September 2009 Archives

Hot Air's Ed Morrissey is reporting that Matt Rogers, a forecaster at Commodity Weather Group, is predicting the coldest winter in a decade for the east coast of the United States.  Ed Morrissey reports:

"The U.S. Northeast may have the coldest winter in a decade because of a weak El Nino, a warming current in the Pacific Ocean, according to Matt Rogers, a forecaster at Commodity Weather Group.

""Weak El Ninos are notorious for cold and snowy weather on the Eastern seaboard," Rogers said in a Bloomberg Television interview from Washington. "About 70 percent to 75 percent of the time a weak El Nino will deliver the goods in terms of above-normal heating demand and cold weather. It's pretty good odds.""

This happens just as Senators Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) will release global warming legislation Wednesday that they hope will be the vehicle for broader Senate negotiations and an eventual conference with the House. 

WattsUpWithThat is reporting that the 'hockey stick' theory of global warming has been disproved.  In fact the earth has not warmed for the past ten years.  Massachusetts did not really have a summer this year.  The last time that happened was in 1991 when Mount Pinatubo erupted and the ash cloud affected our summer.  The proposed global warming legislation (also called cap and trade or cap and tax) will affect only America.  Even if America cuts its carbon emissions in half, if China and India do nothing, there will not be a noticeable reduction in air pollution in the world.  America will have undercut its manufacturing base in order to achieve nothing. 

The Hill is reporting today that Harry Reid has cancelled the Senate's Columbus Day recess so that healthcare legislation can be passed during the week of October 12th.  The Heritage Foundation Blog is reporting:

"Senate Majority Leader Reid has stated an intention to take the HELP Committee product and merge it with the Senate Finance Committee markup that is expected to be over by this Thursday or Friday. Their plan is to proceed to a House passed non-health care bill to provide a shell of legislation to give Obamacare a ride to the House and then straight to the President's desk."

The Hill reports:

"The pressure on Democrats to pass healthcare reform, however, has raised the stakes. Some Senate aides speculated that Reid did not want to give conservative activists a chance to stall progress by staging a second round of angry demonstrations during townhall-style meetings over the recess."

Michael Moore has threatened any Democrats who do not support the healthcare reform with primary opponents and defeat in their next run for the Senate.

The current healthcare proposals are not popular.  They are particularly not popular among senior citizens.  Senior citizens vote in higher percentages than other voting blocs.  I suspect many Democrats are beginning to wonder if passing healthcare reform will cost them their Senate seats.

Today's Weekly Standard posted an article by Stanley Goldfarb, associate dean of clinical education at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine and a nephrologist.  Mr. Goldfarb points out that President Obama plans to pay for a large part of his healthcare proposal by getting rid of medical fraud, waste, and abuse.  The question then becomes, what is fraud, waste, and abuse.

There is general agreement that healthcare in America is expensive.  But the dissatisfaction with healthcare in America seems to be a general rather than a specific thing--the people who express dissatisfaction with our healthcare system generally are happy with their current health insurance.  So what is driving the movement to change it?

Mr. Goldfarb points out that our healthcare is expensive because it is easily accessible and because medical care is expensive in our country. 

The article points out:

"What has been called "waste and abuse"(two parts of the iconic but never repaired problem of "waste, fraud, and abuse") is actually another term for the wide access to technology and advanced care that Americans have come to expect from their encounters with the health care system. Certainly "fraud" should be eliminated. Medicare does a very poor job of this as has been well documented. Its low administrative costs are partly the result of its meager efforts at detecting fraud. However, one person's "waste and abuse" is another's piece of mind because an MRI scan or a CT scan has definitively ruled out a tumor when it was an unlikely but possible diagnosis and could simply have been followed along for several months to observe the late outcome."

There is a suggestion that we consider a person's age when we examine our treatment options.  It is interesting that the cost of a cardiac bypass in Canada is nearly twice the cost of a bypass in America.  The average hospital stay in Canada is 20 percent longer than the average hospital stay in America.

The thing that is being overlooked in the healthcare debate is the role that free enterprise plays in scientific progress.  One of the reasons we have the medical breakthroughs in this country that we do is that scientific discovery in America is profitable.  Whether we like it or not, money is a motivator.  There is nothing wrong with people making profits in medical care or anywhere else.  That has been a part of our country since its founding.

One last thought, if the current healthcare proposals are so wonderful, why is Congress opting out of being part of any program that it enacts?

Today's Washington Post has an Op-Ed piece by Eugene Robinson today on the subject of what to do with Roman Polanski.  Without going into gory details, the question is what do you do with a 76-year old man who raped a thirteen year old when he was in his 50's. 

Mr. Polanski fled the United States after his trial (where he pled guilty) and settled in France.  The extradition treaty we have with France evidently did not cover his particular crime.  So he has lived there peacefully for the past thirty years.  He was arrested Sunday in Switzerland where he had traveled to accept an award.  Evidently our extradition treaty with Switzerland covers child molestation.

I don't like to see a 76-year old man go to prison, but I don't like to see a person who raped a thirteen year old girl escape the consequences of his actions.  If his name was John Smith instead of Roman Polanski, what would his fate be?  Do we need to take another look at the concept of equal justice under the law regardless of money or status?

Investor's Business Daily posted an article yesterday talking about the proposed penalties for not having healthcare under the Obama healthcare proposal.  Ordinary citizens are facing fines of up to $25,000 and a year in jail for not having healthcare or not paying the fine for not having healthcare.  It sounded very far-fetched until I read the rest of the article.

The article cites the following case:

"Consider the Indiana grandmother arrested in July, four months after buying two boxes of cold medicine in less than a week. She ran afoul of a state law that prohibits the purchase of more than three grams of pseudoephedrine by one person in a seven-day period.

"Reports say Sally Harpold was simply buying Zyrtec-D and Mucinex-D for her husband and daughter, not to make or help anyone else make methamphetamine, an activity policymakers were trying to shut down when they passed the law. Yet she was arrested, handcuffed and booked anyway."

As someone with allergies married to someone with allergies and having children with allergies, I can totally relate to her plight.  One package of 20 Claritan D used up more than half my allowance of pseudoephedrine for the week.  If I go to the store today to get a package for my husband or one of my children, I risk being arrested.  There is such a thing as too much government interference and too little common sense.

Yesterday Power Line posted an article on the ongoing situation in Honduras.  The Law Library of Congress has studied the events in Honduras and concluded that the ousting of President Manuel Zelaya was legal and in keeping with constitutional law in Honduras.  They did conclude, however, that removing him from the country was not constitutional.  If his removal from office was constitutional, why are our State Department and President asking for his reinstatement as President.  Why are we supporting a would-be dictator who is friends with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and could be assumed to be anti-American?

Sunday's Wall Street Journal posted an opinion piece by Eliot A. Cohen, a teacher at John Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies and a former counselor of the State Department.  Mr. Cohen believes that the options on how to handle the fact that Iran is developing nuclear weapons are limited and time sensitive. 

Mr. Cohen points out:

"Understandably, the U.S. government has hoped for a middle course of sanctions, negotiations and bargaining that would remove the problem without the ugly consequences. This is self-delusion. Yes, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy stood side by side with President Barack Obama in Pittsburgh and talked sternly about lines in the sand; and yes, Russian President Dimitry Medvedev hinted that some kind of sanctions might, conceivably, be needed. They said the same things to, and with, President George W. Bush."

Time is not on our side.  Eventually we are going to be faced with a choice of an American or Israeli strike against the nuclear installations or a nuclear Iran.  Unfortunately, the current administration does not understand that force is the language of power in the Middle East.  A lack of force is seen as weakness and as something to be exploited. 

Mr. Cohen concludes:

"It is, therefore, in the American interest to break with past policy and actively seek the overthrow of the Islamic Republic. Not by invasion, which this administration would not contemplate and could not execute, but through every instrument of U.S. power, soft more than hard. And if, as is most likely, President Obama presides over the emergence of a nuclear Iran, he had best prepare for storms that will make the squawks of protest against his health-care plans look like the merest showers on a sunny day."

It would be nice to think that events half a world away would not impact our everyday lives, but that is simply not true.  Israel may be willing to take the risk that we are not willing to take.  The conseqences would be dire for millions of people--radioactivity in the atmosphere because of atomic bombs going out of and into Israel, the death of millions of people, and a total disruption of all international trade.  Unfortunately, the consequences of Iran having nuclear weapons are also dire.  Even if Iran chooses not to use its nukes, the threat of that use would embolden Iran in ways that would be detrimental to the Middle East and eventually to the entire world.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air today comments on the statement General Stanley McChrystal made to CBS reporter David Martin in a television interview that aired Sunday.  The General stated that he has only spoken to President Obama once since taking command of Afghanistan.  I know we live in an age of email and blackberries, but I do think this is extreme. 

General McChrystal was appointed by President Obama.  He is the President's choice to command our troops in Afghanistan.  There is some real question now as to what the President's plan is in Afghanistan.

The New York Times reports that General McChrystal in recent weeks has launched a "force optimization" study:

"The study has found "perhaps a couple of thousand" troops who could be replaced or whose missions could be refocused to better carry out the current strategy, according to one senior military officer involved in the effort. General McChrystal's request for more troops is expected to include different troop levels for different goals, an administration official said. The figure of 40,000 would be what one official described as the "we're in this to win" option, which would include ambitious goals for securing the cities, clearing out the countryside of Taliban insurgents and nation-building. More modest troop increases could achieve more limited goals, the official said, including redeploying existing troops to focus mainly on cities."

There was a movie released in 2007 called THE KITE RUNNER.  It showed in graphic terms what happened when America left Afghanistan after the Russians were defeated (and what the Afghans thought of America because we left).  The question here is how reliable an ally are we.  We are not doing a very good job of being an ally right now--ask the Poles, the Czech Republic, and Honduras.

I have said before.  I am the wife of a Viet Nam era veteran and the mother in law of an active duty Marine who will be headed to Afghanistan shortly.  If we are going to put our soldiers in danger, it had better be to win.  Yes, I know it is not a football game--it is our national security.  If we do not follow through in Afghanistan, then we have given Iran a major victory in the war on terror.  We have told them that they can continue to do whatever they want with their nuclear program because we do not have the courage to stay the course. 

It is my hope that President Obama will listen to the General he appointed--the General is much more educated and experienced in the art of war.

Today's Washington Times posted an editorial about the proposed Federal Judgeship Act of 2009 (S. 1653),  This is actually a fairly straightforward piece of legislation.  You can read the entire bill at Thomas.gov.  The bill would add 63 new federal judges - 51 in federal district courts and 12 in appeals courts.  The courts are busy, and it might seem like a good idea to increase the number of judges in federal district courts and appeals courts, but wait a minute. 

The article points out:

"Oh, sure, some circuits have a much larger current caseload per judicial panel than others. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, for instance, has 1,314 cases per panel, compared to just 607 cases per panel for the 7th Circuit. Then again, the 2nd Circuit already has four vacancies - available seats on its bench that the president and Senate just haven't gotten around to filling yet. The Federal Judgeship Act of 2009 would add two new seats to that circuit before even filling the existing four vacancies. That makes no sense."

What is really going on here is an attempt to stack the courts with liberal appointments and legislate through the courts.  Because the Supreme Court has been choosing fewer cases every year, the lower courts have been handling more controversial issues and ruling on them.  Appointments to lower courts are much lower profile than appointments to the Supreme Court.  The lower courts in many cases are making decisions that are the equivalent of legislation on controversial issues (without Congress having to vote on laws and in most cases without people realizing what is happening).

The Washington Times has an idea on how to make this bill work.  They suggest that first, all vacancies on these courts be filled.  In many cases these are the vacancies left because the Democrat Congress held up the nominees of George Bush.  Then pass the law with the condition that the additional judges will be appointed after the next election.  That way, neither Democrats or Republicans know who will be appointing these judges.

Let's see what happens next.  

According to Newsbusters today, when you call the Capital Hill switchboard, you get an interesting message while you are waiting to be put through to the operator.  If you follow the link to the article, you can hear the audio of the message, but here is the transcript:

"Thank you for calling your Representative and your Senators.

