December 2009 Archives

As Massachusetts enjoys another snowstorm, I thought you might enjoy this video from Minnesotans For Global Warming--the video is called "The Twelve Days of Global Warming."  It can be found at YouTube.  Enjoy the snowstorm.

As we end the year, it seems only fair to post a musical summary of 2009.  This summary can be found at jibjab.com.  Best wishes for a happy and prosperous 2010!  (And may the New Orleans Saints win the Superbowl!!!)

The current Administration in Washington has referred to the 9/11 terrorist attacks as man-caused disasters.  This is poliltical correctness taken to the extreme.  Meanwhile, there is no comment from the administration on the man-caused disaster that is Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Tuesday's Wall Street Journal reported that on Christmas Eve the Obama Administration removed the $400 billion limit on funds given to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to keep them solvent. 

The article points out:

"Fannie and Freddie's congressional sponsors--some of whom are now leading the administration's effort to "reform" the financial system--have a lot to answer for. Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, sponsored legislation adopted in 2008 that established a new regulatory structure for the GSEs. But by then it was far too late. The GSEs had begun buying risky loans in 1993 to meet the "affordable housing" requirements established under congressional direction by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)."

There have been attempts to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  In 2005 the Democrats blocked legislation by the Republican controlled Banking Committee that would have established more auditing and oversight of the two agencies.  When you look at bonuses paid over the years to people high up in the agency, you see many names you recognize and major players in the Democrat party.

The article points out:

"By the end of 2008, Fannie and Freddie held or guaranteed approximately 10 million subprime and Alt-A mortgages and mortgage-backed securities (MBS)--risky loans with a total principal balance of $1.6 trillion. These are now defaulting at unprecedented rates, accounting for both their 2008 insolvency and their growing losses today. Since 2008, under government control, the two agencies have continued to buy dicey mortgages in order to stabilize housing prices."

The role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the mortgage crisis is obvious.  My question is this, with the amount of money the government is having to pour into these entities to keep them solvent, why are their top employees being paid very large bonuses? 

On December 27, RightWingGranny reported that the top twelve executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be receiving bonuses totaling up to $5 million.  This is taxpayer money--we are bailing them out--why are they getting bonuses? 

This is the last in a series of four articles from the Washington Examiner which they have posted to help all of us understand who we are fighting in the war on terror.  It is written by Andrew G. Bostom and is found at the Washington Examiner today.

The opening paragraph of the article states:

"Turkey's current Prime Minister Erdogan, commenting in August, 2007 on the term "moderate Islam," frequently used in the West to describe his ruling political party, the AKP, stated, "These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that's it.""

So what are we doing when we attempt to make friends with 'moderate' Muslims? 

The Organization of the Islamic Conference (a 57 nation group that includes all Muslim nations and makes up the largest voting bloc in the UN) ratified the 1990 Cairo Declaration, or "Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam."  This universal declaration includes such statements as:

"Articles 19 and 22 reiterate Shari'a principles, stated throughout the document, which clearly apply to the "punishment"--death--for so-called "apostates" from Islam."

"The Cairo Declaration--entirely consistent with Islamic Law--also introduces unacceptable discrimination against non-Muslims and women, while sanctioning the legitimacy of dehumanizing, Shari'a-compliant punishments such as flogging, amputation, and stoning."

The article points out that a large percentage of Muslims in the world believe in the principles of Sharia law and seek the establishment of a worldwide Caliphate run on the principles of Sharia law.

This is the enemy we face.  There is no room for negotiation.  Our leaders need to understand that the jihadists are not fighting us because of what we have done or are doing--they are fighting us because of who we are and the freedoms we enjoy.  Closing Guantanamo or releasing a few token terrorists will not end this war.  The only way the war on terror ends is when a point is reached where the terrorist training camps are closed, the terrorist leaders are dead, and the terrorists-in-training decide they don't want to die also.

A website called the Strata-Sphere.com reported today on subtle changes that have been made in the intelligence community since President Obama took office.  The article points out that the Christmas Day bomber was placed on the British government's watch list in May 2009.  At that point the U. S. Embassy in London, the U. S. State Department, and the U. S. intelligence agencies would have been notified of this due to intelligence sharing agreements entered into after September 11, 2001.  Unnamed sources in the State Department have come forward to say that since President Obama took office they are being encouraged not to create the appearance of profiling or targeting Muslims.  It also seems as if terrorism has moved back to being a criminal matter--a very bad idea. 

Wikipedia lists 272 terrorist attacks in 2009.  Since the vast majority of those attacks were carried out by Muslims, does it not make sense to watch Muslims more carefully when they enter America or are moving around the country?  Al Qaeda is not stupid.  I am sure they realize that for now, with President Obama, they don't have to worry about profiling, but I am willing to bet that they are scouring the world to find blond blue-eyed radicals in case America ever decides to defend itself.

As soon as healthcare reform is dispensed with (one way or the other), the next fun legislation the radicals in Congress have in mind is Cap and Trade (known lovingly as Cap and Tax).  This is the bill that if healthcare had cooperated better in being passed in October or November, President Obama would have taken to Copenhagen to show what great little 'green' people we are.  It will thoroughly cripple our economy if passed, but we will have the satisfaction of knowing what great little 'green' people we are.  People will lose their jobs, children will go hungry, people will lose their houses, but we will be great little 'green' people.  We'll see what happens next.

France tried to pass its version of Cap and Trade to be enacted January 1st, but they have run into a few problems.  Bloomberg.com is reporting today that the French Constitutional Court has rejected a tax on carbon emissions, saying that the exceptions in the law violated the concept of equality and and totally undercut the attempt to limit greenhouse gases.

The article points out:

"The tax, which would have started on Jan. 1, was set at 17 euros ($24.38) per ton of carbon-dioxide emissions, President Nicolas Sarkozy said in September. To make the tax more palatable, he partially or fully exempted power plants, public transport, airlines, farming and fishing, as well as 1,018 older cement, steel and glass factories.

"In all, 93 percent of all industrial carbon emissions in France would have avoided paying the full tax, the constitutional court said in a decision published on its Web site. The tax would have fallen disproportionately on fuel for heating and cars, it said."

Stop a minute and think how this would work in America.  Corporations and industries generally have lobbies that pay serious money to influence legislation.  You and I, the average American, have only our votes.  Guess who will get the breaks if Cap and Tax comes to America?  Guess who will make serious money if Cap and Tax comes to America?  Oddly enough, people like Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi are heavily invested in industries that will profit greatly from a carbon tax.  General Electric, which owns some media outlets is heavily invested in the new energy that is supposed to develop from Cap and Tax legislation.  Do you think they would use their media outlets to portray Cap and Tax in a positive way?    Hmmm. 

This is the third in a series of four articles from the Washington Examiner which they have posted to help all of us understand who we are fighting in the war on terror. It is written by David Yerushalmi and can be found at the Washington Examiner today.

Mr. Yerushalmi begins the article citing the meltdown of Dubai World -- a quasi-sovereign global concern that owns 77 percent of the international port manager DP World and the single largest real estate developer in Dubai.

He points out:

"What makes this story more than simply one of a massive real estate investment company gone bad is the double-edged sword so prevalent in the chase for oil-based Middle East wealth: Sovereign wealth funds and Shariah-compliant finance."

Beginning in the 1970's with the oil embargo and the continually rising prices of oil, Persian Gulf countries have had major amounts of money to spend.  Since 9/11 the Muslim Brotherhood has been aggressively promoting the doctrine of Shariah-compliant Finance.  The goal in doing this was to impose Shariah law as the supreme law of the world (this is another reason we need to develop our own energy sources). 

The article points out:

"Dubai World, a company wholly owned by the Dubai sovereign has funded itself through debt to the tune of $60 billion. The Dubai debt now in default just happens to be SCF bonds, or "sukuk."

"These bonds pay interest just like their forbidden cousins in the Western markets, but the interest is put into a black box of Shariah-created fictions and "special purpose vehicles" to keep the forbidden interest off the books."

Right now we have a combination of greed and extreme self-interest in the international financial world and a blindness of western governments to the threat financial sharia represents. 

The article concludes:

"The result has been the perfect convergence: Western financial markets in dire need of liquidity; the liquidity available in the sovereign wealth funds of the Persian Gulf Shariah faithful; and the willful blindness by Western governments to understand the threat Shariah poses as an existential and institutional reality within a financial system already on the precipice of wholesale failure."

Again, I would like to point out the words of Mark Tapscott who explained in his introduction to these four articles that our first and most important defense against the enemy we are facing in the war on terror is to know the enemy.

Yesterday I posted the first of a series of four articles from the Washington Examiner which they have posted to help all of us understand who we are fighting in the war on terror.  The second article can be found at the Washington Examiner and is written by Tawfik Hamid. 

Mr. Hamid points out that honoring the traditional dances or mores of a culture is a positive thing, but honoring the stoning of women in a culture should not be viewed as a positive thing. 

Mr. Hamid points out that after the Danish newspaper published cartoons of Mohammed there were no demonstrations by Muslims for four months.  It was only after the magazine apologized for publishing the cartoons that the violence began. 

The article points out:

"The violent response to the cartoons occurred in early February of 2006; only 72 hours after the magazine apologized for publishing the cartoons. This apology was likely perceived by radical Muslims as weakness, and thus initiated a wave of Islamic violence that spread to many parts of the world.

"Similarly, making concessions to Islamic Shariah law can serve as a provocation to radical Islam, as it gives the radicals the impression that the West should bow to their Islamic laws."

The article points out that in respecting the religious freedom of Muslims we need to aware of which religious practices affect only the person who practices them and which practices have a negative effect on others.  Muslims must be required to practice their religion within the bounds of the American legal system, otherwise we run the risk of importing some of the more barbaric aspects of Muslim law--honor killings, stonings, etc.  In America we do have religious freedom, but that is the freedom to practice your religion within the boundaries of the law.  Murder is against the law.

