Breitbart.com:

"As part of the proposed transaction, GM said, Hummer will continue to contract vehicle manufacturing and business services from GM during a transitional period. For example, GM's Shreveport, La., assembly plant would continue to contract to assemble the H3 and H3T through at least 2010."

This is an interesting development.  Will Hummers be sold in the America after this deal goes through?  Evidently there are ongoing talks to sell some of the other divisions also.  According to the article, there are 16 buyers interested in Saturn and 3 interested in Saab.  The new, smaller General Motors will focus on its Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick and GMC divisions.

Townhall.com has an article today on the five character flaws that are destroying America.  It's a very basic list, here it is:

1.  Lack of personal responsibility

2.  Short attention span

3.  Excessive self-esteem

4.  Short term thinking/instant gratification

5.  Immorality

Please read the full article for the expansion of these ideas.  Some of these traits are qualities we don't think about often, but the article explores how they impact our society in a negative way.

According to today's Washington Post President Obama has stated that Iran has the right to nuclear energy as long as it is used for peaceful purposes.  He plans to pursue direct diplomatic talks with Iran to discourage it from developing nuclear weapons.

The article states:

"The president has indicated a willingness to seek deeper international sanctions against Tehran if it does not respond positively to U.S. attempts to open negotiations on its nuclear program. Obama has said Tehran has until the end of the year to show it wants to engage with Washington."

The question that remains unanswered is whether or not Iran will have nuclear weapons by the end of the year.

According to the News-Leader.com in Springfield, Missouri, state Representative Sara Lampe, D-138th, of Springfield, came up with the perfect solution when a group of Neo-Nazis, claiming free speech rights, succeeded in getting MoDOT to let them erect a sign for their group along West Bypass, between Sunshine and Farm Road 142 as part of the adopt-a-highway program.  She introduced a piece of legislation to rename the half mile of the West Bypass the "Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel Memorial Highway."   The legislation was made into an amendment to a larger transportation bill that passed the House and the Senate.

According to the article:

"The bottom line: the neo-Nazis will now be helping to keep clean a stretch of road (between Sunshine and Farm Road 142) honoring one of the most famous Jewish theologians in modern history."

 

What a perfect way to handle the situation!! 

Now that it's no longer General Motors, but Government Motors, some changes will be made.  The extreme environmentalists that are friends of this administration want GM to now manufacture 'green' cars.  The problem is that the American public has not been particularly interested in 'green' cars.  So how do you change the market place?  Easy, raise the cost of fuel to the point that driving anything else is impractical.  So let's look at one of the early steps in that direction.

According to the American Thinker, Representative Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia Democrat and chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee is proposing measures that will limit the production of domestic energy supplies.  This will make us more dependent on foreign oil and more subject to the price hikes that come our way because of that dependency. 

The measures proposed:

• End the "payment-in-kind" option that allows companies to pay royalties in oil and gas rather than cash. Mr. Salazar has said he would consider ending the program.
• Tighten royalty payment rules through new penalties, elimination of interest on overpayments, and other adjustments.
• Consolidate Interior Department leasing activities into a new Office of Federal Energy and Mineral Leasing, and end leasing by the Minerals Management Service and the Bureau of Land Management.
• Require the adoption of five-year plans for oil and gas leasing on federal lands similar to those developed for offshore leasing.
• Create an Oceans and Coastal Trust Fund funded by revenues from Outer Continental Shelf leases and royalties.
• Impose new environmental restrictions to curtail pollution from offshore oil drilling.
• Impose royalties for the first time on uranium mining.

It's amazing to me that at a time when the oil producing countries of the world are not our friends, a Representative is moving to make us less energy independent.