"Please urge them to vote yes on health insurance reform. Because the American people can no longer wait for more choices, lower costs, and coverage we can count on."

This should be illegal.  Somehow I suspect it will be overlooked in the news today.

Friday's Wall Street Journal posted an article about a small car company, California startup Fisker Automotive Inc., (coincidentally backed by Al Gore) that has received a $529 million government loan to build a hybrid car in Finland.  Finland?  With out tax money?  It's even worse than that.  The car, the Karma, is a hybrid sports car that will sell for $89,000.

The article points out:

"Fisker's top investors include Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, a veteran Silicon Valley venture-capital firm of which Gore is a partner. Employees of KPCB have donated more than $2.2 million to political campaigns, mostly for Democrats, including President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks campaign contributions."

Quite frankly, this infuriates me.  At a time when unemployment in America is approaching double digits, $529 million of our money gets spent to provide manufacturing jobs overseas to produce something that most of us will never be able to afford.

Meanwhile, back in America:

"Some companies that have been turned down for loans from DOE say they did not get much feedback from the department about their applications. O. John Coletti, president of EcoMotors International of Troy, Mich., said his company applied for a $20 million loan from the agency last December, and last month got a one-page rejection letter from the loan program's director, Lachlan Seward. EcoMotors' lead investor is Vinod Khosla, himself a former Kleiner Perkins partner and a longtime campaign contributor to Republicans and Democrats alike."

I am willing to bet that there will never be any accountability as to how the funds designated to help car manufacturers meet new government fuel efficiency standards have been spent.  I strongly suggest we begin to cut off the money flow to Washington and keep more of our own money.  This is ridiculous.

We've all heard the quote from President Obama--if you like your present healthcare coverage, you will get to keep it.  Well, aside from the fact that the President and Congress will not be covered by any new healthcare legislation, there was an interesting vote in the Senate Finance Committee as they were marking up the Baucus version of the bill.

According to Power Line yesterday, Senator Orrin Hatch introduced an amendment:

"The purpose of this amendment is simple. If the secretary of Health and Human Services certifies that more than 1 million Americans would lose the current coverage of their choice because of this bill, then this bill would not go into effect.

"It seems like a very, very simple but perfect amendment for those of us who have integrity. This amendment is simply trying to safeguard President Obama's pledge to the American people, you'll get -- that you will get to keep what you have."

What do you think the vote on this amendment was?  The amendment failed.  You can read the roll call if you follow the link.  Not a single Democrat voted for it.  It is becoming very obvious that what we are being told about the healthcare bill currently proposed and what the bill actually is are not at all related.

Yes, you read that right.  Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article yesterday about a part of the healthcare bill that has not gotten a lot of publicity.  It seems that if you choose not to participate in the government healthcare plan or pay the fine, you can be fined up to $25,000 and be sentenced to up to a year in prison. 

Senator John Ensign (R-NV) asked Thomas Barthold, chief of staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation what would happen if a taxpayer refused to buy health insurance and then refused to pay the fine.  Follow this link to Politico.com to see the handwritten note he got back.  This is the equivalent of debtor's prison.  If you don't have the money to buy health insurance or pay the fine, you go to jail!

Just one further note of the idea of national health insurance.  I live in Massachusetts, which has a mandatory health insurance program.  Aside from the fact that it has cost much more than what was projected, it has a few wrinkles.  There was a letter to the editor in my local newspaper last week from a woman whose family has had private health insurance for a number of years.  They had an inexpensive policy that covers major illnesses and emergencies, but allows them to pay for routine doctor's visits, etc.  The premiums are low, and they save a substantial amount of money by having that type of coverage.  They have just heard from the state that their policy does not qualify as health insurance under state guidelines and they will have to change to a more expensive policy to cover things they do not want covered.  This is the risk we all take when we allow the government to meddle in our private insurance coverage.

Yesterday's Washington Times had an editorial explaining how care would be denied to the elderly under the current healthcare proposal (without calling it "death panels").  The idea that there would be death panels has been mocked by the proponents of this bill, and yet there is a mechanism that would definitely deny quality care to the elderly. 

According to the article:

"The offending provision is on Pages 80-81 of the unamended Baucus bill, hidden amid a lot of similar legislative mumbo-jumbo about Medicare payments to doctors. The key sentence: "Beginning in 2015, payment would be reduced by five percent if an aggregation of the physician's resource use is at or above the 90th percentile of national utilization." Translated into plain English, it means that in any year in which a particular doctor's average per-patient Medicare costs are in the top 10 percent in the nation, the feds will cut the doctor's payments by 5 percent."

There is no provisions here for results, quality of care, or efficiency--just cost.  The irony of this provision is that it would only save $1 billion over six years (that is without adding in the expense of monitoring all doctors' spending on the elderly and administering the program).  No doctor would be aware of what the spending limits were until the end of the year, forcing doctors to be overly cautious in the care given to the elderly.

I have said it before--let's totally scrap this bill and make an honest attempt to draft a bi-partisan bill from scratch. 

Just the headline is scary.  Yesterday's The Corner at National Review had a short piece by Michael Ledeen on the news that Iran has a second nuclear plant in operation. 

Mr. Ledeen points out in the article (by leaders he is referring to Obama, Sarkozy, and Brown):

"Indeed, these leaders know things are even worse than they are saying today. There are still other facilities, including one at Parchin, about which some things are known, and yet another near the Afghan border, about which I am told we know much less. I doubt we know the full details of the Iranians' secret nuclear-weapons program. Quite obviously, Obama, Brown, and Sarkozy think it's a weapons program, not the civilian one the Iranians claim."

America has known about the second nuclear facility since about two months before President Obama took office.  President Bush did not act on it because of the short time he would be in office, but there was another reason.  Since the election of President Bush, the Democrat party attacked his presidency.  They undermined the war in Iraq, saying Afghanistan was the only legitimate war (now that they have to actually fight that war, they are waffling and endangering our troops by doing so), and they attacked him personally in any way they could to undermine his role as President.  Had the Democrats encouraged support of President Bush as a wartime President, he might have been able to at least threaten Iran with force to the point where they stopped their nuclear program. 

Remember that Gaddafi gave up his nuclear program after we attacked Iraq because he did not want to be next.  Had the Democrats taken a different stand on the war on terror, we might have prevented the current situation with Iran.  We are now faced with a nuclear Iran whose leaders have no problem with the idea of committing nuclear suicide and an American President who believes that his charm will bring about world peace.  Thank God for Israel, it is the world's only hope.  Meanwhile, this President sees fit to criticize only Israel and Honduras--two of our allies trying to protect their democracies.

Just a footnote on this article.  In an article posted yesterday, Power Line points out:

"The National Intelligence Estimate concluded that "in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program." The report defined "nuclear weapons program" to mean "Iran's nuclear weapon design and weaponization work and covert uranium conversion-related and uranium enrichment-related work; we do not mean Iran's declared civil work related to uranium conversion and enrichment."

At the time, we and many others greeted the NIE with skepticism as an implausible, politically-motivated document. We now know that it was wrong. Beyond that, it is hard to understand how it could have been issued in good faith. Senior administration officials now say that our intelligence agencies have known about Iran's covert facility in Qom for "several years." That being the case, how could the intelligence community have believed, in November 2007, that Iran had "halted [its] covert uranium conversion-related and uranium enrichment-related work" in 2003?

The conclusion seems inescapable that the 2007 NIE on Iran was a deliberately false document that was designed solely to embarrass the Bush administration and undermine its policies toward Iran."

Unfortunately, partisan politics prevented us from solving a serious problem.  There are some things that should not be political. 

Today's Boston Herald has an article by Howie Carr on the recent appointment by the Governor or Massachusetts of Paul G. Kirk Jr. to fill Senator Kennedy's Senate seat until an election can be held in January. 

According to the article:

"Here's how it's supposed to work. If the Legislature wants a bill to become law immediately, they have to attach what's called an "emergency preamble." It takes a two-thirds vote to pass such a preamble. Otherwise, the bill becomes law in 90 days."

If the law had been followed, we would have had  a Senator by the end of December instead of the beginning of January, but that would have been too late for the President's healthcare reform. 

Mr. Carr points out:

"Teddy missed 97 percent of the roll calls in the Senate before his death this year. None of the moonbats were braying about an emergency. Apparently it was such a nonissue that Teddy himself never considered resigning - even though once he knew he was dying, he could have sent in a letter saying his resignation would be effective in five months."

I am becoming very concerned about the people we have elected to office in this country.  I am not sure if term limits is the answer or if simply voting every incumbent out of office is the answer.  It just seems to me that we have a bunch of people in power with very little respect for either the US Constitution or the laws of their respective states.

Most of what went on at the United Nations this week was sad.  An organization that was founded in the name of peace and the advancement of freedom gave voice to some of the nastiest dictators on the planet.  America joined in with a speech that essentially gave up any moral leadership we might have had in the past.  There was, however, one voice who spoke out for freedom and represented real leadership in a world that is lacking leaders.  That person was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Yesterday, Power Line reported on the speech given by Prime Minister Netanyahu at the United Nations.  The Power Line article links to a series of videos of the speech.  Prime Minister Netanyahu came prepared.  He brought articles related to the Holocaust given to him recently by Germany.  He reminded the United Nations of how far they have come from their original purpose--keeping peace and promoting freedom.  The full text of the speech is at JTA.org.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has learned the lessons of history; unfortunately Barack Obama has not.  The Jewish people have learned from past experience that it is unwise to ignore a threat against them.  I believe that by not standing up against Iran's nuclear program and by not affirming Israel's right to exist as a sovereign nation, President Obama has made the world less safe.  President Obama made it very clear that American would not take Israel's side against Iran's nuclear program.  That leaves Israel no choice but to deal with that problem on its own. 

Israel may be a small country, but with Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech, I believe they have just taken over the position of leader of the free world and the source of hope to people aspiring to be free.

As the President of Iran takes the podium at the United Nations to deny the Holocaust, today's Glens Falls, New York, Post Star.com reports on a three day reunion of a very unique group of people.  On April 13, 1945, First Lieutenant Frank Towers and a small tank battalion found a train the Nazis left behind near Magdeburg in central Germany.  The train was bound for one of the death camps and the Nazis had abandoned it as they fled the advancing allies. 

According to the article the train carried:

"...2,500 Jews locked inside old boxcars. Each boxcar carried 75 to 100 men, women and children who had been packed together for six days with little food, their sanitary facilities limited to a bucket."

The American soldiers freed the Jews, provided care for them, and brought them to a safe location.  Hudson Falls High School got involved with this story when one of its history teachers interviewed one of the tank commanders and posted the information on the school website.  This led to a reunion of the soldiers and the train survivors hosted by the school in 2007. 

This year's reunion began on Wednesday as soldiers and survivors again had a chance to meet and reflect on the events that brought them together.  These are the people we need to remember as we hear the lies that the Holocaust never happened.

According to yesterday's Investor's Business Daily, the Congressional Budget Office reports that Social Security will show deficits in 2010 ($10 billion) and 2011 ($9 billion).  Keep in mind that according to Congress, fiscal 2010 arrives next month.  The article points out:

"It's widely known that Social Security is headed for deep financial problems. But mainly because projections didn't have the program running deficits until almost 2020, there's been little urgency to make changes in the system.

"Typical. Politicians are generally inclined to avoid making decisions on such difficult issues. When President Bush proposed a partial privatization plan four years ago, Congress deferred because most members figured they wouldn't be in office when the crisis hit. Rather than risk their prospects in the next election, they left the mess to the next generation."

Frankly, I wouldn't trust the current Congress to make any positive changes in the Social Security program.  The program needs to be overhauled and privatized.  Congress also needs to stop using the money collected in Social Security taxes for other things.  It is noteworthy that Congress opted out of the Social Security retirement program about the same time it started stealing from it. 