This is a time to show our faith as a country in the validity of our laws, it is not a time to try to bend those laws to an immigrant group that has refused to assimilate. 

Mark Tapscott at the Washington Examiner writes yesterday about our enemy in the war on terror:

"Because the first and most essential defense is to know the truth about this enemy, The Washington Examiner this week is publishing a four-part series focusing on the nature of the Jihadist threat and what must be done to defeat it.

"Monday's first installment in the series was written by Jed Babbin, editor of Human Events, author of "In the Words of Our Enemies" and other essential reading on the U.S. strategic position in the world, and former deputy undersecretary of defense in the first Bush administration. Babbin argues that neither the Obama nor the prior Bush administration has correctly defined the nature or identity of terrorist nations."

This is the link to the first article in the series by Jed Babbin, Washington Examiner.  Mr Babbin states that:

"Islam is a religion, an integration of beliefs and assertions that prescribes worship in a particular way. But radical Islam, we must insist, is different. Though it stems from a set of religious beliefs, it is also a hegemonic and aggressive ideology that requires of its adherents that they either enslave or wage war against nonbelievers.

"Such an ideology cannot be defeated with guns alone. But it can and must be defeated in the war of ideas, which we have not chosen to fight."

He points out that the first thing we need to do is prove that freedom under our constitution is superior to enslavement under a religious tyranny.  The second thing to do is to demand that the 'moderate' Islam leaders acknowledge and stand against the radicals in their own ranks.

Jeb Babbin concludes:

"That is why democracy cannot be built among those whose culture defines itself -- as radical Islam does -- as intolerant of other religions and which seeks hegemony over those who do not share its particular brand of intolerance.

"President Reagan understood the power of ideas. When he condemned the Soviet Union as an evil empire, when his speeches embraced those who fought for freedom such as Lech Walesa and Poland's Solidarity Movement, he helped free the millions who suffered under communist oppression.

"If we are to defeat radical Islam, our national leaders must understand this, and follow Reagan's example in every thought, in every speech and in every action."

Until we get rid of the concept of political correctness and the idea that all cultures are equal, we will never be able to defend ourselves against Islamic terrorists. 

The Blotter from Brian Ross at ABC News reported yesterday that the two men behind the plot to blow up a Northwest Passenger Jet on Christmas Day had been released from Guantanamo in 2007. 

According to the article:

"Guantanamo prisoner #333, Muhamad Attik al-Harbi, and prisoner #372, Said Ali Shari, were sent to Saudi Arabia on Nov. 9, 2007, according to the Defense Department log of detainees who were released from American custody. Al-Harbi has since changed his name to Muhamad al-Awfi."

The men were sent to Saudi Arabia where they attended an "art therapy program" and were later released (having been rehabilitated?).

The article describes the rehabilitation program:

"One program gives the former detainees paints and crayons as part of the rehabilitation regimen.

"A similar rehabilitation program in Yemen was stopped because so many of the detainees quickly joined with al Qaeda or its affiliates, the official said.

"The increased role of al Qaeda in Yemen, which joined with the Saudi al Qaeda unit, has underscored the problem of how to best handle the repatriation of detainees at Guantanamo."

I have only one question--why in the world do we want to keep terrorists anywhere other than Guantanamo?  At Guantanamo there is no possibility of escape, and frankly, if you look at living conditions in Cuba, would you want to escape?  At Guantanamo there is no real interest by the terrorists in making the surrounding area a terrorist target.  Cuba is an island.  It is easy to monitor people arriving and leaving the island.  On May 20 of this year, the New York Times reported that one in seven of the prisoners released from Guantanamo has returned to terrorism.  Are we willing to take that risk?

Mlive.com (which seems to be a website for Michigan news) reported a story yesterday by a passenger on the plane with terrorist Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab on Christmas Day.  The passenger and his wife (Kurt and Lori Haskell) are attorneys who happened to be on that plane.  Mr. Haskell reports that he saw Mutallab, who was poorly dressed, approach the boarding gate with a man who was expensively dressed. 

The article reports:

"...He says the suited man asked ticket agents whether Mutallab could board without a passport. "The guy said, 'He's from Sudan and we do this all the time.'"

"Mutallab is Nigerian. Haskell believes the man may have been trying to garner sympathy for Mutallab's lack of documents by portraying him as a Sudanese refugee."..."

 

Armstrong Williams has a post today in the Washington Times about Congress' plan to 'save' us money by passing their healthcare reform bill. 

Mr. Williams points out::

"It's easy to "save money" over 10 years, as the bill's proponents deceitfully claim, if you're fudging the numbers. See, Congress is going to collect revenues (taxes, fees) for four years to save up for the benefits that don't fully kick in until 2014. What a terrible bargain. I don't know anyone who would start making car payments today for a car they can't drive off the lot till 2014, but that's basically what Congress is doing with this health care reform."

Years ago, in the age of dinosaurs, when most wives stayed at home and incomes were generally lower, there was something called 'layaway.'  I think some stores still use it, but for many reasons (among others, we are a society that demands instant gratification), it is not as common as it was twenty years ago.  Under the 'layaway' plan, you might go shopping for all your Christmas presents in October.  You would then ask the store to put them aside, and you would make payments on the items until they were paid for.  Then you would bring them home.  That is what Congress is doing with this healthcare bill. 

My question is simple.  Are you willing to pay for something for four years without receiving any benefit from it?  Layaway was not generally used for items that were needed immediately.  If providing health insurance for everyone is so important, why are we spending four years paying for it without it actually happening? 

As I have said before, it's time to scrap this bill and start over with both parties working together.  We need tort reform, portability across state lines, insurance for people with pre-existing conditions, and tax credits to help low income people buy health insurance.  We need less regulation of healthcare insurance, not more.  The free market works much better than the government--compare FedEx to the Post Office.  Even though the Post Office is no longer officially part of the government, they are run basically according to government rules.  The Post Office loses money, FedEx makes a profit.  Why?  Because FedEx pays people to make decisions that will result in higher efficiency and higher profits.  They are profit based.  Healthcare that is profit based makes better medical decisions than the government does.  Setting up 111 new government agencies to oversee healthcare will never save us money! 

If you oppose the healthcare bill and your representatives in Congress are not listening to you, call any friends you may have in Massachusetts.  The only way to stop this thing is to elect Scott Brown to the Senate--he will be the 41st Republican vote against the current healthcare bill.  Our representatives are not representing us, it's time to elect someone who will.

Anyone over the age of five has heard to joke about the man who seemed to be furiously searching for something under a street light.  Another man stopped him and asked what he was looking for.  The first man replied that he had lost his car keys across the street and was looking for them under the street light.  When asked why he was looking for his keys on one side of the street instead of where he had lost them, he replied that the light was better under the street light.  The story seems incredibly stupid, but think a minute.  That's what we have been doing with national security in the war on terror. 

The New York Post posted an article detailing the history of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who has been charged with attempting to blow up Northwest Flight 253 on Friday.  About six months ago, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's father reported to the US Embassy in Nigeria that he was concerned about his son's extremist behavior.  Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was on the US National Counterterrorism Center watch list in November.  Evidently no one chekced the watch list, and the airports in Nigeria and in Amsterdam did not sufficiently screen for explosives.  Any one of these measures, which are supposedly routine, would have prevented Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab from getting his explosives on that airplane.  The only things that saved the people aboard that airplane were a faulty detonator and the quick actions of the other passengers.  What is the reaction of homeland security?  Instead of looking at the actions that failed--the lack of follow-up on a report of a potential terrorist and the insufficient screening of passengers overseas, they are going to futher restrict the actions of the fellow passengers!  There are reports that passengers will not be allowed to use the bathrooms or have personal items or blankets on their laps during the last hour of any flight.  Great!  So the terrorists will plan their activities for one hour and fifteen minutes before the flight ends!  This is the national security equivalent of looking for your keys under the street light when you actually dropped them across the street!

Allgov.com posted an article today stating that the top twelve executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will receive bonuses and incentive payments this year of up to $5 million.   At the same time Ed Morrissey at Hot Air is reporting that the Obama Administration has decided to cover an unlimited amount of losses at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. 

According to the article:

"The Treasury announced Thursday it was removing the caps that limited the amount of available capital to the companies to $200 billion each."

This is an amazing combination of facts.  On October 16th, RightWingGranny.com posted an article stating:

"Today's Power Line posted an article on the Pay Czar's decision that Ken Lewis, Chairman of the Board of Bank of America, would work for free in 2009.  Not only will he not be paid for the rest of the year, he has been asked to return the $1 million he has already received this year.  Mr. Lewis agreed to the decision, stating that "he felt it was not in the best interest of Bank of America for him to get involved in a dispute with the paymaster.""

The argument made at the time for the government's being able to cut Ken Lewis' pay so drastically was that the government had bailed out the Bank of America financially.  The government has also bailed out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, so why do thier executives receive hugh bonuses while the head of Bank of American loses his pay? 

This seems to be a very uneven exercise of government power and may be an example of why the government should not be allowed to meddle with salaries in the business community. 

As the Senate passes a horrible healthcare bill, raises the debt ceiling by $290 billion, and continues its runaway spending, would you like to take their hand out of your pocket? 

YOU HAVE THE POWER TO DO JUST THAT!!!!!

One of the reasons Washington is so tone deaf to the American people right now is that both the White House and both houses of Congress are ruled by the same party--the Democrats.  There is no need for bi-partisanship and no effort made to include the ideas of the minority party in any debate or legislation.  What you have in Washington is a bunch of people all having the same worldview with no room for input from anyone who does not share that worldview.  Unfortunately for the American taxpayer, the worldview is "Bigger Government Is Better Government."

There is a way to stop this runaway spending train, and Massachusetts, you hold the key!

Scott Brown is the Republican candidate for Ted Kennedy's seat.  He is running against Democrat Martha Coakley.  Ms. Coakley, if elected, would be the sixtieth vote for the Democrats, just as Ted Kennedy was, and just as his appointed replacement is.  If she is elected, the runaway spending will continue.  She is a liberal Democrat who tends to support the party line.  Although she will occasionally disagree with her party, that is unusual and cannot be depended upon.

Scott Brown tends to be an independent thinker.  He has been active in state politics long enough to know how politics works and has done a commendable job as a State Senator.  He would be the 41st vote for the Republicans--the vote that would be needed to filibuster bad legislation.  The election of Scott Brown would force bipartisanship back to Washington and provide a chance for the best ideas of both parties to be heard and enacted.

Massachusetts, it's up to you--vote for Scott Brown on January 19th or hold on to your wallet--it's about to be raided again!

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air reported on a possible trip to Iran by Senator John Kerry.  Senator Kerry is Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in the Senate, so the idea that he would visit Iran is not unusual--other than the fact that the US has previously demanded concessions in Iran's nuclear program before agreeing to direct talks.

The interesting part of this possible visit is the timing.  The Iranian people are protesting in the streets again and the government is cracking down on protestors again.  The recent death of cleric Hossein Ali Montazeri has caused a new wave of protests against the current government in Iran. 

The article states:

""We've eschewed high-level visits to Iran for the last 30 years. I think now -- when the Iranian regime's fate is less certain than ever -- is not the best time to begin," said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran analyst at Washington's Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

""The wrong message would be sent to the Iranian people by such a high-level visit: The U.S. loves dictatorial regimes," said Hossein Askari, a professor at George Washington University and former adviser to Iranian governments."

The visit of Senator Kerry would be consistent with the Obama Administration's tendency to support tyranny over democracy.  The only real chance we have of stopping Iran's nuclear program is regime change.  To strengthen the current regime at this time is to increase greatly the chances of a war in that region.  If Iran's nuclear program continues, at some point Israel will attack it and there will be chaos in the region (not to mention what it will do to the price of oil around the world).  Sending John Kerry to Iran is a bad idea.

Just before the Senate went home for Christmas, they passed a bill (in addition to healthcare).  According to Breitbart.com, that bill will raise the debt ceiling in the United States to $ 12.4 trillion.  That bill raises the debt ceiling by $290 billion.  The vote was very much along party lines, with one Republican voting for the bill and Democratic Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana voting against the bill. 

The article quotes Senator Bayh as saying:

"I would not support raising the debt ceiling because Congress has not adopted a credible process to restrain spending and eliminate red ink,"

Senator Bayh is running for re-election in 2010.  I have my own personal theory that if things continue in their current direction nationally, Senator Bayh may challenger Barack Obama for the Presidency in a Democrat primary.  I know that it is unusual to challenge a sitting President in a primary election, but depending on what President Obama's approval ratings are in 2011 and depending on the results of the 2010 midterm elections, I think it is possible.

The article points out:

"Thursday's debt limit measure and the larger version looming in January require a supermajority of 60 votes to pass. Democrats control the chamber with 60 votes, which could require all 60 members of the Democratic caucus to vote for it, including several members who are politically endangered.

"The current measure is needed as a result of the out-of-control budget deficit, which registered $1.4 trillion for the budget year that ended in September. The current debt ceiling is $12.1 trillion and is set to be reached by Dec. 31."

China has voiced concern over the amount of debt the US is incurring.  American is going to run out of money at some point.  The reason for the large increase in the debt ceiling is to try to avoid having to raise it too many times before the 2010 elections.  It is also interesting that even though the majority of the 'benefits' in the healthcare bill don't actually begin until 2014, if the bill is passed and signed, the tax increases will begin immediately.

Merry Christmas

There will be no further posts at this site until after Christmas.  I know that there are a lot of important things going on now, but they will have to wait until Saturday.  If you need a blog fix for Christmas, there is a wonderful Christmas story posted at Power Line.

Enjoy the day with your family.  If you don't have a family, volunteer in a soup kitchen, and if you are in an airport, thank a soldier.  Have a wonderful holiday.  I promise to get back to work on Saturday!

 

We need to remember that as our servicemen protect and defend our country, their wives and families serve too.  This is a note that appeared on facebook from a friend of mine.

Mark's Christmas tree that the kids bought with their own money to send to him. They had to make sure Daddy had a tree this year! If you can't tell, the colors are all Ohio State! "Go Bucks... Come Home Soon Daddy!" was a note left inside the box from the kids to Mark! Merry Christmas Mark!

 

Please remember all of our military families this Christmas!

No, it's not healthcare!  the Washington Examiner reported yesterday that on December 15th the House of Representatives passed a bill by a margin of 412 to 12.  The bill is called the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act. 

According to the article:

"The bill targets a major Iranian vulnerability. Even though it has vast stores of oil -- it's the world's fourth-largest producer -- Iran has little capacity to refine that oil into gasoline, diesel fuel, and other usable products.  So an oil-rich nation has to import gas. If it can't get the gas, it can't keep its economy going. The legislation would crack down on the companies that provide the fuel that keeps the Iranian theocracy in business."

Iran's nuclear program is continuing.  There is no doubt that the program is not moving toward peaceful purposes.  This bill calls for the Obama Administration to deal with the problem at hand rather than ignoring it. 

The bill has moved to the Senate, where is is temporarily sidelined by the healthcare debate.  The bill also has bipartisan support in the Senate and is expected to pass easily.  America's allies have already signaled their support for tougher sanctions against Iran, America just needs to act.

Hopefully when this bill reaches President Obama's desk, he will sign it quickly.  There may be unpleasant consequences to limiting the amount of refined petroleum products that Iran can import, but those consequences will be mild compared to the consequences of Iran having a nuclear bomb. 

As the Copenhagen Conference tells us we need to cut our greenhouse emissions to save the planet, the obvious solution is to move toward 'green' energy.  Some of this energy has already shown to be somewhat practical--wind farms in Texas and other places and solar energy, which has also been cited as a possible future source of energy.  You would think that the Congressmen (and women) who claim they want to save the planet would welcome either option.  Well, not so fast.

The New York Times reported Tuesday that Senator Dianne Feinstein has sponsored a bill that would create two monuments in the Mojave Desert in California and would ban renewable energy projects on that land.  Goldman Sachs and other developers had planned several large solar power plants that have now been derailed.  Senator Feinstein did, however, include in the bill provisions that would allow the construction of renewable energy plants in other parts of the desert. 

The article points out:

"The legislation would also require federal agencies to accelerate their approval of renewable energy projects and lease applications for use of federal land. But it would ban renewable energy production on donated federal land outside the monument areas unless an application was submitted before Dec. 1."

If 'green energy' is all that green, why are we having problems building its infrastructure? 

Thank you and Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukah to all the Marines, Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors, and Coast Guardsmen (and women)  who keep us safe and free.

 

The Canada Free Press has been a reliable source of information on news the American press has not bothered to report.  It is my source for this story.  I haven't seen the story anywhere else.

On Wednesday, December 16, the Canada Free Press reported that the United Nations was planning to move out of New York City in 2015.  According to the article, the preliminary report recommends a move to Singapore, setting a target date for the completion of new headquarters in 2015. 

The article reminds us:

"In November of 2005, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan proposed renovations to the United Nations Headquarters to be completed by 2014. That plan was not approved by the General Assembly, which instead resolved to seek a new location more central to its populous member countries."

The United Nations sits on sixteen acres of land in New York City.  There have been complaints by members of the United Nations recently about the lack of affordable housing in the United States and the United States' 'unfair' immigration policies.  Frankly, when you think of some of the recent problems of the UN--food for oil, child rape by relief workers, etc., I would not be sorry to see the organization leave America. 

The UN began well--it was set up to enforce peace and protect human rights.  Unfortunately it has degenerated into a group of tyrants who surpress freedom in their own countries while asking the free countries of the world to subsidize them.  I have thought for years that America needs to withdraw from membership in the UN and let the dictators continue to run it.  What is needed is a group of democracies working together to protect human rights and deal with the bullies of the world.

Yesterday's blog at the Weekly Standard has a post which points out a rather troubling provision of the healthcare bill found on Page 1020. 

The provision states:

"it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection."

The subsection referred to is the Independent Medicare Advisory Board.

The article points out:

"According to page 1001 of the Reid bill, the purpose of the Independent Medical Advisory Board is to "reduce the per capita rate of growth in Medicare spending." For any fearmongers out there tempted to call an unelected body that recommends Medicare cuts a "Death Panel," let me be clear. According to page 1004, IMAB proposals "shall not include any recommendation to ration health care"--you know, just like the bill says there's no funding for abortion."

At this point I am wondering if this bill is constitutional.  I am not sure that it is constitutional to require Americans to purchase something (heath insurance) or to send them to jail if they do not comply.  I keep hoping someone on the Democrat side will have the courage to stop this thing.  We need a "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" moment. 

On Saturday, at the blog at the Weekly Standard, William Kristol pointed out a paragraph in the Senate healthcare bill that needs to be noticed by the American public. 

The paragraph is as follows:

"Based on the extrapolation described above, CBO expects that Medicare spending under the legislation would increase at an average annual rate of roughly 6 percent during the next two decades--well below the roughly 8 percent annual growth rate of the past two decades (excluding the effect of establishing the Medicare prescription drug benefit). Adjusting for inflation, Medicare spending per beneficiary under the legislation would increase at an average annual rate of less than 2 percent during the next two decades--about half of the roughly 4 percent annual growth rate of the past two decades. It is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate could be achieved, and if so, whether it would be accomplished through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or would reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care."

The words he was concerned about were "would reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care."   This is the rationing that Congress is denying is in the bill.  As more Americans become eligible for Medicare, the funding for Medicare is going to be cut.  This makes no sense at all.  If the efficiency in Medicare were that easily dealt with, it would have been dealt with by now.

This bill will not increase availability of healthcare for Americans--it will only allow the government to bring its costly inefficiency into another area of our economy.

Townhall.com is reporting today on the recent changes that have occurred in the natural gas market.  Because major sources of natural gas are being discovered in America, the price of natural gas is at a seven-year low.  Natural gas burns cleaner than coal and can be used to generate electricity and eventually to power cars.