Today's New York Post has an opinion piece about the changes in the rules of engagement  that have occurred since President Obama took office.  Two of these rules are very troubling:

• Unless our troops in combat are absolutely certain that no civilians are present, they're denied artillery or air support.
• If any civilians appear where we meet the Taliban, our troops are to "break contact" -- to retreat.

I am not a military strategy expert, but this is dumb even to me.  We are fighting an enemy that is very good a waging a public relations war as well as an insurgent war.  It is a good idea to avoid civilian casualties if possible, but not in a way that gives our enemies a way to avoid being attacked.  I am sure that the Taliban figured out very quickly that all they have to do is have civilians with them at all times and they will not be attacked.  In an organization where suicide bombers are routinely trained, I am sure it is not difficult to find a few civilians to go into the battlefield with you.

I support the war in Afghanistan.  I believe it is a proxy war with Iran and that it is a necessary part of fighting terrorism.  However, if our soldiers are not being allowed to fight the war with everything they have, bring them home.  To do otherwise is the put them in jeopardy for no reason.  If you choose to tie our soldiers' hands as they fight this war, remember that the price of Afghanistan falling back into chaos is that terrorists have a safe haven to plan their attacks on the rest of the world.

The Massachusetts legislature passed a law today allowing Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick to appoint a Senator to fill Ted Kennedy's seat until the special election is held in January.  The bill passed the Massachusetts Senate, but with less than a two-thirds majority.  This forces the Governor to declare the law an emergency in order to make the appointment

This is not about representing Massachusetts.  Massachusetts has been represented by one Senator since Senator Kennedy became ill.  If having two senators from Massachusetts had been a critical need, Senator Kennedy would have resigned and allowed a special election.  This is about the Democrats' desire to pass some sort of healthcare reform before the end of the year.  The more people learn about the current healthcare proposals, the less support there is, so the Democrats want to pass healthcare quickly.  Ted Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts represents the sixtieth vote--the one needed to break a filibuster.  

It is unfortunate that the Massachusetts legislature chooses to change the law on filling a vacant Senate seat according to which party controls the Massachusetts state house.  

Paul Mirengoff at Power LIne has a very good analysis of President Obama's speech at the United Nations today.  The President made many naive statements, but he also made so very foolish statements.  It is obvious from his statements that President Obama's view of how the world should be does not have a moral compass.

This is a statement from the speech:

"In an era when our destiny is shared, power is no longer a zero-sum game. No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold. The traditional division between nations of the south and north makes no sense in an interconnected world. Nor do alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long gone Cold War."

There is no allowance in this statement for the promotion of freedom.  There is no acknowledgment in this statement that generally speaking, free countries are more prosperous than dictatorships.  There is no acknowledgment in this statement that free countries generally don't attack other countries--because they are generally successful, they have no reason to unless it is in self-defense.

The really sad part of this whole charade at the United Nations today is that it is such a slap in the face to the idealism with which the United Nations was founded.  The United Nations was established after World War II with the hope of protecting weaker countries from the kind of conquest that Germany, Japan and Italy engaged in.  Instead it has become a place where tyrants can claim respectibility.  Instead of protesting human rights violations in China, Iran, Libya, Cuba, and others, the United Nations gives the leaders of these countries a platform where they can address the world and pretend to judge the free countries around them. 

The United Nations has totally outlived its purpose and should quietly be put to rest.  New York City could then begin to collect fines for illegal parking in the area of the UN, and the building could be rented out to help New York City meet its budget deficit.  Maybe another country would be willing to host the organization and finance it, but America should not.

One of the most reliable ways to understand any legislation and its supporters is to 'follow the money.'  Power LIne did just that yesterday in an article about the proposed healthcare legislation.  Paul Mirengoff points out that the plan is to save money to pay for expanded healthcare by cutting the Medicare Advantage program in Medicare.  This program allows senior citizens to choose privately-administered coverage.  If this program is eliminated, these seniors will be forced into government-administered programs with less benefits.  At that point they will be forced to purchase private health insurance policies to supplement Medicare. 

According to a report issued by the House Republicans and cited in the Power Line article:

"In 2008, AARP generated $652.7 million in revenue by selling products like Medigap supplemental Medicare insurance, accounting for over 60 percent of the group's revenue, according to an analysis of its financial statements cited in the report released by the House Republican Conference."

The report further explains:

"If the House Democrats health care bill becomes law, the report argues, it would be a boon to AARP, because while Medicare Advantage plans will be required to pay out 85 percent of the money collected in premiums to claims made by policy holders, the requirement would only be 65 percent for the kind of Medigap policies sold by AARP.

"In other words, under the Democrat bill, seniors could pay as much as 20 cents more out of every premium dollar to fund 'kickbacks' to AARP-sponsored Medigap plans than Medicare Advantage plans," the GOP report charges."

This at least partially explains why the AARP is willing to ingore the interests of the senior citizens it is supposed to represent by supporting a healthcare reform bill that limits care to those senior citizens in order to save money. 

According to an article in The Hill today, Harry Reid has warned the Republicans that he will use the budget reconcilliation process to pass healthcare reform if the legislation is stalled in committee.  Senator Reid has also threatened to cancel the Columbus Day week-long recess if he is not satisfied with the progress of healthcare reform.

The Senate is willing to do almost anything in order to pass healthcare.  The Democrat leadership has put pressure on the Governor of Massachusetts to get a law passed in the state to allow him to appoint a Senator to fill Ted Kennedy's seat until the special election in January.  The health of Robert Byrd has also become an issue in recent days.  Even the most liberal Republicans have not been willing to vote for the proposals currently being debated.  To pass healthcare by the budget reconcilliation process would be political suicide for many of the Democrat Congressmen.  It will be interesting to see if the Democrats are willing to commit political suicide in order to pass healthcare.   

Almost everyone who follows the news has seen or heard about the undercover videos released in the past few weeks showing ACORN employees helping people engage in illegal activities.  Bertha Lewis, ACORN's chief organizer, was a guest on FOX News Sunday this week explaining what actions the organization is taking to discipline the people involved.  She stated that all the employees shown on the tapes supporting illegal activities have been terminated.  Well, not so fast.  The American Thinker did some research and found otherwise. 

According to an article in the New York Post:

"A spokesman for New York ACORN Housing Corp. told The Post that the employees, Volda Albert and Milagros Rivera, have been suspended without pay.

""It will remain that way until the outcome of the [Brooklyn district attorney's] investigation is resolved," said spokesman Jonathan Rosen."

So what Ms. Lewis said is not true.  Further investigations shows that the people who were shown on the videos were experienced employees--they had been with ACORN a number of years and were in responsible positions.

Please read the American Thinker article to see the connection between ACORN and its other front organizations.  

The two sources for this story were an article in Saturday's Washington Examiner and Saturday's Washington Post. 

On Friday, seven former CIA directors asked President Obama to end Attorney General Eric Holder's investigation into possible detainee abuse after September 11, 2001.  Michael Barone points out in the Washington Examiner that the seven former CIA directors include all living former CIA directors except the nonagenarian Stansfield Turner and former President George H. W. Bush. Turner may be in no position to sign such a letter, while Bush, like living former presidents of both parties except for Jimmy Carter, can be presumed to be adhering to a policy of not criticizing the current incumbent.  This information is not found in the Washington Post article.

The Washington Post did point out:

"CIA officials have noted that the allegations of detainee mistreatment had been evaluated by an aggressive team of federal prosecutors who declined to file criminal charges, after which some CIA employees were subjected to internal discipline.

""The CIA is cooperating with the official reviews now in progress, in part to see that they move as expeditiously as possible," agency spokesman Paul Gimigliano said."

This investigation into these cases concluded years ago.  To open up this again is to cause serious problems both with the morale of the CIA and with our allies overseas that we cooperate with on covert operations.  This is another example of playing domestic politics in a way that negatively impacts our relationships with our allies in the world. 

Power Line posted an article yesterday about the media coverage of the two young people who filmed the videos showing ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) employees willingly helping the two young people attempt to break the law.  The Washington Post ran articles on Thursday and Friday about the two young people.  They implied that James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles were not acting independently and suggest that the production of the videos may have been racially motivated.  They also make a point of mentioning that Hannah Giles was the eldest daughter of a Christian minister.  One Power Line reader points out that none of us have any idea what Woodward or Bernstein's parents did for a living, nor were they attacked for their investigative reporting.

A google search of ACORN will provide a list of the indictments against them for voter fraud and other charges in various states.  We need to make sure Congress follows through on its pledge to withhold government funding from them.  They may have started out as an organization that only wanted to help the poor, but they have become an illegal enterprise.

Today's Washington Post has an article this morning stating:

"Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal says emphatically: "Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) -- while Afghan security capacity matures -- risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible.""

At the same time, Townhall.com posted an article yesterday stating:

"Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress last week he expected McChrystal's request for additional forces and other resources "in the very near future."

"Other military officials had said the request would go to McChrystal's boss, Gen. David Petraeus, and up the chain of command in a matter of weeks. The White House discounted that timeline, but has remained vague about how long it would take to receive the report and act on it."

I am one of what I suspect are many people who wish George Bush were still Commander-in-Chief.  The delay on this decision is costing American soldiers their lives.  If President Obama doesn't want to fight the war, he should pull our troops out.  To increase the troops gradually, rather than follow the recommendations of the military people who are in the country is not wise. 

This is a quote from the Obama08 website: 

"As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO's efforts against the Taliban. As we step up our commitment, our European friends must do the same, and without the burdensome restrictions that have hampered NATO's efforts. We must also put more of an Afghan face on security by improving the training and equipping of the Afghan Army and Police, and including Afghan soldiers in U.S. and NATO operations.

"We must not, however, repeat the mistakes of Iraq. The solution in Afghanistan is not just military -- it is political and economic. As President, I would increase our non-military aid by $1 billion. These resources should fund projects at the local level to impact ordinary Afghans, including the development of alternative livelihoods for poppy farmers. And we must seek better performance from the Afghan government, and support that performance through tough anti-corruption safeguards on aid, and increased international support to develop the rule of law across the country.

"Above all, I will send a clear message: we will not repeat the mistake of the past, when we turned our back on Afghanistan following Soviet withdrawal. As 9/11 showed us, the security of Afghanistan and America is shared. And today, that security is most threatened by the al Qaeda and Taliban sanctuary in the tribal regions of northwest Pakistan."

 
President Obama was right in his statement about turning our backs on Afghanistan.  We can't afford to do that again.  In 2007 the movie THE KITE RUNNER depicted what happened after the Taliban took over Afghanistan after the Americans walked away after defeating the Soviets following the 1979 Soviet invasion of the country.  We can't let that happen again. If the war in Afghanistan fails now, we run the risk of the Taliban freely setting up headquarters there.  This is not good for us or the rest of the world.  There is a war on terror, and we need to fight it.  To do so timidly is to go back to a pre-911 way of thinking.  We are actually fighting Iran in both Afghanistan and Iraq, but it would be very unwise to attack Iran--instead we would be wise to support the people in that country who are fighting for their freedom from the religious dictatorship currently running that country.  So far President Obama has been unwilling to do that.

The Hill is reporting today that Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, during an appearance on CNN's "State of the Union with John King," stated that General Stanley McChrystal should not have the final say on U.S. strategy going forward in Afghanistan. 

According to the article:

"He's just in the chain of command, and there's higher-ups," Levin said. "This is not a situation like General Petraeus in Iraq, when the president basically said, whatever the commander in Iraq wants, he's going to get."

He might have mentioned that General Petraeus was successful in Iraq and George Bush was glad he listened to him.  The last war American politicians ran was Viet Nam and that didn't turn out too well.

We have a totally inexperienced President and a tried and tested General.  I think I would rather follow the advice of the General.

The Washington Times reported yesterday on a plan by groups supporting the President's healthcare proposals to hold a series of tightly scripted events on Tuesday.  The groups have called for an "escalation" of efforts against "enemies" of reform.  The groups involved include Health Care for America Now (HCAN), which is backed by a coalition of labor unions and liberal groups including ACORN and MoveOn.org.  The group organized the protests to target insurance companies and drafted the plan, which describes the demonstrations as part of its "insurance enemies project."