Although natural gas is a carbon-based fuel, it is a clean fuel that is in abundant supply in America.  The article points out:

"Today, about 27 percent of the nation's carbon dioxide emissions come from coal-fired power plants, which generate 44 percent of the electricity used in the U.S. Just under 25 percent of power comes from burning natural gas, more than double its share a decade ago but still with room to grow."

In the past, the problem with natural gas was that the supply was uncertain and caused the price to vary a great deal. 

Last Monday,  Exxon Mobil Corporation announced a $30 billion deal to acquire XTO Energy Inc.  This will make Exxon the country's largest producer of natural gas.

Natural gas is low cost, low carbon emissions, and abundant in America.  This could seriously change the world energy picture and world politics.

Yesterday the Senate Republican's Website posted a list of some of the provisions that have recently appeared in the healthcare bill currently being debated.  They list the financial benefits given to specific states.

Among the items listed--a special deal for Florida residents so that the Senior Citizens in that state will continue to have access to the popular Medicare Advantage Program (this program will not be available for senior citizens in other states).  A special deal for Nebraska that will have the other fifty-one states paying Nebraska's part of the increase in state expenses if this bill passes.  There are a number of other states listed with special deals.

Please take the time to follow the link and read the list.  It is written in legalese, but the pattern is rather obvious.  This bill does not fix healthcare.  The bill is a government takeover of healthcare that will hurt all Americans if it is passed.

The right to vote is one of the foundations of our democracy.  Faith in the integrity of the electoral process is important.  There were some problems in the last presidential election with voter fraud, but I don't think it affected the outcome of the election.  Hopefully, we have learned enough about the illegal voter registration practices of ACORN to protect ourselves from illegal voter registration in the future.  It is up to the elected officials of this country to protect the integrity of the voting process.  When they do not do their job, it hurts all of us.

The Bulletin, a Philadelphia newspaper, reported yesterday that Representative Frank Wolf, a Republican from Virginia, issued a public statement saying that Attorney General Eric Holder has instructed staff attorneys to ignore legal subpoenas by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission (CRC) requesting information about the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case.

Mr. Wolf has repeatedly asked Attorney General Holder why the voter intimidation charges against the New Black Panther Party were dismissed.  He has not received a reply.

The article points out:

"...Mr. Wolf introduced a measure December 17 that would require the House Judiciary Committee to deal with this issue. He also announced that he had language inserted in the annual spending bill that funds the Justice Department requiring that its Office of Professional Responsibility provide the results of the investigation it is conducting surrounding the dismissal the case to the House Appropriations Committee."

The video at YouTube shows exactly what happened in Philadelphia.  To ignore what was done at that polling place is to put future elections in jeopardy.

Randall Hoven at the American Thinker posted an article today on what the Congressional Budget Office's numbers on the cost of the Senate healthcare bill actually mean.  Since Harry Reid has the sixty votes to get this legislation passed, it guess it's time to take a close look at those numbers.

The Democrats claim that the legislation will reduce the deficit by $132 billion over the 10 years from 2010 to 2019.  Since more people will be covered by government-subsidized healthcare, that seems rather amazing.  They are telling the truth--those are the numbers for that period of time--what they are not telling you is how they do it.  It's really very simple.  Begin increased taxes and Medicare cuts in 1010, but do not spend any significant money on healthcare programs until after 2014 (after President Obama leaves office if he is elected to a second term). 

Mr. Hoven points out the where the money to pay for healthcare legislation comes from between 2010 and 2019:

• "Spending changes" (e.g., Medicare cuts):  $483 billion.
• Excise tax on high-premium plans:  $149 billion.
• Savings from "other sources" (like penalties for being uninsured):  $108 billion.
• Other "revenues":  $264 billion.

 

That will be the beginning.  The trouble begins with something called the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).  The states would be required to pick up a lot of the cost of this legislation--states that are not doing well financially to begin with.  (In a previous post at RightWingGranny it was noted that Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska cut a deal so that Nebraska would not have to pay these costs--the other states would pay Nebraska's share!).

The article points out:

"The "deficit reduction" comes in the earlier years: $111 billion of the $132 billion reduction comes in the first five years, 2010-2014.  That is because the taxes start early, but insuring the uninsured comes later, mostly after President Obama is long gone from office.  By 2019, the "deficit reduction" will be only $16 billion, per the CBO.  The overall deficit will be over $1 trillion by then, and the federal debt held by the public will be over $17 trillion."

If this horrible piece of legislation passes, all of us owe it to ourselves, our children, and our grandchildren to elect Congressmen who will repeal it as soon as possible.  This is not a healthcare bill--it will degrade medical care for all of us and will be unbelievably expensive in the process.

National Review posted an article by Andrew McCarthy on the plan to close Guantanamo so that terrorists cannot use it as a recruiting tool.  Andrew McCarthy was the man who headed the prosecution of the 'Blind Sheikh,' the man responsible for the first bombing of the World Trade Center.

The Blind Sheikh (Omar Abdel Rahman) and eleven other terrorists were tried in civilian courts for conspiracy to levy war against the United States -- Section 2384 of the federal penal code.  They were never held at Guantanamo, and they received all the rights of American citizens.  When they were found guilty, the appeals process began, followed by claims that their civil rights were not upheld or that the prison conditions were inhumane.

Please read the entire article to be reminded of some of the terrorism that happened as a result of this man being found guilty and send to prison. Guantanamo did not even exist as a terrorist prison at that point. 

Andrew McCarthy concludes:

"From the prison where he serves his life sentence, Abdel Rahman was able to announce to the world: "The Sheikh is calling on you, morning and evening: Oh Muslims! Oh Muslims! And he finds no respondents. It is a duty upon all the Muslims around the world to come to free the Sheikh, and to rescue him from his jail." That he was in a nice civilian jail after a nice civilian trial didn't make any difference. Of Americans, the sheikh decreed: "Muslims everywhere [must] dismember their nation, tear them apart, ruin their economy, provoke their corporations, destroy their embassies, attack their interests, sink their ships, and shoot down their planes, kill them on land, at sea, and in the air. Kill them wherever you find them." Osama bin Laden later called this the green light -- the necessary Islamic fatwa -- for the 9/11 attacks. It was four years before there was a Gitmo for Dick Durbin to blame. So should we shut down all the civilian prisons, too?"

Closing Guantanamo will make the world less safe--it shows weakness to the terrorists and takes away the possibility of being isolated in a prison until the war on terror is over.  It makes the price of committing terrorism lower, and I don't think that is a good idea.

The Hill's Blog Briefing Room is reporting today that Ben Nelson will be the sixtieth vote for the Democrats on their healthcare reform bill. 

The Washington Post reports that: 

"Nelson also secured full federal funding for his state to expand Medicaid coverage to people below 133 percent of the federal poverty level. That bill would require all states to expand Medicaid eligibility, but all states except Nebraska would pay a portion of the additional cost of doing so after 2016. Nelson also won concessions for qualifying nonprofit insurers and for Medigap providers from a new insurance tax, and he was able to roll back cuts to health savings accounts."

This is a payoff.  Nebraska will not have to pay the increased cost of Medicaid that result from this bill--those costs in Nebraska will be picked up by all the other states for Nebraska. 

Senator Nelson's claim that he was defending the unborn is now proven to be untrue.  It is really sad to see the Senator bought off in this manner.

Power Line reported yesterday on the dedication ceremony for a 9/11 monument and Living Memorial sponsored by the Jewish National Fund.  There is a video of the dedication of the Memorial posted on YouTube.  The Memorial, located in Jerusalem Forest Hills,  contains a small piece of wreckage from the World Trade Center.  The dedication took place last month (November 12).  The theme of the Memorial is the understanding that Israel and now America have regarding the cost of terrorism.  The video at YouTube is beautiful.

The Sydney Morning Herald is reporting that the Gulf states are moving toward the launch of their own currency--the gulfo.

The article reports:

"''The Gulf monetary union pact has come into effect,'' said the Kuwaiti Finance Minister, Mustafa al-Shamali, speaking at a Gulf Co-operation Council summit meeting in Kuwait City. The move will give the hyper-rich club of oil exporters a petro-currency of its own, greatly increasing its influence in the global exchange and capital markets and potentially displacing the US dollar as the pricing currency for oil contracts. Between them the Gulf countries amount to a regional superpower with a gross domestic product of $US1.2 trillion ($1.3 trillion), some 40 per cent of the world's proven oil reserves, and financial clout equal to that of China."

I'm not sure how soon this will actually be done, but it has grave implications for the American dollar and for American foreign policy.  The plan is to launch the first phase of the currency next year.  The central bank for the currency will be located in Riyadh, at the insistence of Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah.

Part of the reason for America's tolerance of Saudi Arabia's policies toward Muslim extremists is that the Saudis have always supported the American dollar as the currency to be used in the world's oil trading.  The move toward the "gulfo" (the name is based on the euro) is a slap in the face toward America and will totally devalue the dollar.  This is partially the result of the runaway spending going on in America right now, but it is also another example of what happens when the American President is viewed as weak.

Yahoo News is reporting today that Iran has taken over one of the oil wells on the border of Iraq and Iran.  There was no violence in the takeover. 

The article reports:

"The oil field is in disputed territory in between Iranian and Iraqi border forts," he said, adding that such incidents occur quite frequently.

"An official of the state-owned South Oil Co in the southeastern city of Amara, and west of the field, said: "An Iranian force arrived at the field early this morning (Friday).

"It took control of Well 4 and raised the Iranian flag even though the well lies in Iraqi territory," the official added."

Evidently this sort of incident is not uncommon, due to the fact that some of the land between Iraq and Iran is 'disputed'. 

This is not an unusual situation, but simply shows that Iran generally is in the business of poking at it's neighbors whenever possible.  Iran is the little brother in the backseat of the car on a family trip that delights in torturing his big sister with the aim of getting her in trouble!