According to the article:

"The HCAN field plan dictates that each protest will include a minimum of 30 participants, target only health care insurers CIGNA, WellPoint and United Health Care and showcase what it calls "victims," or people who have either lost insurance, can't afford it or were denied coverage because of pre-existing medical conditions.

""We built a campaign to win health care reform and that is exactly what we are working on," said HCAN national spokeswoman Jacki Schechner, who authenticated the documents. But she asserted: "There is nothing top-down about this.""

Healthcare legislation is important and will affect every American.  It deserves an honest debate.  To orchestrate this sort of theatrics to attack honest dissent does voters a disservice and stifles honest debate.  To characterize people who question or oppose the current legislation as 'enemies' is simply unfair.  Hopefully voters will ask their own questions and not be swayed by these productions.

The Tulsa World is reporting on a lawsuit in Oklahoma that may have national implications.  A teenager was refused a job at Abercrombie & Fitch because she wore a hijab, a religiously mandated head scarf.  A district manager allegedly told her that the hijab, which Elauf wears in observance of her religious beliefs, did not fit the store's image.  The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR)-Oklahoma helped her file a complaint with the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) claiming religious discrimination.

This case is not a good thing.  The EEOC office in Oklahoma is falling all over itself proclaiming that they are going to end religious discrimination in hiring and that businesses cannot hire people based on a particular marketing strategy or a particular look.  Ok.  Let's think about where this goes.  Is it a right of a business to hire people whose appearance is in keeping with their image?  I would be happy if Abercrombie & Fitch never sold another piece of clothing to American teenagers--I think they have coarsened the way our teenagers look--but I would not challenge their freedom to sell the clothes they sell.  Is it their right to hire people who have the 'look' that they sell?  Would you frequent a gym where the receptionist was obviously obese?  If you ran a vegetarian restaurant, would you hire Ted Nugent to do your television advertisements?  Would you hire a luxury car saleman who insisted on wearing unironed jeans to work?  Would you hire a priest as a dealer in a blackjack casino (I doubt he would take the job!)?  But you see where this leads.  There has to be a balance between the right of the employer to hire people who will fit in with his organization and the right of someone to be fairly considered for employment. 

Depending on how this case is settled and how it is appealed, it could negatively impact anyone trying to run a successful business.

This is a total afterthought, but it makes me question the actual origins of this case.  Why would a young girl modest enough and devout enough to wear a headscarf want to work in a place that sold clothes that trended toward immodesty?  Is there more to this lawsuit than meets the eye?

The spin on cancelling the missile defense shields promised to Poland and the Czech Republic is that we are giving them something better.  However, an article in today's Washington Times reports that the Poles and the Czechs really don't see it that way.  The front page headline on the Polish tabloid said, "Betrayal! The U.S. sold us to Russia and stabbed us in the back."  It is telling that Vladimir Putin praised the move as "correct and brave."   I am not so convinced that Russia is our friend as to be happy when Putin praises the decisions of our government.

The Obama administration has either overlooked or chosen to ignore the fact the Poles and the Czechs regarded the missile shield as something that would also help them deal with Russian aggression.  They are feeling as if we have sold them out to the Russians.

According to the article:

"Neighboring Lithuania, a small Baltic nation that broke away from the Soviet Union in 1990 and is now a NATO member, also expressed regret over Mr. Obama's decision.

National Defense Minister Rasa Jukneviciene said that the shield would have increased security for Lithuania and she hoped missile defense would not be excluded from future talks on NATO security.

"This NATO region cannot be an exception and its defense is not less important compared with others," she said."

In breaking the promises made to Poland and the Czech Republic, we are telling the world that America cannot be depended on to keep her word.  Countries in eastern Europe and the Middle East will begin looking for allies they can depend on and refusing our requests for help in fighting the war on terror.  This decision may have serious consequences within the NATO alliance. 

Yesterday The Hill reported that forty Senators have asked Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to end the TARP program by the end of 2009.  According to the government released Monthly TARP Report, detailing the activities of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (EESA) of 2008 which created TARP, the authority to make investments under the EESA expires on December 31, 2009.  However, the Secretary of the Treasury may extend the authority through October 3, 2010, upon satisfying certain conditions.

The forty Senators, led by John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, have asked Secretary Geithner not to extend the program.  According to the article:

""The Troubled Asset Relief Program was originally designed and proposed to Congress as a measure to help failing banks get toxic assets off their books while they regained financial stability," said Thune. "In reality, TARP has been used to take ownership interests in banks, insurance companies, and automakers."

I think it's a little late to debate how the TARP was used, but I think Senator Thune is right in asking that it not be extended.  The article describes the letter sent by the forty Senators as bi-partisan.  I think that is a bit of a stretch since only one Democrat signed the letter.

Based on the chart listed on the government's TARP report, it appears that as of the end of August, only $450 billion of the TARP money had been spent.  If President Obama really wanted to help the economy, he would cut the spending there and give the rest of the money back to the taxpayers. 

All of us would love to invent a perpetual motion machine that would transport us from one place to another without using any fuel or emitting anything.  Well, the Max Baucus healthcare proposal wants to do that with money. 

According to the Wall Street Journal today, one of the ways Senator Baucus intends to fund the new healthcare legislation is the impose a $40 billion "fee" on medical devices and diagnostic equipment.  This would amount to a 10% to 30% income tax surcharge on the people who invent and market these products, depending on the corporation.  Obviously, the cost increase to the corporations would eventually be passed on to the healthcare consumer--raising costs.  This of course would raise the cost of the program for the government, and any actual revenue from the tax would only cover the increased cost.  All I can think of is a cat chasing its tail--ultimately the cat gives up because it can't quite accomplish its goal.  In this case, the result will be either the cutback of healthcare or more taxes to pay for it.

The article notes that the the device lobby made a mistake by trying to negotiate with the President on terms of the healthcare bill rather than just campaigning against it from the start.  The conclusion:

"And now it may be too late. As we've argued, liberal Democrats think that merely allowing an industry to continue to exist is a concession, and they're already taking the pharma and hospital concessions and running them higher. In the case of devices, patients will be left with higher costs for fewer life-saving technologies."

The healthcare bill now proposed is a bad bill.  It does not address the basic needs of healthcare--instead it just creates more bureaucracy and more excuses to raise taxes on people and corporations.  Unless tort reform, healthcare insurance across state lines, and the subject on insuring illegal aliens are addressed, healthcare reform will simply be a way to grow government. 

According to Real Clear Markets yesterday, as Congress defunds ACORN (Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now) in one bill, they are strenghtening the framework that allowed the group to grow in another part of Congress. 

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977 allowed ACORN to get into the mortgage business.  Groups such as ACORN would protest banks, forcing them to make risky loans in low-income areas of the community.  As a result of being protested, the banks would contracts these groups to act as mortgage counselors in low-income areas in return for dropping their protests against the banks.  The article explains:

"In one particularly lucrative deal, 14 major banks eager to put CRA protests behind them in 1993 signed an agreement to have Acorn administer a $55 million, 11-city lending program. It was precisely such agreements that helped turn Acorn from a network of small local groups into a national player. And Acorn hasn't been alone. A U.S. senate subcommittee once estimated that CRA-related deals between banks and community groups have pumped nearly $10 billion into the nonprofit sector."

Follow the money.  Unfortunately Congress does not seem at all interested in stopping this cozy little arrangement.  Yesterday, the House Committee on Financial Services under Chairman Barney Frank held hearings on legislation supported by the Obama administration that would bring insurance companies and credit unions under the umbrella of CRA, placing new lending demands on these groups and opening them up to protests and pressure tactics by organizations like Acorn.   Congressmen supporting the new legislation feel that giving more power to the CRA will avoid another housing bubble.

The article concludes:

"The effort to save and extend CRA in the face of its role in the mortgage market's massive meltdown is testament to the unique power of this legislation to nourish an entire industry of nonprofits which, like Acorn, have been reliable supporters of politicians like Barney Frank, Maxine Waters and a former community organizer and associate of Acorn by the name of Barack Obama."

Please follow the link (http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/09/16/acorns_a_creature_of_the_cra_97409.html) and read the entire article.  It is an amazing testimony of how Congress can be totally blind to what is actually happening in our country. 

The Boston Herald is reporting today that the Massachusetts House of Representatives has voted 97-58 in favor of allowing Governor Deval Patrick appoint someone to fill Ted Kennedy's Senate seat until a special election is held in January.  The bill still has to be voted on in the Senate.  This legislative change was suggested by Senator Kennedy.

The article reports:

"House Speaker Robert DeLeo, a Democrat, said the change is needed to ensure Massachusetts continues to be represented by two senators until voters can choose a replacement during a Jan. 19 special election."

The law was changed in 2004 (also at the urging of Senator Kennedy) because the state had a Republican governor and the Democrats who run the state did not want a Republican Governor making the choice.

This showed up in my email.  It is not original, but it is definitely food for thought.

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a Teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how he inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVD's, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

If George W. Bush had misspelled the word advice would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potato as proof of what a dunce he is?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?

If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

If George W Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive?

Can't think of anything? Don't worry.

He's done all this in 5 months -- so you'll have three years and seven months to come up with an answer.

America has betrayed two friends today--the Czech Republic and Poland.  To make things worse, it was done on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland.  President Bush had promised to set up missile defense shields in both countries to counter the threat of the Iranian nuclear program and to provide a hedge against the expansionist plans of Vladimir Putin.  President Obama has told the Czeck Republic and Poland that they will not be getting those missile defense systems.  One of the ways to lose your status as one of the world's most powerful nations is to break promises made to your allies. 

The UK Times has the story from the European perspective.  According to the article:

"Instead, after a comprehensive review, he had decided to accept the advice of both the Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, and of the Chiefs of Staff opt for a "smarter, stronger and swifter" system involving both sea-based and land-based mobile interceptors.

"Mr Obama said that latest intelligence suggested that threat of long-range missile attacks from Iran had receded, but the threat of short- or medium-range attacks was a real one."

At what time did the threat of long-range missile attacks from Iran recede?  This decision not to deploy the missile systems was met with dismay be the Czech Republic and Poland.  It also has made some of the other young democracies bordering Russia very nervous.  These countries have helped us in Afghanistan, and to turn our backs on their challenges is not a way to stay friends. 

It's hard to write this piece and keep the rating at "G", but I will try.  Yesterday's  Investor's Business Daily posted an article about the current scandal surrounding ACORN.  There are currently three or four videos up at YouTube showing ACORN employees giving advice on how to acquire housing loans of federal money to people claiming to want to set up brothels trafficking in underage girls.  Sounds like something you'd welcome in your neighborhood, right? 

The article at Investor's Business Daily is wonderfully written.  It really needs to be read in its entirety, but here are a few points.  After the videos surfaced, the Census Bureau immediately cut its ties to ACORN.  ACORN will no longer be helping with the 2010 Census.  Nebraska Republican Senator Mike Johanns offered an amendment in the Senate to strip ACORN of funding in the Transportation/Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill.  The measure passed 83-to-7.

After the New York video came out, the Brooklyn district attorney's office promptly launched a criminal probe into Acorn.  According to the article:

"The tax-exempt New York Acorn Housing Co. reported receiving $226,000 in grants through last June, including $70,000 from federal housing lender Fannie Mae and its New York counterpart, Sonyma. By one estimate, national Acorn has received $53 million in federal funds since 1994."

If you remember, ACORN shares no small responsibility in the mortgage meltdown.  They sent members to annual meetings of banks to pressure them to make risky loans using the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) as justification for their actions. 

It's time to stop funding ACORN with taxpayer dollars, and it is also time to begin an investigation of their activities. 

While healthcare has taken center stage, according to The Hill yesterday, card check is quietly being moved to the point where it will be voted on this year.  The unions heavily supported Barack Obama during his run for the presidency.  It was believed that his administration would make the workplace more friendly for unions and increase union membership.  In an article published on January 28 of this year, The New York Times noted that union membership has increased from 12.1 percent of workers in 2007 to 12.4 percent of workers in 2008.  Union membership reached its peak in 1983; it was at 20.1 percent.  It is also interesting to note that 36.8 percent of government employees belong to unions, while only 7.6 percent of private industry employees are unionized.

According to the article in The Hill, Arlen Spector, who now supports card check has stated:

"Specter cited three principles pushed by unions for labor law reform that he agrees with: no delays in union certification, tough penalties for labor law violations and binding arbitration for management and workers to reach union contracts more quickly."

The article further states:

""What matters is not whether the AFL-CIO has cut a new backroom deal on the bill; it is whether it can be sold to Senate moderates who are worried about saving jobs, especially their own," said Steven Law, chief legal officer and general counsel at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which opposes the bill."

Card check is not generally a popular idea with the American public.  Americans can be an independent bunch, and they don't like being forced into a union any more than they like being denied the right to join one.  We tend to insist on making our own choices.

This is one of a few bills Congress is thinking about that would do serious harm to the American economy.  The passage of this bill will eventually be determined by how many Congressman believe they can support it and still be elected in the next election cycle.

According to Yahoo News Congressman Joe Wilson has been formally rebuked by the House of Representatives for his "You lie" comment during the President's speech on healthcare.  Politico.com points out that it is much easier for the Democrats to talk about Joe Wilson than to actually talk about the issues involved in the healthcare debate.

Mr. Wilson needed to exercise more self control during the President's speech, but it is interesting to note that since that outburst, there have been attempts to fix the loophole in the healthcare bill that allows illegal immigrants to be covered.  Either the President was misinformed, or he was lying. 

There is another side of this.  During his eight years as President, George Bush was routinely treated rudely by Congress.  There was booing at his State of the Union addresses, and he was called "Hitler" and other things routinely.  If I thought that the censure of Joe Wilson would mean that the next Republican President would be treated with decorum by the Congress, I would support it.  But I don't.  I also think serial apologies are dumb.  Congressman Wilson apologized to the President and that apology was accepted.  At that point Nancy Pelosi stated that the incident was over.  Evidently someone convinced her that there was political gain in keeping the issue alive.  I'm not sure most Americans agree with that idea.

According to Breitbart.com, the Senate voted late Monday to deny federal funds to ACORN (Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now) after videos began to surface of ACORN employees instructing people on how to break the law.  There are now four videos of ACORN employees in different cities explaining to people how to break the law to get money from the government.

Before we get all excited about the vote--it's a free vote for any Senator.  There is no House of Representatives bill that denies funds to ACORN.  In order for legislation to be enacted, it has to pass in the House and in the Senate.  It then goes to committee and gets rewritten and edited into its final stage.  The bill that comes out of committee has to be passed by both the House and the Senate and signed by the President before it becomes law.  The chances of this vote by the Senate ever becoming law are very slim.

There is another reason why the denial of funds to ACORN will never happen.  The news organizations that have attempted to investigate ACORN have found it to be a maze of small organizations that are structured in a way that makes it very difficult to locate exactly who is behind them.   All ACORN needs to do is change its name and continue to do the things it is doing.

Today's Washington Times is reporting that House Democrat leaders plan to offer a resolution of disapproval this week if Congressman Joe Wilson does not apologize formally to Congress for his outburst at the President's speech on healthcare.  Just as a side note, it's interesting that according to MSNBC on Friday:

"Today, for the first time as far as we know, the administration is backing a provision that would require proof of citizenship before someone could enroll in a plan selected on the exchange."

Up until now, there was no plan to verify citizenship; in fact, the idea was voted down in the House.  Congressman Wilson was telling the truth; he was telling it in a fashion that was not appropriate, but he was telling the truth.  By demanding another apology (after the President accepted the first one), the Democrats are trying to draw attention away from the truth.  This is politics and is not necessary at this time.  The healthcare bill is major legislation; it needs to be discussed and analyzed by grown-ups--this move by the Democrats in the House does not help the process.

Bloomberg.com is reporting that President Obama has imposed a tariff on tires imported from China.  The United Steelworkers union had asked for the tariff, claiming that the increasing number of tires imported from China were costing US jobs.  The amount of tires imported into America from China has tripled between 2004 and 2008.

China is not happy about the tariff, and has indicated that they may place some tariffs on American goods to retaliate.  According to the article:

"Chinese industries complain that they're being hurt by "unfair" U.S. trade practices, the nation's Ministry of Commerce said on its Web site yesterday. The Beijing-based ministry is probing complaints about U.S. subsidies for auto and chicken products, a spokesman said today. The agency is also probing the alleged dumping of the chicken products, he said.

"The U.S. decision on tires violated rules of the WTO and is a breach of the commitments made by the U.S. at the Group of 20 summits, the ministry said Sept. 12. The move will harm both countries' interests and produce a chain reaction of trade protectionism, slowing world economic recovery, it added."

The G-20 summit meets in Pittsburgh next week, so President Obama will see Chinese President Hu Jintao there. 

Tariffs historically have not generally been a positive thing.  The Smoot-Hawley Tariff of the 1930's started a trade war.  The US Department of State writes on its website that world trade declined after the tariff was enacted. 

There is a lot of room for change in our trade policies with China.  We have had some serious problems with pet food, baby food, and children's toys.  It is also difficult to compete in the world market with a country who severely underpays its labor pool (and probably uses children and prisoners to manufacture some goods).  I'm just not sure a tariff on tires is going to help. 

Yesterday's UK Telegraph posted a story saying that the Taliban has announced a surrender in the Swat Valley in Pakistan.  According to the article:

"Its announcement, made on one of its pirate radio stations, came as its charismatic leader Maulana Fazlullah was reported to be surrounded by Pakistani troops, and there were claims that he had in fact already been arrested.

"Their collapse in Swat, if confirmed, will deal a serious blow to the Taliban's Pakistan leadership which has been in disarray since its leader Baitullah Mehsud was killed in an American drone attack in north Waziristan, close to the Afghan border, last month."

On the surface there is some really good news here.  Two of their leaders have been removed from leadership positions in the past month or so.  That is good news.  But we need to consider the Muslim concept of "Hudna."  According to The Israel Project's Middle East Glossary:

"Hudna- Arabic word often translated as "cease-fire.- Historically used as a tactic aimed at allowing the party declaring the hudna to regroup while tricking an enemy into lowering its guard. When the hudna expires, the party that declared it is stronger and the enemy weaker. The term comes from the story of the Muslim conquest of Mecca. Instead of a rapid victory, Muhammad made a ten-year treaty with the Kuraysh tribe. In 628 AD, after only two years of the ten-year treaty, Muhammad and his forces concluded that the Kuraysh were too weak to resist. The Muslims broke the treaty and took over all of Mecca without opposition."

I would like to think that this is a geniune surrender, but as Ronald Reagan used to say, "Trust, but verify."  I think that approach is totally necessary here.

According to yesterday's Wall Street Journal, President Obama plans to have the U.S. Department of Education move from its current 20% share of the student-loan origination market to 80% on July 1, 2010, when private lenders will be barred from making government-guaranteed loans.  Starting next summer, the taxpayers will be spending roughly $100 billion per year in student loans. 

The article points out:

"The system broke down after Congress in 2007 legislated a return so low that no private lenders could make money holding these assets. To keep the money flowing to student borrowers, the government began buying the loans from private originators last year. But this larger federal role was intended to be temporary, with an expiration date next summer. The news from Washington now is that rather than scaling back federal involvement, the pols want the U.S. Department of Education to be the exclusive banker to America's college students."

The system broke down after Congress 'made it better.'   The idea was for the government to temporarily solve the problem and then have the private sector take over.  Obviously that didn't work.  As the healthcare debate continues, we need to look at how well Congress has managed our taxpayer funds in other areas.  This is a prime example of why I want the government to keep away from my healthcare!   Anytime the government gets involved in a program, they take it over and it costs the taxpayers a whole lot more money than what was promised. 

The UK Daily Mail is reporting that there were up to two million protesters in Washington yesterday.  The American papers have listed the crowd as simply 'tens of thousands.'  I have no idea what the actual number was, but the pictures I have seen show a very large crowd.  I had the feeling in reading the article that the real protest was against the government ignoring the wishes of the people.  The protesters were protesting the amount of spending, healthcare reform, and the idea that they were not being heard on important issues.  It will be interesting to see if Congress and the President begin listening.

There are a number of videos of the rallys held in Washington, D. C., today posted at Lucianne.com.  Follow the link to see them.  The turnout was larger than expected, and most of the media has avoided saying how many people were actually there.  Even if you couldn't make it to Washington, you need to remember the actions of the current Congress when it comes time to vote next year!

According to Reuters.com, Roberto Micheletti said on Saturday the United States has revoked his visa in an attempt to apply pressure on Honduras to violate its Constitution and reinstate President Manuel Zelaya.

President Manuel Zelaya was removed from office on June 28 of this year.  It was not a coup--the military and legislature were enforcing a clause in the Honduras Constitution putting term limits on the president.  President Manuel Zelaya was ousted for his unconstitutional attempt at a referendum to be President after he was constitutionally required to step down from office.  The courts and the legislature had told him that the referendum he wanted to hold on serving another term was unconstitutional.  He decided to hold the referendum anyway, getting the ballots from Hugo Chavez.  The law in Honduras states that as soon as the President states an intention to violate his term limit, he is to be removed from office.  That is what happened.  Honduras has a written Constitution that seeks to avoid the concept of "President for Life" which has been a problem in some of the countries in the region.

According to the article:

"The State Department said last week that it could not, for now, regard as legitimate Honduran elections scheduled for November because of Zelaya's overthrow.

"Marcia Villa, a Honduran lawmaker and ally of Micheletti, said several top members of Micheletti's government, Honduran Supreme Court justices and a group of Honduran businessmen had also lost their U.S. visas.

"Some Latin American leaders have suggested Washington apply more pressure, but some U.S. Republican lawmakers believe it has already done too much for Zelaya, an ally of Venezuela's socialist and anti-U.S. president, Hugo Chavez."

The last sentence says it all, why are we on the side of Hugo Chavez?

According to the Washington Times, tens of thousands of Americans marched on Washington, D. C. today to protest government spending.   The Washington Post also ran a story on the march, calling it an anti-government protest.

The articles in the Washington Post and the Washington Times listed some of the protest signs:

"Cash for Clunkers! Trade in your congressman!"

"Go Green Recycle Congress"

"King George Didn't Listen Either!"

"How Is That Hopey Changey Thing Workin' Out For Ya?"

Protest is an important part of democracy.  In American, people can protest without fear of government retaliation.  I applaud these people for making the trip to Washington to voice their concern.  It is the responsibility of all Americans to pay attention to what the government is doing and to speak out in support or opposition to whatever is going on at the moment.

According to the blog at the Weekly Standard, the US Census has cut its ties with ACORN (Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now); ACORN will no longer be helping with the US Census in 2010.  The Census made its decision after two undercover video tapes surfaced showing ACORN offices in Baltimore and Washington, DC, giving advice to the people making the videos on how to set up a business of underaged prostitution with advice on tax status, getting grants, and avoiding notice by law enforcement.  This follows charges against ACORN of illegal voter registration in a number of states during the 2008 elections--ACORN registered the Dallas Cowboys football team front line to vote in Nevada, and Mickey Mouse was registered to vote in Florida.  These are people who obviously do not have a lot of respect for the law.

The fact that ACORN is no longer involved in the Census is good news.   Unfortunately, this won't be the end of government involvement with ACORN.  The stimulus bill includes millions of dollars for community organizing that could conceivably go to ACORN.  All of us need to pay close attention to where the stimulus money is going.  According to Recovery.gov as of September 4, only 93.6 billion dollars of the supposedly 233.76 billion dollars available had been actually paid out.