The danger here is the belief by the ruling mullahs of Iran that they need to create chaos to hasten the return of the Mahdi.  I believe that is their motivation for poking at Iraq and for developing nuclear weapons which will threaten their part of the world.  Since the Iranian mullahs believe the return of the Mahdi is a positive thing, they don't care what kind of chaos they create in hastening his return. 

On November 8, 2009, a webside named NiceDeb.WordPress.com posted a story about a planned parenthood worker who had become pro-life.  The post features a video of an interview on the Huckabee show on Fox News Channel.  This blog reported on Ms. Johnson on November 2nd (RightWingGranny.com). 

The blog at Nice Deb quoted Ms. Johnson on her experiences while viewing an abortion on ultrasound:

"I saw the probe going into the woman's uterus. And at that moment, I saw the baby moving and trying to get away from the probe. ... And I thought, "It's fighting for its life." And I thought, "It's life, I mean, it's alive."

"I just was thinking, "Oh, my gosh, make it stop." And then, all of a sudden, I mean, it was just over, just, in the blink of an eye. And I just saw the, I just saw the baby just literally, just crumble, and it was over."

I apologize for the graphic nature of this quote, but that is what happens every time an abortion is done.  A baby dies.  This is not a procedure that should be paid for by federal tax money, nor is it a procedure that should be routinely done.  Unless the life of the mother is truly in danger, there is no reason to kill a baby.  We need to open our eyes to the fact that our culture is being influenced in a negative way by the fact that we are routinely killing the most innocent members of our society every day.

The Hill's Blog Briefing Room reported today that Ben Nelson has stated that he would not support the healthcare reform bill unless it has strong restrictions preventing federal funds from being used to pay for abortions.  Senator Nelson also stated that he has other concerns about the bill.  It needs to be noted that Ed Morrissey at Hot Air reported today that Governor Dave Heineman of Nebraska has told Senator Nelson that the current healthcare bill is bad for Nebraska and has asked the Senator to block the vote on it. 

Several liberal Democrats are opposed to the bill because of the changes made in the bill to encourage the more moderate Democrats to support it. 

The Hill reports:

"A deadline and timeline that's out there that's not achievable isn't helpful," he (Senator Nelson) said. "I couldn't tell you that they can't come up with something that's acceptable on abortion between now and then and solve all the other issues that I've raised to them, but I don't see how."

Nelson released a statement later Thursday afternoon confirming he won't vote for the bill in its current form."

It is not news to anyone that healthcare insurance reform is needed.  The question becomes what that reform should include.  Until healthcare reform includes tort reform, portability across state lines, insurance for pre-existing conditions, and tax credits to allow low-income people to afford health insurance, I am not interested in making any changes.  Change for the sake of saying something was changed is not constructive.

The two sources for this post are an article posted at Power Line yesterday and an article posted yesterday at Fox News.  Both articles deal with what is happening in Copenhagen and what the consequences of the conference at Copenhagen could be.

Fox News points out that the President of the United States cannot sign any treaty without the consent of Congress.  He cannot legally sign any pledge reducing carbon emissions in the United States without the appoval of two-thirds of the US Senate. 

Fox News states:

"Last week, on the day the climate summit opened in Denmark, the EPA formally declared that greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide are a danger to human health -- a finding that could pave the way for massive new regulations under the Clean Air Act for cars, power plants, crude-oil refineries and chemical plants.

"While administration officials have said they would prefer Congress take action on regulating greenhouse gas emissions, Republicans fear the EPA, buoyed by its latest finding, is prepared to act unilaterally.

"Democratic Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, co-author of the House climate change bill, told Fox News that the Obama administration has the power to act without Congress through the EPA."

Hopefully, signing and enacting a treaty without the consent of Congress would be challenged in the courts.  This idea is obviously not in keeping with the US Constitution.

Power Line reports on the appearance of Hugo Chavez at Copenhagen.  He was greeted enthusiastically.

Power LIne comments on Hugo Chavez's speech:

"But then he wound up to his grand conclusion - 20 minutes after his 5 minute speaking time was supposed to have ended and after quoting everyone from Karl Marx to Jesus Christ - "our revolution seeks to help all people...socialism, the other ghost that is probably wandering around this room, that's the way to save the planet, capitalism is the road to hell....let's fight against capitalism and make it obey us." He won a standing ovation."

I have a better idea--let's fight against the forces of tyranny (such as Hugo Chavez) and let the people of the world be free to prosper!

The current environmental movement represented at Copenhagen is not about the environment--it's about the redistribution of wealth.  If we value the freedom we have as Americans and the free economy that made us strong, we need to look very carefully at what is going on at Copenhagen.  I am not in favor of pollution, but I am opposed to using pollution as an excuse to steal money from people who have legally earned it.  That's what Copenhagen is about.  There is no problem with doing what we can to help other countries prosper, but if you look at which countries are thriving economically, you find that the shortest path to prosperity includes freedom.  Freedom provides the incentive to succeed.  We need more capitalism to create wealth for everyone, not less. 

Yesterday's Washington Examiner reports that the White House has threatened Senator Ben Nelson with the closure of Nebraska's Offutt Air Force Base if the Senator does not vote for the current healthcare legislation.  Senator Nelson opposes the federal funding of abortion, which is included in the bill. 

The blog at the Weekly Standard reports:

"...Offutt is the headquarters for US Strategic Command, the successor to Strategic Air Command, and not by accident. STRATCOM was located in the middle of the country for strategic reasons. Its closure would be a massive blow to the economy of the state of Nebraska, but it would also be another example of this administration playing politics with our national security."

This is not the way honest people who love this country do business.

Godspeed, Oral Roberts

Yesterday's Washington Examiner published the graph below to illustrate how spending in the previous Senate version of the healthcare bill was set up.  The curve in the current version is similar--nothing has changed very much.

As you can see from the graph, the real spending does not begin until 2014--two years after the next presidential election. 

The article points out:

 "The Congressional Budget Office found that just $9 billion of the $848 billion total spending aimed at expanding coverage from 2010 to 2019 would occur in the first four years, while the remaining $839 billion wouldn't come until the last six. In percentage terms, a whopping 1 percent of spending would occur from 2010 to 2014."

The taxes included in the bill will begin almost immediately--that's how the bill was made to look deficit neutral.  If this bill is passed, it will bankrupt the medical system and the government very quickly.

The Free Republic reported yesterday that Andrew Breitbart (founder of BigGovernment.com) has been summoned to New York to appear before a Grand Jury there.  The summons is in regard to the sting operation exposing illegal activities of ACORN which was first reported at BigGovernment.com (and not initially reported by too many other news outlets!). 

It will be interesting to see whether the Grand Jury chooses to overlook the illegal activities of ACORN (which uses federal money)  and prosecute the person who exposed the illegal activities, or whether they are actually interested in prosecuting ACORN for its illegal activities. 

It also needs to be pointed out that a New York judge has told the government that they have to continue funding ACORN with federal money despite its illegal activites (voter fraud, aiding and abetting criminal activities, not following federal guidelines in disposing of people's financial and mortage records, etc.).  It will be interesting to see how all of this shakes out!

The Hill is reporting today that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has told vulnerable Democratic members that they will not vote on controversial bills in 2010 unless the Senate acts first.  This is a pollitically wise decision.  The House got burned on Cap and Trade legislation when members voted on something that would hurt their chances of re-election and then the Senate did nothing on the matter.  If healthcare does not pass in the Senate, that will be another unpopular vote the House of Representatives took for no apparent reason.

Speaker Pelosi has stated that the House of Representatives will not take up the issue of Immigration Reform until it has passed the Senate.  Other bills that could be affected by the caution of Ms. Pelosi are "Card Check" and the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

The article points out:

"Talking about the financial regulatory reform bill that moved through the House last week without any GOP support, Connolly referenced the flipping of 40 Democrats on a controversial amendment to give judges new power to rewrite home mortgages -- known as "cramdown" -- to showcase the approach vulnerable members have been taking on issues that the Senate has shown little appetite for.

"Most of us voted against the [Rep. John] Conyers [Jr. (D-Mich.)] amendment to reinstitute 'cramdown.' We may have supported -- I did -- cramdown earlier this year, but the Senate said, 'No, we're not going to do it,'" Connolly said. "The freshmen pretty much said, 'Why have a Pyrrhic victory on this issue only to have the Senate shoot us down yet again?'""

Mid-term elections generally produce gains for the party opposing the President, so it is not unusual for the Democrats to be concerned, but the recent Republican victories in governor's races in Virginia and New Jersey have sounded alarms.  Virginia was expected, but New Jersey is typically a Democrat state, and the loss there was serious.

Today's Washington Examiner posted an editorial noting the growing number of Democrat Congressmen who are retiring at the end of their terms in 2010.  In recent weeks four Democrats have announced retirement plans that do not include running for higher office.  Representative Bart Gordon, a Democrat from Tennessee, announced he will not seek a 14th term,  It is troubling to me that he has been there for 13 terms!  We need term limits!

The article points out:

"Gordon's departure, which Republicans say was preceded by dire poll numbers, has led some political analysts to predict trouble in November 2010 for the Democratic Party. The Cook Political Report immediately moved Gordon's seat into their "likely Republican" column. Cook's House race editor, Dave Wasserman, wrote that Gordon's announcement brings the number of vulnerable open Democratic seats to seven and if the number "balloons past 15, House Republicans will have a real opportunity to hit this midterm election out of the park.""

Although I love the concept, I'm not ready to get excited yet.  I believe there will be Republican gains in the house and Senate next year simply because of the unpopularity of Senator Read and Representative Pelosi.  Their leadership has veered much farther left than most people expected, and I believe that in the 2010 elections many people will be supporting more moderate candidates.

The Corner at National Review posted an article yesterday about the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act sponsored by Daniel Akaka.  Senator Akaka has been trying to get this piece of legislature passed since 1999.  On Friday afternoon, the Republicans were told there would be a markup on this bill, but the Republicans have not seen the bill yet.  The rumor is that the bill will be put into the Defense Appropriations Bill that will be passed before the end of this legislative session.  This would avoid a full debate on the bill.