This is a picture of the Teardrop Memorial, Russia's gift to the United States in memory of 911.  The monument To the Struggle Against World Terrorism was dedicated on September 11, 2006, by President Clinton.   It is located in Bayonne, New Jersey, at a place where the twin towers were visible.   To read the entire story of the monument and how it came to rest there, please follow the link to 911monument.com.    The website tells the story of what inspired the monument and how it came to be.  This is another picture of the monument.    I stumbled on this monument in an article at the American Thinker on Monday and plan to visit the monument in the near future.

 

President Obama spoke to our schoolchildren on Tuesday and told them how important (and cool) it was to do their homework and stay in school.  I believe he also said that their success depended on them--not their schools.  Good thing.  As he was making this speech, he was taking the chance at a quality education away from 1,700 low income children in Washington, D. C.

According to an article in today's Wall Street Journal:

"The D.C. voucher program has proven to be the most effective education policy evaluated by the federal government's official education research arm so far," writes the Education Department's chief evaluator Patrick Wolf in the current issue of Education Next. "On average, participating low-income students are performing better in reading because the federal government decided to launch an experimental school choice program in our nation's capital."

This is the program the White House and Congress shut down earlier this year.  The problem with shutting down this program is the fact that the President and the majority of members of Congress who live in Washington send their children to private schools.  If they are unwilling to put their children in the failing schools they supervise, why are they unwilling to help other children access the educational opportunities available to their children.

Yesterday's Jerusalem Post ran a story about a secret visit by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to Russia on Monday.  The trip was kept secret.  According to the article:

"According to various new reports on Wednesday, Netanyahu - who was reportedly accompanied by Kalifi and Arad on the reported trip - leased a private jet from Merhav, a company owned by Israeli mogul Yossi Maiman, one of the shareholders of Channel 10 and EMG, an Egyptian company supplying gas to the Israel Electric Corp.

This was apparently done to make the trip as discrete as possible, since using an Israel Air Force jet - it was apparently thought - would have raised the suspicions of the Israeli media.

Maiman was reportedly not directly involved in leasing the jet, as this was done through a company he owns."

The timing of this trip is very interesting.  As is to be expected, there is a lot of speculation as to what was involved in discussions between the Prime Minister and the Russians.  There are currently Russian arms deals to Iran involving anti-aircraft missiles, and we have all heard of the disappearance of the Arctic Sea cargo ship - suspected of carrying Russian made S-300 anti-aircraft missiles bound for Iran - that went missing last month.  Once Russian anti-aircraft missiles are in place, attacking Iran's nuclear sites becomes much more complicated.  

Any negotiations between Israel and Russia need to be watched carefully--the stability of the Middle East is at stake if Iran goes nuclear and Russia may be helping that occur. 

Just because a comment is made out of order does not mean that it isn't true.  (Just a note, how many times did Democrats boo George Bush during his State of the Union addresses.  Why was that acceptable?).  The little boy who yelled that the emporer had no clothes was not practicing protocol, but what he said was true.  Just a thought.  Unfortunately, the outburst by Joe Wilson has taken the focus off of what is the substance of what was being said and putting it on Joe Wilson instead.  We need to focus on substance.

I am not sure what healthcare bill President Obama was referring to in his speech last night.  HR 3200, the House bill, has no requirement for people seeking government health insurance to prove citizenship.  There is no 'e verify' or any enforcement of the idea that the healthcare provided is for American citizens and people here legally.  Therefore, any illegal alien seeking to be covered will be.  The House bill also promises a full range of 'reproductive services' to women.  When a Congress member tried to put an amendment in the bill outlawing federal funding for abortion, the amendment was voted down.  Hmmm.  The President was lying.  It's just rude to yell it out in the middle of the speech.

In terms of how to pay for this massive healthcare bill, yesterday's Washington Times reported on the suggested 'fees' proposed by Max Baucus.  According to the Washington Time:

"Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus' bid to get a bipartisan agreement on a health care overhaul before President Obama addresses a joint session of Congress Wednesday night calls for imposing a $6 billion tax on insurance companies and fining families $3,800 for not obtaining insurance coverage.

"The draft contains many of the expected proposals, including the creation of a series of insurance cooperatives, but lawmakers who were reluctant to support other proposals may be more attracted to what's not in it - namely, the public option, the employer mandate and the tax increase on wealthy Americans."

The current healthcare proposal is not revenue neutral, the Congressional Budget Office has made that clear.  If this passes, prepare for significantly higher taxes on everyone. 

Salem radio delivered petitions against healthcare reform to Congress yesterday with more than a million signatures opposing the current proposals.  Congress needs to listen to the American public--they are paying attention and they want to be heard. 

Today's Washington Times has posted an article stating that there will be an inquiry into the Justice Department's dropping the case against the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia for voter intimidation.  The inquiry will be conducted by The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility.  According to the article:

"In January, the Justice Department filed a civil complaint in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia against the New Black Panther Party after two of its members in black berets, black combat boots, black shirts and black jackets with military insignias purportedly intimidated voters with racial insults, slurs and a nightstick. A third party member was accused of managing, directing and endorsing their behavior."

That case was dropped by the Justice Department.  The incident in question is posted at You Tube.  That fact alone makes ignoring the case extremely difficult.

Today's Boston Herald posted an article today in its Science section saying that research has identified the organism that caused the Irish Potato Famine.  Cambridge's Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard worked with the United Kingdom's Sainsbury Laboratory and other groups to unlock the organism's genetic code.  According to the article:

"The genome structure of the organism is an "unusual mechanism that enables the pathogen to outsmart its plant hosts" and kill off crops at a rapid pace,"

This is believed to be the same organism that has attacked tomato plants and potato crops this summer.  My cherry tomatoes did fine, but my regular tomatoes were attacked by tomato blight this summer.  We have the luxury of going to the supermarket to buy tomatoes when ours do not do well; the Irish in the 19th century had no such option.  However, a significant part of the greatness of America is due to those Irish immigrants who braved crossing the Atlantic Ocean rather than starve to death.  Although they were treated horribly at first, they persevered and many became leading citizens of this country.

Today's New York Post has an article by Betsy McCaughey suggesting what President Obama should say in his healthcare speech tonight.  Her bottom line is very simple--rip up this awful plan and rewrite it in English!

The current healthcare bill is 1,018 pages long.   Members of Congress who have bothered to try to read it say they cannot understand it.  Most members have not even tried to read it.  The bill contains such great examples of legal confusion as:

"Section 502 of such Act (29 USC 1132) is amended in subsection (a) (6) by striking paragraph and all that follows through subsection (c) and inserting paragraph (2), (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) or (11) of subsection (c) and (2) in subsection (c), by redesignating the second paragraph (10) as paragraph (12) and by inserting after the first paragraph (10) the following new paragraph."

Huh?  Ms. McCaughey points out that it only took the founders of this country 18 pages to form a country.  She believes we can do a healthcare bill in 20 pages.  She points out that the uninsured could be insured for the next decade with the remainder of the stimulus money which has not been spent.  That is really the major need in healthcare right now.  Other steps could be taken for pre-existing conditions, etc. later on after we see how the first step works.

I agree.  It's time to go back to the drawing board and do the right thing instead of the political thing. 

Power Line reminds us today of the reaction when George H. W. Bush spoke to school children in 1991.  They cite a Washington Examiner article by Byron York that chronicles the events.  According to Byron York:

"Democrats, then the majority party in Congress, not only denounced Bush's speech -- they also ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate its production and later summoned top Bush administration officials to Capitol Hill for an extensive hearing on the issue."

They eventually concluded that he had done nothing illegal, but spent a lot of taxpayer money coming to that conclusion.  My how times have changed.

Friday's National Review posted an editorial on the actions of the American State Department toward Honduras.  After suspending non-emergency and non-immigrant visa services at the American Embassy in Tegucigalpa, America is now suspending non-humanitarian aid to that country.  America has made it clear it will not support the results of the elections Honduras has scheduled for November.  As you remember, former President Manuel Zelaya was ousted for his unconstitutional attempt at a referendum to be President after he was constitutionally required to step down from office.  Honduras is enforcing her constitution, and America is fighting her every step of the way.

According to the article:

"Zelaya's constitutionally mandated successor was congressional leader Roberto Micheletti, who has been serving as the temporary Honduran president since late June. Micheletti recently declared his willingness to resign and support Zelaya's return to the country -- provided Zelaya does not seek to resume the presidency. Honduran authorities consider Zelaya unfit to be chief executive -- federal lawmakers voted nearly unanimously to approve his ouster -- and with good reason. Zelaya will be lucky if he avoids jail time. He has no legitimate claim to the presidency."

"As for the Obama administration, its mistreatment of the interim Honduran government is an ongoing travesty. In removing Zelaya from office, Honduran officials took a legal, constitutionally authorized stand against Chávez-style authoritarianism. They deserve praise, not punishment."

It should be a wake-up call to this administration that they find themselves on the same side of an issue as Hugo Chavez.

The Corner At National Review Online doesn't do a lot of celebrity stories, so this one surprised me.  It also gave me a lot of food for thought.

On Monday, Amy Holmes posted a piece about the death of spin-meister DJ AM, nee Adam Goldstein.  Amy points out that according to the New York Times, Mr. Goldstein's death may have been a suicide.  He was 36 years old, a millionaire, and had luxury homes on each coast.  Why would he commit suicide? 

Amy Holmes suggests that the perpetual adolescence he had achieved in society along with his success simply did not satisfy him.  Ms. Holmes points out that there has been much written about the effect of the perpetual adolescence of men on the women who interact with them, but not much has been written about the effect of perpetual adolescence on the men practicing it. 

She concludes her article by saying:

"One could say that Goldstein died too young at the mere age of 36. But one could also say that he lived too young, too."

Friday's Wall Street Journal posted an article by John Shadegg and Pete Hoekstra suggesting ways to fix our healthcare problems without a government takeover of the entire healthcare system.

Some of their suggestions were:

Patient choice--the government so closely regulates the healthcare industry (and the tax code rewards the status quo which puts healthcare under employers).  People should have the right to decide independently what healthcare they want.

Allowing people to purchase their own healthcare with untaxed dollars, providing cheaper insurance for individuals who turn down their employer-funded plans.

State-based risk pools to allow people with pre-existing conditions to be insured.

Using healthcare vouchers to allow low income people to purchase health insurance, but keeping the government out of the healthcare business.

The basic idea of the plan suggested is to make it easier for Americans to buy health insurance and to make Americans responsible for their own healthcare.  I think that's a much better idea than a government takeover of the healthcare industry.

Paul Mirengoff at Power Line posted an article yesterday asking, "Does our President have a moral compass?"  The article links to a Barry Rubin article in the Jerusalem Post.  The question involves some recent problems between Iraq and Syria.  President Maliki of Iraq visited the President of Syria in August and offered him economic concessions in exchange for the return to Iraq of 271 Iraqi exiles involved in organizing terrorist attacks against Iraq.    The offer was refused.  The next day bombings in Iraq killed 100 people.  The Iraqi government blamed Syria, and both countries recalled their ambassadors. 

According to the article, this is the comment by the US State Department:

"We understand that there has been sort of mutual recall of the ambassadors. We consider that an internal matter. We believe that, as a general principle, that diplomatic dialogue is the best means to address the concerns of both parties. We are working with the Iraqis to determine who perpetrated these horrible acts of violence... We hope this doesn't hinder dialogue between the two countries."

Good grief!  As the article points out, what are the concerns of both parties?  Is Syria's concern that it would like to continue blowing up Iraqis?  Is that a valid concern according to this administration?  It is very nice to be diplomatic, but if no one is willing to stand up to people who continue to bomb innocent civilians, they will continue to bomb innocent civilians.  What happened to our country?  We used to defend freedom and protect the innocent.  Have we given that up in favor of nice-sounding words that don't mean anything ?

Today's New York Daily News posted an article on unions and pension funds.  In the article, they cite the U. S. Labor Department statistics on pension funds and their funding.  The article points out that in 2006 (the last year that data is available)  only 17% of union-negotiated plans were fully funded, compared with 35% of nonunion plans.  According to the article:

"Under the Pension Protection Act of 2006, funds with less than 80% of assets are in "endangered" status. In 2006, 41% of union funds were "endangered," compared with 14% of nonunion funds.