The bill essentially says that in order to participate in the government of Hawaii, a person must be a native Hawaiian--not someone who simply lives there.  People of Hawaiian heritage living in other parts of the US would be allowed to participate in the government of Hawaii if they met the bloodline requirement. 

According to the article:

"The most pernicious outcome is perhaps the only one that is assured: The governing entity would lead to a permanent hereditary caste in Hawaii, where natives--defined however the interim government chooses to define them--enjoy at least some rights that non-natives do not. Tax-exempt status and immunity from Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations are two possibilities."

The bill itself is awful.  Among other things, the bill is racist, but aside from that, to sneak it into a defense bill to avoid debate is just wrong.  All Americans are allowed to vote and to hold office in our country.  To make government participation dependent on heredity is not in keeping with the founding documents of this country.

One of the things we need to understand about political thugs is that they have little regard for the lives their thuggery impacts in a negative way.  Keeping that fact in mind, Iran has stated that it is going to put the three Americans who accidentally crossed into Iran from Iraq last summer on trial.  The three Americans are guilty of nothing more than a faulty sense of direction, but the Irani Foreign Minister has stated that they had "suspicious aims."  In November, they were accused of spying.

The details of the story are found at My Way News.  When the three were detained in July, one theory was that Iran would release them in a way that made it seem as if Iran were responding positively to the diplomatic overtures of the Obama Administration.  It seems, however, that there may have been a different motive for the detention of the three. 

According to the article:

"Raising concerns that Iran might be seeking to use them in a deal, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said during remarks about their case last month that the United States was holding several Iranian citizens.

"In particular, he drew a link between the case of the three Americans and the trial in the U.S. of Amir Hossein Ardebili, an Iranian who faces up to 140 years in prison after pleading guilty to plotting to ship sensitive U.S. military technology to Iran.

"According to court papers, Ardebili worked as a procurement agent for the Iranian government and acquired thousands of components, including military aircraft parts, night vision devices, communications equipment and Kevlar. U.S. federal authorities targeted him in 2004 after he contacted an undercover storefront set up in Philadelphia to investigate illegal arms trafficking."

Kidnapping has long been a political tool in the Middle East.  It was used extensively in Lebanon between 1982 and 1992.  Kidnapping was used to win concessions from the countries of the people kidnapped.  Iran has learned this lesson well.

Masschusetts residents will be going to the polls next month for a special election to fill Ted Kennedy's Senate seat.  No one will ever replace Ted Kennedy.  Whether you loved him or hated him, he was a hard-working Senator who did what he felt was best for the State of Massachusetts. 

The two candidates for the seat are Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley and State Senator Scott Brown.  Obviously, this is a state-wide election, but it has national implications.  Massachusetts is not in the habit of electing Republican Senators, but it could happen in this case.

Martha Coakley has generally held policies that are in tune with Democrat party politics in Massachusetts (and nationally).  She will support Obamacare, is pro-choice, and opposes the increase in troops for Afghanistan.  Generally, a vote for Martha Coakley is a vote for Congress to continue moving in the direction that it is currently going.

Scott Brown has shown himself to be an independent thinker who will vote his conscience.   He is a Massachusetts State Senator who is also a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army National Guard.  Generally he supports positions that are in line with the US Constitution.  A vote for Scott Brown is a vote for less government spending, smaller government, and lower taxes.

The question for Massachusetts is, "Do you want to change the direction Washington is currently heading, or do you want politics as usual?"

On Friday, Reuters reported that the IRS is hiring people to be part of a new unit it is setting up for the purpose of 'catching rich tax cheats hiding their wealth in complex business entities.'  Admittedly, cheating on taxes is something that should be stopped, but to focus specifically on one group of people seems a bit odd. 

The unit will focus on trusts, real estate investments, privately held companies and other business entities controlled by rich individuals.  Part of the budget bill passed in Congress in recent days included adding $387 millions dollars to the IRS budget for the fiscal year that started October 1.  Part of this money will go to fund this new unit aimed at wealthy taxpayers.

According to the article:

"The IRS is also opening new criminal offices in Beijing, Panama City and Sydney to focus on funds flowing out of Europe and into Asia, in part because of a heightened focus on international enforcement in Europe."

It would be cheaper to change the tax code so that people would not have the incentive to cheat! 

CNSNews posted an article on Friday reporting that Sen. Mary Landrieu (Democrat-Louisiana) was questioned by CNS News as to whether or not requiring Americans to buy health insurance is legal.

The article reports:

"CNSNews.com asked Landrieu: "You mentioned that there will be no employer mandate [in the Senate health care bill] but there is an individual mandate, and several members of Congress have said that an individual mandate is unconstitutional. What part of the Constitution do you think gives Congress the authority to mandate that individuals have to purchase health insurance?""

"That is the question.  Both the House and the Senate bills require individuals to purchase health insurance or be fined by the IRS.  The article states:

" In 1994, when Hillary Clinton's healthcare proposals were being debated, the Congressional Budget Office stated, "The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States."
"An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.""

It will be interesting to see (if the healthcare bill passes) if the courts in American are prepared to uphold the constitution.

 

The Hill reported today that the Senate today (on Sunday) passed a $1.1 trillion spending bill.  The Republicans had filibustered the bill, but the Democrats broke through the filibuster on Saturday. 

According to the article:

"The bill, which includes $447 billion in appropriations for a number of cabinet departments and $650 billion for Medicare and Medicaid, combines six of the 12 annual spending bills Congress had been unable to pass separately because of Republican concerns that the measure is over-inflated and exceeds the cost of inflation in its government budget increases."

The Democrats who voted against the bill were Sens. Claire McCaskill (Mo.) and Evan Bayh (Ind.).  There was one Republican who voted for the bill. 

The Senate is expected to return to working for passage of the healthcare bill next week.

Generally speaking, New England uses a lot of energy during the winter.  It gets cold here and people like to be warm.  When a wind farm was proposed offshore a few years ago, many of the residents of Cape Cod opposed it saying that it would ruin their view and do horrible things to the environment.  Since many of these people were very influential, the project was successfully blocked.  Well. some other Massachusetts residents who would see the wind turbines have a different perspective on the subject.

Boston.com reported Friday that a group of residents of Cuttyhunk Island, off the coast of Massachusetts, have stated that they would accept a wind farm off the coast of the island.  According to the article:

"By year's end, the state Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs is expected to complete an ocean management plan and decide whether to allow wind farms in the area. The draft plan includes 100 turbines about 3 miles off the southern coast of Martha's Vineyard in waters along the wildlife refuge and former Navy bombing range Nomans Land. Another 66 turbines are proposed off the southwestern coast of Cuttyhunk."

The residents of Martha's Vineyard have formed a group called Let Vineyarders Decide to protest the idea of windmills.  The question has become whether the residents of the Vineyard have the authority to stop all or part of the wind farm.  The residents of Cuttyhunk see the windmills as a way of helping them deal with the high cost of electricity on the island.  Cuttyhunk is not a 'tourist' island, and the people who live there have a median income of $22,344.  

One of the objections to the wind farm is from local fishermen, who are concerned about possible threats to fisheries   I know that the US Navy has sunk old (cleaned out and decontaminated) ships off the Atlantic coast to create artificial reefs that have increased marine life, so I am a little confused about whey the fishermen think the turbines would have a negative impact on marine life.

The current governor of Massachusetts supports wind farms, so it should be interesting to see what develops here.  I suspect that because of the amount of constant wind off the New England coast, this would be a good area to begin to use wind energy.  I know that  Rhode Island is also moving forward on constructing a wind farm.  On January 8,2009, Reuters.com posted a story stating that Deepwater Wind is scheduled to start construction on a wind farm off the coast of Rhode Island in 2010. 

Daniel Foster at National Review Online posted an article yesterday about the rising salaries of government workers at a time when Congress is trying to limit salaries and bonuses in the private sector. 

The article points out:

"...there are fully 383,000 federal workers earning six-figure salaries and 22,000 earning salaries of over $170,000. And these numbers don't even include the $41,000 in non-salary benefits the average federal employee receives each year."

The article further states that:

"The number of civil servants making $100,000 or more has jumped over 46 percent since the start of the recession."

The most dramatic increase in pay were in the Transportation Department and the Defense Department. 

According to Mr. Foster:

"Across the board, the salary bonanza has pushed the average federal worker's pay to $71,206, compared with $40,331 in the private sector."

Washington, D. C., received 10 times the amount of stimulus money per person as any other area of the country.   The current unemployment rate in Washington, D. C. is 6.2 per cent.  Most states have unemployment rates in double digits.

The biggest mistake we ever made as a country was airconditioning Congress.  Without air conditioning, we would be able to send Congress home during the summer and limit the amount of damage they could do.

Andrew Breitbart has done an amazing job of setting up Big Government.com.  He has been the major source of information for the ACORN scandal (not only the videos, but the confidential documents abandoned or left in dumpsters) and now is running an exclusive article about the relocation of the Guantanamo detainees to the United States.  The prisoners are to be relocated to Thomson Correctional Center in Thomson, Illinois.

The link above is to an article that features a memo allegedly sent from the Department of Justice to Defense Secretary Robert Gates.  The post at Big Government.com has a copy of the memo.  Please follow the link and read the memo for yourself.   It is relatively straight forward.

The article concludes:

"Presumably, the inmates at Guantanamo Bay are there because they are believed to be a threat to national security. How moving them into the United States then is a good idea is beyond our powers of reasoning. While we are well aware of the Corleone advice to keep one's friend close and enemies closer, we're pretty certain it wasn't meant as national security advice."

This is a dangerous move.  Putting terrorists near a civilian population (even though the terrorists are in jail) is never a good idea.  We are creating the risk of ransom situations, prison violence within the terrorist population, and after multiple court cases, some of these men are going to be given the rights of American citizens and ultimately let loose within our country.  Bad idea.

Yesterday Power Line posted an article about the fraud that has occurred in Europe's Cap and Trade System.  The Telegraph.co.uk reports:

"Carbon trading fraudsters may have accounted for up to 90pc of all market activity in some European countries, with criminals pocketing an estimated €5bn (£4.5bn) mainly in Britain, France, Spain, Denmark and Holland, according to Europol, the European law enforcement agency."

My husband had an idea at one point that he would sell business cards promising that he would not take a shower that day for $5, thus saving the planet.  He would fit right in with this crowd!

It was pointed out that the revelations about the fraud happened at the same time the European Union negotiators at the Copenhagen summit were asking that their system of Cap and Trade be expanded across the world to punish the heavy emitters of carbon dioxide.  Not only is the science of global warming unproven and possibly fraudulent, the solution is also fraudulent! 

It's time to go back to square one and reexamine the problem and the solution!

Today's Washington Times posted an editorial on the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party and three of its members.  On December 4th, Malik Zulu Shabazz, the chairman of the Black Panther Party, spoke out in defense of Mr. Holder's handling of the case.  The Justice Department had dropped charages against Mr. Shabazz for his alleged voter intimidation.  If you haven't yet seen the video of this, you can see it on YouTube.  I guess one of my questions about the whole incident is, "Where were the police?"  Is Philadelphia so corrupt that the police routinely let this sort of thing happen?  I live in a small town in Massachusetts with a small police force, but there are always two or three policemen at our polling place.

The article points out:

"After the election, on Nov. 7, 2008, Mr. Shabazz spoke live on the Fox News Channel to defend his fellow party members. Claiming that they had brought a weapon to the Philadelphia polling place in response to the presence of neo-Nazis, Mr. Shabazz said, "When we found that this was an emergency response [to the supposed Nazis in the parking lot], there was an explanation" for brandishing the weapon."

No one has shown any evidence of white supremacist activity at the voting place.  Had the case been allowed to go to trial, we might have a clearer picture of whether or not that was the case.  It is truly a shame that the charges against Mr. Shabazz were dropped.  One of the founding principles of a democracy is 'equal justice under the law.'  It seems as if the people charged with upholding our laws have forgotten that principle.

Today's Wall Street Journal posted an article on the Senate's proposal to lower the age for people to 'buy in' to Medicare and lower the income requirements on Medicaid.  It's an amazing solution to our healthcare problem, since both of these programs are scheduled to run out of money in the not-to-distant future (even with their present rate of growth).   They also seem to have forgotten the large number baby boomers who will automatically qualify for Medicare in the next few years.

The article points out:

"Medicare reimburses doctors and hospitals at rates 70% to 80% below those of private insurers, which means below the actual treatment costs in many cities and regions. Providers either eat these losses--about half of U.S. hospitals are running a deficit or close to it--or they raise prices for private payers. This cost-shifting isn't dollar for dollar, but all empirical research shows that it adds tens of billions of dollars to consumer health bills, and this will accelerate if several million new patients are added to Medicare. That means higher prices for health insurance."

This means that as more people move into Medicare and Medicaid, more financial pressure is put on doctors and hospitals.  One of the other unintended consequences from this idea would be the chance that employers would drop healthcare for anyone over 55.  Why would a private business pay for something the government will provide?

The bottom line here is that the Senate is desperate to pass a bill labeled 'healthcare reform' and send it to the President for his signature.  In their rush to do this, they have put aside common sense and the interests of the people who elected them.  All the Democrats really want is a bill passed before Christmas.

The alternative healthcare proposals (which haven't gotten much publicity) from the Republicans include tort reform, portability of insurance across state lines, insurance for people with pre-existing conditions, and tax credits to help people afford health insurance.  Those are the reforms that would actually save money and save American healthcare!

On December 7, 2009, wattsupwiththat posted an article by John Coleman, the founder of the Weather Channel, about the forces behind the global warming scam that is currently being attempted.

Mr. Coleman lists those forces as follows:

(1) The big money climate change scientists and their powerful institutions from governmental centers to Universities,

(2) The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which is a Geneva-based, highly funded bureaucracy controlled by one-world government political activists,

(3) Environmentalists who seek to use threats of climate chaos to stop the use of fossil fuels and return to a simpler, more "natural", primitive lifestyle,

(4) Government at all levels whose political leaders find dealing with global warming is their opportunity to save us all from disaster cementing their status and success,

(5) The media populated by people who love to warn us of impending disaster and give us the advice we need to cope, who believe in Al Gore and his political party and who know that "the sky is falling" is the best headline of them all,

(6) Al Gore, who uses his status as a successful former Senator and Vice President to provide a platform to promote his message of doom and gloom, a message he learned in his only college science class and must have truly believed for many years but should see now is only an empty threat.

The total financial resources and power structure behind the attempted global warming scam are staggering.

Mr. Coleman concludes at the end of this article:

"There is no significant man-made global warming, there has not been any in the past and there is no reason to fear any in the future. Carbon dioxide is a natural trace gas in the atmosphere with very limited greenhouse impact on temperatures and naturally produced CO2 greatly exceeds the CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels. There is no tipping point when the impact of CO2 sets in to cause an increased impact because of "forcing." The bad science behind the global warming myth is based on a hypothesis that has failed."

When you consider that the news coming out of Copenhagen includes such items as poor countries demanding reparations from wealthy countries to compensate for wealthy countries' supposed contributions to global warming, you begin to wonder what this debate is really all about.  When you further investigate only to find that many of the loudest proponents of global warming coincidentally will make millions of dollars in a 'green energy' economy, you really begin to wonder what is going on.  The fact remains that we have a carbon based world economy.  When the alternate fuel economy is practical enough, it will naturally (and probably gradually) take over.  The automobile did not replace the horse and buggy overnight--it took assembly lines and cost measures to make the car practical.  The infrastructure that supported the car followed.  I believe alternative energy is part of our future--I just don't think it can be forced--I think it will be a natural occurence.  There will be people who will make a lot of money when that happens, but it will be the result of entrepreneurship--not politics! 

The Canada Free Press is doing a better job of reporting what is going on in America than most of the American media.  On Tuesday they posted a story about the fact that while Social Security recipients received no Cost of Living Adjustment this year, Congress received a "$4,700.00 cost of living allowance or whatever you want to call it in 2010."

Congress has arranged it so their raises happen automatically--they don't have to go on record as having voted for them.  I just want to know how come if there was no increase in the cost of living, Congress got a raise. 

The article at the Canada Free Press makes a few suggestions as to some basic restraints we can put on Congress to end the financial gravy train many of our Congressmen find themselves on.  It is a sensible list, and I strongly recommend that we take action on some of the items on the list. 

According to CBS News on November 6, 2009, there are 237 millionaires in Congress.

The article at CBS News reports:

"The median reportable net worth for members of the House in 2008 was $622,254.

"Levinthal notes that "in some cases, [lawmakers'] wealth is being derived from the very companies that in many cases benefit from the taxpayers."

""The top companies at which members of Congress are investing, many of them are TARP recipients that have received billions and billions of dollars from you and me," he said.

"Among the companies in which members of Congress hold assets are Bank of America and Goldman Sachs.

It seems to me that the raise given to Congress would be better spent given to the Social Security recipients.  Somehow I think the percentage of millionaires in that group is considerably lower! 

According to CNSNews today House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (a Democrat from Maryland) has stated that new laws would have to be passed in order for leftover TARP money to be used for job creation rather than to pay down the national debt. 

According to the article:

"...current law (says) that the money has to go to financial services institutions and that the returned funds would pay down the deficit."

There is roughly $200 billion of TARP funds that is unspent, and a number of  banks have been paying back TARP money ahead of schedule. 

Representative Jeb Hensarling (a Republican from Texas) stated in a letter to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, "TARP was never intended to be used as a revolving slush fund to pay for the (Democratic) Majority's political, economic or social agenda," he continued. "Any unused or repaid TARP funds should be returned to those who originally paid for it - the American taxpayers." 

Hensarling told Pelosi that "current law states that repaid TARP funds are to be used to reduce the debt" and reminded Pelosi that she had told Americans in September 2008 that they would be "repaid in full." Indeed, before passing the bill that created TARP last year, Pelosi said it would "include a plan to ensure the taxpayer is repaid in full."

I think we need to hold Mrs. Pelosi to her word and not let her spend TARP funds for anything other than to pay down the deficit!

The sources for this article are The Hill and Hot Air.  My focus is on Senator Ben Nelson, a Democrat from Nebraska, and his stand for life.  Senator Nelson has stated that no federal funds should pay for abortions.  The banning of the use of federal funds to pay for abortions has been in place for 30 years. 

The article in The Hill points out:

""No one should use the healthcare bill to expand or restrict abortion," Reid said during an emotional floor speech. "And no one should use the issue of abortion to rob millions of the opportunity to get good healthcare."

"Six Democrats voted with Nelson: Sens. Byron Dorgan (N.D.), Bob Casey Jr. (Pa.), Evan Bayh (Ind.), Ted Kaufman (Del.), Mark Pryor (Ark.) and Kent Conrad (N.D.)."

The two Republican Senators from Maine voted against the Nelson amendment. 

Senator Nelson had stated that he would not support any bill that used public funds for abortion, but Hot Air quotes his statement after the vote:

"I want to continue to work on this," he said, not ruling out his support, at least "not at this point in time. I want to continue to work on the project we're working on... This makes it harder right now [to support the bill]. We'll have to see if they can make it easier."

That really does not sound like a statement from someone who is willing to stand on his principles; it sounds more like someone who is waiting to see what he can get for his vote.

There is a website called the National Center for Policy Analysis which supports consumer driven healthcare.  It is a good place to gather information on what is happening with healthcare legislation and what the alternative proposals to the current healthcare bill are and how they would impact healthcare.

The Hill today is reporting on some of the ways in which the stimulus money was spent.  I am sure that some of the political connections involved are purely coincidental. 