"Thirteen percent of union funds had less than 65% of required assets, also called "critical" status by the Labor Department, while only 1% of nonunion plans were in critical shape."

The figures also show that in a sampling of the largest union retirement plans, the collectively bargained plans had 70 % of the money to meet their obligations, while the officers plan had 93 %.  The SEIU (Service Employees International Union) was 74 % funded in 2007 and in 2009 filed under critical status with the US Labor Department.  Meanwhile, there is a separate fund for the unions staff and officers.  The staff pensions are 85% funded and the officers' pensions are 102 % funded.  The article points out that all three of the SEIU funds are managed within a single trust, separately, but by the same people.

The union workers pay into their pension funds.  They are promised their pensions, yet the only people who can be sure of those pensions are the officers.  In my opinion, this seems to go against the whole reason unions were started.  If the unions can manage to fund pensions for their officers (with rank and file money), why can't they fund the pensions for their workers with the same kind of security?  I would also like to point out that the SEIU is one of many unions who will receive a cash windfall if the Obama healthcare passes (see yesterday's post).

On Friday, the Heritage Foundation posted an article on why the unions support the proposed healthcare legislation.  The short story is very simple--follow the money.

The proposed legislation includes a $10 billion bailout of union retiree health plans.  Because the program would increase the number of government workers (to administer the new plan), it would increase the number of union members (government workers unionize more quickly than private sector workers).  National healthcare would reduce the competitive disadvantage that unionized companies have.

According to the article:

"Many unions negotiate benefit packages that allow workers to retire early and collect health benefits until they qualify for Medicare. Many of these plans they are underfunded because unions mismanaged them.

"The healthcare legislation transfers $10 billion to these accounts, in the form of a reinsurance program that pays most of the cost of claims for workers in these plans.  Like the GM and Chrysler bailouts, the health care legislation requires all taxpayers--including low income workers without retirement plans--to pay for benefits for already well-compensated union workers."

The legislation that is currently proposed would mean a financial windfall for the unions.  If it is passed, they expect to increase their membership, increase the amount of dues collected, and lower their costs in benefits to members--all with taxpayers' money.  If you question why unions support this bill, follow the money.  Please read the entire article at the Heritage Foundation  for details on all the reasons for union support of this bill.

Today's Washington Examiner has an article by Byron York on the resignation of Van Jones as Green Jobs Czar.  In submitting his resignation Mr. Jones cited a "vicious smear campaign" and stated that "opponents of reform" had used "lies and distortion" to drive him out of office.  The problem with those statements is that the words used against him were his own words found on YouTube and various other places.  One of the 'problems' with the internet is that everything you have ever posted anywhere is there for the world to find.  The major media chose not to look very far for these things; the 'new' media went searching. 

Evidently Glenn Beck at Fox News uncovered a lot of evidence that Mr. Jones was not representative of mainstream American thinking and showed videos and quotes on his program.  This may explain why ColorofChange.org is trying to get advertisers to boycott Glenn Beck.  When I first heard of the campaign by ColorofChange.org, I wondered why they were going after Glenn Beck and not Rush Limbaugh.  Now I understand--I believe Rush Limbaugh reaches a larger audience, but he goes after the entertainment factor as much as the hard news factor.  Glenn Beck has connected the dots on a number of Czars in the Obama Administration, exposing the radical past of more than one Czar.  He is more of a 'threat' to the Administration than Rush Limbaugh.  Color of Change.org has close ties to the Obama Administration and would be more interested in protecting the Administration than in just driving a conservative off the airwaves.

Although I am sorry to see anyone lose his job, I believe the structure of czars that President Obama has set up is unconstitutional.  More than that, I believe the fact that the czars are not accountable to Congress or subject to Congressional confirmation hearings is simply not the way the American government was designed to run.  I would like to see all of the czars resign.  There are at present at almost 40 czars--that is nearly half the number of Senators.  That is just not appropriate.

I don't really have a lot to say about Van Jones.  My two sources for my comments are both articles at Power Line (also Power Line).  It was reported last week that in addition to openly professing to be a Communist, Van Jones was a 911 truther.   He also supports cop killer Mumia Abu Jamal.  This is not a wonderful resume.

The articles point out:

"Jones also signifies the cooperation of the mainstream media in Obama's machinations. The nonfeasance of the mainstream media in the performance of their job has been virtually complete. They have left it to the likes of the indomitable Gateway Pundit to reveal what a man we have in Jones, and therewith the project in which the Obama administration is engaged. The mainstream media have Obama's back. Yesterday Byron York ran a Nexis search on Van Jones and posted the resutls:

Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the New York Times: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the Washington Post: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on NBC Nightly News: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on ABC World News: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on CBS Evening News: 0.

"As of today, I think York's calculation still obtains for the New York Times, but the Wshington Post has contributed a few words on the White House's "tepid support" of Jones. A reader is more or less left to fend for himself in figuring the the substance of Jones's statements or views that have produced this "tepid support.""

Van Jones is one of President Obama's czars.  That means he did not have to go through the confirmation process in his search for a position at the White House.  Is there anyone who actually believes he would have been able to get through the confirmation process?

The fact that Van Jones has a position in the White House shows that our system of government is breaking down.  Czars are not a part of the US Constitution.  They are a way of avoiding the checks and balances that are supposed to be built into the system.  We need to find a way to put those checks and balances back in! 

There is wisdom in being concerned about terrorism threats from overseas, but we also need to be aware of terrorism threats here.  According to Breitbart.com, two radio transmitters in Everett, Washington, were bulldozed yesterday.  A sign bearing the initials ELF ("Earth Liberation Front") was left at the sight.

A neighbor called 911 at about 3:30 am on Friday to report that bulldozers were taking down the towers.  The towers belonged to radio station KRKO.  The family-owned radio station was able to remain on the air Friday by using other transmission equipment.

According to the article:

"A hearing examiner denied a permit for the towers, based on claims that radio signals could be dangerous to humans. But the council voted to reverse the finding, saying it was based on shaky scientific evidence.

"A King County judge upheld the council's decision on Aug. 14."

Destruction of another persons property is illegal and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.  Earth Liberation Front has also been involved in vandelism of construction sites and car dealerships.  They should be considered terrorists and treated as such.

Breitbart.com posted an article today about Nicholas Winton, now 100 years old, who oganized the rail "kindertransports" that carried hundreds of mostly Jewish children from Nazi-occupied Czechoslovakia to safety in 1939.  A vintage train arrived in London on Friday carrying  Holocaust survivors celebrating the 70th anniversary of their trip across Europe to safety.  Mr. Winton was there to meet them.  The steam train carried 170 people, including about two dozen survivors of the evacuations and members of their families, on a trip across Europe to remember their journey. 

The article explains:

"In late 1938, Winton, a 29-year-old clerk at the London Stock Exchange, had traveled to what was then Czechoslovakia at the invitation of a friend working at the British Embassy.

"Alarmed by the influx of refugees from the Sudetenland region recently annexed by Germany, Winton immediately began organizing a way to get Jewish children out of the country. He feared, correctly, that Czechoslovakia soon would be invaded by the Nazis and Jewish residents would be sent to concentration camps.

"Winton persuaded British officials to accept the children, as long as foster homes could be found, and set about fundraising and organizing the trip. He arranged eight trains that carried 669 mostly Jewish children through Germany to Britain in the months before the outbreak of World War II.

"The youngsters were sent to foster homes in England, and a few to Sweden. None saw their parents again."

It's wonderful that these children were saved; it's truly sad that their parents and siblings could not have been saved also.

According to the Los Angeles Times today:

"Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton cut off more than $30 million in aid to Honduras on Thursday in an effort increase pressure on the country's de facto government to restore democratic rule after a coup in June."

First of all--IT WASN"T A COUP!!!!!!   Former President Manuel Zelaya was arrested and taken out of the country in June of this year.  He was arrested because he was attempting to violate the Honduran constitution which imposes term limits.  The courts and the legislature had determined that the referendum he was planning to hold to allow him to run for another term was unconstitutional.  His arrest and exile were ordered in order to prevent revolution and bloodshed in the country.  President Zelaya is a close friend of Hugo Chavez, and Mr. Chavez was going to supply the ballots for the referendum (were they premarked?).

America is on the wrong side of this fight.  We used to support democracy in our hemisphere; we seem to have moved away from that in this case.  Hopefully someone at the State Department will take another look at this situation in the near future--South America does not need another dictator like Hugo Chavez.

According to yesterday's New York Daily News, when Moammar Khadafy comes to New York later this month to visit the UN, he will ask the UN to dissolve the country of Switzerland.  He wants to country split up between France, Italy, and Germany.  Why?  A year ago, Khadafy's son Hannibal was arrested in Geneva for beating two servants with a belt and a coat hangar.  He had previously had run-ins with the French because of drunk driving. 

According to the article, there was some major fallout from the incident in Geneva:

"Libya retaliated with fury, recalling some diplomats, withdrawing $5 billion from Swiss banks, shuttering the Tripoli office of Nestle and threatening to cut oil deliveries. Two Swiss businessmen were barred from leaving the country until Libya received an apology for Hannibal's arrest.

For a year, the issue festered. Two weeks ago, Swiss President Hans-Rudolf Merz traveled to Tripoli to apologize for the arrest and Libya promised to let the hostages go by Sept. 1."

The UN charter specifically states that no member can threaten the sovereignty of another member.  Although that rule is consistently overlooked in the case of Iran threatening Israel, there is a good chance it will be followed here. 

This is a disjointed article, linking to one or two things, that simply expresses some of my thoughts and observations about what I have seen and heard over the past few days.

On healthcare--the debate is not about healthcare--everyone in the US gets healthcare--the question is who pays for it and how much is available.  I think it's interesting that some of my liberal friends who have been screaming for years that the government lies to us are so anxious to put the government in charge of their healthcare.  I have read 'translations' of the bill and have a lot of questions.  If we cut the amount of money going to medicare at a time that the baby boomers are reaching medicare age, how are we going to avoid rationing care?   A news story broke this week in the UK Telegraph about the care that elderly patients receive in the United Kingdom.  Being forced to die does not fit my definition of healthcare.  It is also noteworthy that assisted suicide is legal in two of the United States.  This may be a trend.  Do we want to put the people who have totally botched paying car dealers in 'cash for clunkers' in charge of our healthcare?

The following is quoted from "Your Social Security Statement" published by our government:

"Social Security is a compact between generations.  For decades, America has kept the promise of security for its workers and their families.  Now, however, the Social Security system is facing serious financial problems, and action is needed soon to make sure the system will be sound when today's younger workers are ready for retirement.

"In 2017 we will begin paying more in (Social Security) benefits than we collect in taxes.  Without changes, by 2014 the Social Security Trust Fund (which does not exist) will be exhausted and there will be enough money to pay only about 78 cents for each dollar of scheduled benefits.  We need to resolve these issues soon to make sure Social Security continues to provide a foundation of protection for future generations."

I believe George Bush tried to fix this problem and was blocked by the Democrat Congress.  Congress has been taking money out of the Social Security Trust Fund since the 1960's and putting in worthless IOU's.  Congress opted out of Social Security about the same time they started robbing the trust fund.  I suspect we shouldn't hold our breath waiting for them to sign on to the 'public option' in healthcare. 

In relation to the President addressing all schoolchildren next week.  This just seems odd to me.  The children are a captive audience--they are in school because the law requires them to be there.  I would much rather the President address them on a weekend when they can (or not) watch the address with their parents.  Parents have the responsibility of raising their children--not schools.  Will there be a chance for equal time?  Will there be fact checking?  Will children be asked to report 'fishy' behavior on the part of their parents?  This is just too weird for me!

Tuesday's Investor's Business Daily posted an article about Toyota closing its NUMMI plant in Fremont, California.  The plant was a hybrid General Motors and Toyota manufacturing facility.

In theory the plant was the type of manufacturing that the Obama Administration supports.  The plant had won 42 environmental awards and 32 product excellence awards.  Most of its 5,500 employees were members of the United Autoworkers Union, making an average of $65,000 a year. According to the article:

"Since 1982, the plant has cranked out more than 5 million vehicles, including the Toyota Corolla, Pontiac Vibe and Geo Prizm."

What happened?  According to Thomas Lifson, a former Harvard business professor and consultant to two of the top five global auto manufacturers, the excessive 'green' rules in California are fine in a thriving economy, but make doing business difficult during a recession.  The cost of doing business in California makes it difficult for business to prosper there.  Toyota has announced that the manufacturing done in Fremont will be moved to San Antonio, Ontario (Canada) and Japan.

The other problem with the plant was union labor.  The article reports:

"The UAW contract is a legacy of its ties to GM. After the government's takeover of GM ended GM's role in the plant, Toyota was left with the UAW's uncompetitive labor costs, which added $500 to the cost of a car and forced it to lay off 4,700 workers."

This is what happens when government oversteps its control of business.  Corporations, like people, vote with their feet.

As Iran edges closer to becoming a nuclear power, there has been some debate as to what action should be taken to prevent that from happening.  There has been speculation for a while as to whether or not Israel will respond with a military strike.  I do think it's fairly obvious at this point that American will not respond with a military strike, and there are some questions as to whether we will block airspace in the Middle East to prevent Israel from hitting Iran's nuclear facilities.

The seemingly 'easy' answer to the problem is some sort of severe economic sanctions.  Monday's Wall Street Journal ran an article by John Bolton addressing the issues involved in economic sanctions.  He points out what he considers the main problems in imposing strong sanctions on Iran.  The first problem is the fact that the chances of the UN supporting strong sanctions is very small.  Both Russia and China are unlikely to vote for sanctions due to financial interests in Iran, and either has the power to block them.  Any sanctions imposed are likely to be very weak, as too many western countries are linked economically to Iran--they don't want to hurt their own economies. 

The Iranian government has also watched the debate on sanctions.  Because they have realized that they are vulnerable in the area of refined petroleum products, they have begun to take steps to remove that vulnerability.  Gasoline prices are rising in Iran for the average consumer (the military will probably still have all the gasoline it needs).  Since the country has large natural gas reserves, they can move to natural gas powered cars fairly easily, thus lessening their dependency on refined petroleum.

Ambassador Bolton points out that sanctions might have worked a number of years ago, but the time for them has passed.  Please read the article, he has a lot of insight into the problem.

This is a local story.  In the grand scheme of things, it really isn't all that important, but it is an example of how out-of-touch the people who make our laws have become.  This is a picture from today's Boston Herald:

The person who drives the car is Michael J. Rodrigues, a Westport, Massachusetts lawmaker who voted to hike the state sales and alcohol taxes.  The picture was taken in New Hampshire (where there is no sales tax) over the weekend.

The Herald has the following report by the person who took the picture:

"The witness, who requested anonymity, claimed he approached Rodrigues, noted his State House plate, and asked if he was on personal or official business. Rodrigues, who was loading booze into his car, snapped "mind your own business," the witness said.  The witness' account was also posted yesterday on Citizens for Limited Taxation's Web site."

It is interesting that this event occurred at the time Massachusetts is attempting to crack down on people who shop in New Hampshire in order to avoid paying Massachusetts sales tax.  

Today's New York Post posted an opinion piece today suggesting that Charlie Rangel be fired.  Charlie Rangel is head of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.  In the past year, Mr. Rangel has 'discovered' large sums of money he neglected to report on the disclosure forms he is required to fill out as a Congressman.  He has made various excuses about forgetting income or having language difficulties, but as yet has not suffered any penalty for his forgetfulness.

Congressman Rangel is now suggesting that fines and penalties be made stricter on average taxpayers who make filing errors or mistakes on their returns.  According to the article:

"The Post's Charles Hurt reported yesterday that Rangel's committee seeks to reduce legal defenses and increase fines and penalties on taxpayers undergoing IRS scrutiny for what they assert are innocent errors.

Among other things, Rangel's bill would even prohibit the IRS from forgiving taxpayers who erred in good faith -- though that would be a very generous interpretation of his own tax troubles."

This is another plank in my platform for term limits.  Admittedly, term limits will not ensure more honest lawmakers, but it will limit the amount of dishonesty they can get away with! 

Today's Wall Street Journal posted an article on what has happened in California because the Environmental Protection Agency has cut off the water supply to the San Joaquin Valley.  The area is suffering from a drought made worse by a cut off of the water supply because of possible danger to the delta smelt.  According to the article:

"The state's water emergency is unfolding thanks to the latest mishandling of the Endangered Species Act. Last December, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued what is known as a "biological opinion" imposing water reductions on the San Joaquin Valley and environs to safeguard the federally protected hypomesus transpacificus, a.k.a., the delta smelt. As a result, tens of billions of gallons of water from mountains east and north of Sacramento have been channelled away from farmers and into the ocean, leaving hundreds of thousands of acres of arable land fallow or scorched. ""

This is another in a long list of examples of what happens when you give the government control over things they know nothing about.  It's called the Law of Unintended Consequences.  The farm communities in the areas affected have been decimated.  The unemployment rate in some farming towns like Mendota is near 40%.

The article concludes:

"Things in California may have to get so bad that they endanger Democratic Congressional incumbents before Washington wakes up, but it doesn't have to be that way. Mr. Salazar has said that convening the God Squad would be "admitting failure" in the effort to save the smelt under the Endangered Species Act. Maybe so, but the livelihoods of tens of thousands of humans are also at stake. If the Obama Administration wants to help, it can take up Governor Schwarzenegger's request that it revisit the two biological opinions that are hanging farmers and farm workers out to dry." 

My conclusion comes in the form of a few questions.  Is a dustbowl where farmland used to be in any way an environmental asset?  Was the impact of this action taken in consideration before the water stopped flowing?  Is providing food and jobs for people more important than protecting a species which may or may not be endangered?

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports today on the problems of toxic Chinese drywall that has been imported into the United States since 2006 and used in new construction.  The problem is thought to be high levels of sulfur-compound gases being released from the drywall.  The drywall has been used in the construction that followed the hurricane damage along the Gulf coast in 2005 and in other new construction throughout the country.. 

According to the article:

"Attorneys representing homeowners estimate more than 2,000 lawsuits already have been filed in state and federal courts, targeting Chinese, U.S. and German companies, as well as builders, installers, suppliers, distributors and import brokers.

"We expect about 20 manufacturers of Chinese drywall to be involved in these cases," said Jeremy Alters, an attorney in Miami handling many of the cases. "There is no quality control in this drywall. It's hard to believe no one knew it was bad. It is destroying homes and it will cost billions.""

There are lawsuits, and hopefully the people who have been hurt by the use of the toxic drywall will be reimbursed for their losses, but there is something else to be seen in this situation.  American products are among the safest in the world.  At times we have overreacted and put restrictions in place that do not need to be there, but for the most part, we get it right.  We need to encourage American manufacturing--not put roadblocks in front of it.  We need reasonable environmental laws that will allow the environment and manufacturing to coexist side-by-side in a way that benfits both.  If we become too strict in our laws concerning manufacturing in this country, we will be importing more products that do not comply with our safety standards and putting Americans at risk.  We are not going to change the lack of safety in overseas products from countries like China; our solution is to become more self-sufficient in meeting our own needs.

The Wall Street Journal ran an article on Sunday by Mary Anastasia O'Grady on what is happening in Honduras.  The current acting president of Honduras, Roberto Micheletti, became president when the former president, Manuel Zelaya, was deposed and exiled from the country. 

This was not a coup.  Honduras has a law imposing term limits on its presidency.  Mr. Zelaya had asked for a referendum to override this law so that he could continue as president.  The courts and the legislature had denied this request.  Ignoring that, Mr. Zelaya had gotten ballots for the referendum from that bastion of democracy Hugo Chavez and was going to proceed with the referendum.  At that point the courts and legislature ordered the military to remove him from office.  They did not want Mr. Zelaya to become 'president for life' following the example of his friend Hugo Chavez.

The United States, for whatever reason, has not supported the ousting of Mr. Zelaya.  Our current administration and state department have sided with Hugo Chavez in seeking the reinstatement of Mr. Zelaya.  We have begun to put some very strong pressure on Honduras to do this.  According to the Wall Street Journal article:

"The most recent example of the Obama-style Good Neighbor Policy was the announcement last week that visa services for Hondurans are suspended indefinitely, and that some $135 million in bilateral aid might be cut. But these are only the public examples of its hardball tactics. Much nastier stuff is going on behind the scenes, practiced by a presidency that once promised the American people greater transparency and a less interventionist foreign policy.

"To recap, the Honduran military in June executed a Supreme Court arrest warrant against Mr. Zelaya for trying to hold a referendum on whether he should be able to run for a second term. Article 239 of the Honduran constitution states that any president who tries for a second term automatically loses the privilege of his office. By insisting that Mr. Zelaya be returned to power, the U.S. is trying to force Honduras to violate its own constitution."

America is working against democracy in this case.  We are in essence trying to stop another country from following its own consitution.  I hope someone in the administration or the state department will reverse course on this.  We are wrong. 

With the dealth of Ted Kenneday, the talk in Massachusetts is of the Kennedy legacy and what it means.  I think I have a different opinion--Barack Obama is not the next Kennedy.  John F. Kennedy was only President for a short time.  He made some mistakes, but he also said and did some very smart things that today's Democrat Party would be appalled at.

According to Jeff Jacoby in Sunday's Boston Globe:

"It is a paradoxical truth,'' he once told the Economic Club of New York, "that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.'' What he had in mind, he said, was "an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes.''

Those were not the words of Senator Edward Kennedy. The speaker - in December 1962 - was President John F. Kennedy, and his ringing call for tax cuts was no anomaly."

Jeff Jacoby also reports:

"Senator Hubert Humphrey vowed that if anyone could find anything in the 1964 Civil Rights Bill that would compel hiring on the basis of race, "I will start eating the pages one after another.'' In a 1963 press conference, President Kennedy explicitly opposed racial preferences: "We are too mixed, this society of ours, to begin to divide ourselves on the basis of race or color.'"'

The article further points out:

"JFK likewise spoke for mainstream Democrats when he asserted that America would "pay any price, bear any burden'' to advance freedom and democracy in the world. He was a hawk who pressed for higher defense spending and American military superiority. The Democratic Party of more recent years - the party of "come home, America'' and the nuclear freeze - was one he wouldn't have recognized."

I used to be a Democrat.  If the Democrat party still stood for the ideas expressed above--low taxes, color-blind civil rights, and the support of democracy around the world, I would still be one.

 

There seem to be some real questions about global warming (or climate change) and what causes it.  If the Cap and Trade Bill passes, we will be spending millions of dollars (out of the pockets of every American) to solve a problem we are not totally sure exists.  I am all in favor of reducing pollution, but I am also in favor of common sense in dealing with the problem.

Jonah Goldberg posted an article in the Los Angeles Times today about sunspots.  It seems that if we have no sunspots today, we will have gone fifty-three days without a 'solar blemish,' breaking a ninety-six year old record.  According to the article:

"During what scientist call the Maunder Minimum -- a period of solar inactivity from 1645 to 1715 -- the world experienced the worst of the cold streak dubbed the Little Ice Age. At Christmastime, Londoners ice skated on the Thames, and New Yorkers (then New Amsterdamers) sometimes walked over the Hudson from Manhattan to Staten Island."

This is not something I want to see at all!  On the subject of global warming, the article points out:

"MIT's Richard Lindzen says that "there has been no warming since 1997 and no statistically significant warming since 1995.""

I'm sure it is coincidence that many of the people pushing for the Cap and Trade Bill own part or all of companies that trade in carbon credits.  There will be millions made by a small group of people if this bill passes.  I personally like the idea I heard from someone who was offering to let people pay him $5 not to take a shower (his own contribution to carbon credits).  I think it's time to step back and take a breath before we do something very expensive that may not have any relationship to a problem we may not have.