$5.97 million from the $787 billion stimulus went to Burson-Marsteller, a global public-relations and communications firm headed by Mark Penn.  It preserved three jobs.  Mark Penn was Hillary Rodham Clinton's pollster in the 2008 presidential election. 

The article points out:

"Burson-Marsteller won the contract to work on a public-relations campaign to advertise the national switch from analog to digital television. Nearly $2.8 million of the contract was issued to Penn's polling firm, Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates, according to federal records."Federal records also show that a former adviser to President Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign received nearly $70,000 from that contract to help alert viewers in difficult-to-reach communities that their televisions would soon no longer receive broadcast signals."

Wow.  Other instances of questionable spending cited:

Two million dollars in stimulus money went to build a replica railroad as a tourist attraction in Carson City, Nev.

A dinner cruise company based in Chicago received nearly $1 million in funds to combat terrorism.

The State University of New York at Buffalo won $390,000 to study young adults who drink malt liquor and smoke marijuana. The National Institutes of Health got $219,000 in funds to study whether female college students are more likely to "hook up" after drinking alcohol.

The article lists more examples.  Please keep these examples in mind as the debate on spending the TARP money begins! 

Today Townhall.com posted an article about the suggested economic recovery program proposed by President Obama.

The article points out:

"...Republicans cried foul, claiming that the leftover and repaid TARP money must be used exclusively for deficit reduction or additional bank bailouts, as the law setting it up spells out, and not for what amounts to an expensive new stimulus program to create jobs.

"The stimulus money clearly was a spending bill. TARP was a loan _ a loan to be paid back. And we know that a number of the banks are, in fact, paying it back," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. "So I don't think raiding a loan program to launch another spending spree is the best way to create jobs.""

The lesson here is that it is unwise to give Washington (or any other government) money.  If they see money, they feel obligated to spend it.  Massachusetts residents are still paying a temporary increase in personal income tax that was instituted in 1989.  We need to remind the President to follow the laws that were part of the origination of the TARP program.

Today's Los Angeles Times reported that each job 'created' by the stimulus problem has cost $246,436. 

The article reports:

"According to its own shovel-ready recovery numbers, the nearly 11-month-old Democratic administration claims to have created 640,329 good ol' American jobs so far this year by spending $157.8 billion of that stimulus money."

"...Total compensation earned by the average American payroll employee during the month of October was $59,867 on an annualized basis, Pethokoukis reports. That's only 24% of the nearly quarter-million dollars it costs the federal government to create that spot."

The above numbers show why the government is not the proper vehicle for job creation.  We need to lower taxes in corporate America and allow the private sector to use their extra money to grow their businesses and create economic growth. 

In an article posted at Power Line yesterday, John Hinderaker pointed out, "The United States is the only country in the world that deliberately fails to develop its own energy resources. Other than instituting price controls, this is the single most destructive economic policy that a country can pursue, which is why no one does it except us."

So what is happening here and why?  Mr. Hinderaker points out that Brazil has a dynamic and growing economy and is pursuing oil production at a rapid pace. 

Yesterday's Washington Post reported:

"Petrobras, which until recently was little known outside oil circles, has launched a five-year, $174 billion project to provide platforms, rigs, support vessels and drilling systems to develop tens of billions of barrels of oil. Energy officials here project that Brazil -- still an oil importer five years ago -- will in the next decade have one of the world's biggest oil reserves."

Who are the investors in Petrobras?  According to the Washington Post:

"Among investors bullish on Petrobras is George Soros, who last year made the oil company the largest single holding in his investment fund, according to Bloomberg."

This is how the scenario works.  If America can be prevented from developing her energy sources (regardless of what the 'green' movement is doing, we are a carbon-based society), we will be forced to buy oil and petroleum products from other countries.  This cripples our economy while making the major moneyman of the Democrat party a very rich man. 

We need to develop our own energy resources both for economic and security reasons.  If we don't, all of us will be living in a third world country in a very short time.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air is reporting that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has declared carbon dioxide a danger to human health.   Carbon dioxide has now been declared a pollutant. 

According to the article:

"Under a Supreme Court ruling, the so-called endangerment finding is needed before the EPA can regulate carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases released from power plants, factories and automobiles under the federal Clean Air Act.

"The EPA signaled last April that it was inclined to view heat-trapping pollution as a threat to public health and welfare and began to take public comments under a formal rulemaking. The action marked a reversal from the Bush administration, which had declined to aggressively pursue the issue."

This declaration by the EPA opens the door for a war on global warming without the consent or input of Congress.  It takes Congress out of the equation and puts it solely in the hands of the EPA.  The EPA can now begin to regulate all industry in this country that has any relationship to carbon dioxide.  Since carbon dioxide is the gas we exhale when we breathe, I don't think there are going to be too many industries that are going to escape the control of the EPA.  If the EPA is allowed to continue unchecked, we will be quietly going down the road to becoming a third world country.  Just for the record, trees absorb carbon dioxide.  It's part of their growth process.  To declare it a pollutant is ridiculous.

 A blog entitled Health Care BS has posted a list (complete with page numbers) of the 111 new bureaucracies that the current healthcare bill will create.  Obviously, I am not going to post the entire list, but here are a few highlights:

• 19. Demonstration program for shared decision making using patient decision aids (Section 1236, p. 648)

• 24. Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research (Section 1401(a), p. 734)

• 25. Comparative Effectiveness Research Commission (Section 1401(a), p. 738)

• 36. Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1730A, p. 1073)

• 48. Public health workforce loan forgiveness program (Section 2231, p. 1258)

• 59. Assistant Secretary for Health Information (Section 2402, p. 1330)

• 65. Healthy Teen Initiative grant program regarding teen pregnancy (Section 2526, p. 1398)

• 78. Council for Emergency Care (Section 2552, p 1479)

• 86. Health and Human Services Coordinating Committee on Women's Health (Section 2588, p. 1610)

• 99. Office of Indian Men's Health (Section 3101, p. 1765

After you read even this partial list, is it possible to believe that this healthcare bill is going to save money?  Burearacracies never shrink--they only grow!  What is the cost of one new agency--office space, staff, equipment, etc.?  

This bill needs to be stopped and a reasonable one written--tort reform, portability of insurance across state lines, insurance for people with pre-existing conditions, and tax credits to help people afford insurance.  That bill could be written in a way that would actually save money and not create more ineffective government! 

Remember Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius assuring us that the guidelines that were recently released stating that women didn't need mammograms before age 50 would have no impact on anything.  Women just needed to talk with their doctors and follow their advice.  Well, guess what.  That's not what's happening.

The North County Times in southern California reported yesterday that:

"The eligibility age for state-subsidized breast cancer screening has been raised from 40 to 50 by the California Health and Human Services Agency, which will also temporarily stop enrollment in the breast cancer screening program." 

That state's decision was announced December 1 with an effective date of January1.  I thought this was exactly what we were told would not happen. 

The article points out:

"The federal recommendation, made Nov. 16 by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, has encountered strong opposition.

"The task force later retreated a bit, adjusting its recommendation to state that mammograms for women ages 40 to 49 should be considered by their doctors on an individual basis.

"Moreover, private health care systems such as Scripps Health have rejected the federal task force's recommendation, choosing instead to keep the existing standard, which calls for a mammogram at age 40, with annual mammograms thereafter.

"That means doctors will be using two medical practice guidelines, distinguished not by knowledge but by the pocketbook, said Dr. Jack Klausen, a gynecologist and obstetrician who practices at Vista Community Clinic.

"If we are in a situation where we don't screen, but the private-practice doctor can screen, then we are actually not practicing to the standard of care," Klausen said."

This is called rationing healthcare to decrease cost.  It is what happens when the government controls healthcare.  The question at hand is, "Do you want the federal government to have the ability to engage in this sort of foolishness?"

Yesterday's Telegraph.co.uk posted an article on the carbon footprint of the Copenhagen climate-change summit.  The local limousine company, which normally has twelve vehicles on the road, will have two hundred at the beginning of the summit.  The total number of limousines for the week is already over 1,200.  Since there are not enough limousines in the country to meet the demand, they are having to drive them in from Germany and Sweden.  Among all the limousines, there are five electric cars or hybrids.  To quote Majken Friss Jorgensen, the managing director of the largest limousine service in the city, "The government has some alternative fuel cars but the rest will be petrol or diesel. We don't have any hybrids in Denmark, unfortunately, due to the extreme taxes on those cars. It makes no sense at all, but it's very Danish."  

The airport says it is expecting more than 140 extra private jets during the conference. 

The article states:

"According to the organisers, the eleven-day conference, including the participants' travel, will create a total of 41,000 tonnes of "carbon dioxide equivalent", equal to the amount produced over the same period by a city the size of Middlesbrough."

I guess leading by example is not a major tenet of the global-warming crowd!

Paul Mirengoff at Power Line Blog reported yesterday:

"Thomas Joscelyn reports that former Guantanamo detainee Ibrahim Suleiman al Rubaish has emerged as a leading ideologue and theologian for al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula - one of the strongest al Qaeda affiliates in the world. Rubaish was capture on the front lines at Tora Bora. We held him at Gitmo from late 2001 until December 2006. Then, the government transferred him to Saudi Arabia where he was placed in the Saudi "rehabilitation program" for jihadists. However, Rubaish escaped from Saudi Arabia and fled to Yemen."

I truly think there are some problems with the concept of the Saudi "rehabilitation program" for jihadists. 

Ibrahim Suleiman al Rubaish is now the deputy of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula where part of his job includes providing the theological justifications for the organization's terrorism against the Saudi government.  This is rather amazing since the statement he made to his interrogators at Guantanamo that resulted in his freedom was:

"Before I mentioned that the United States is a partner with Saudi Arabia, so how could I consider it an enemy of Islam if it's a friend of Saudi Arabia?"

How many innocent people have died because we decided that this person was not our enemy in the war on terror? 

It gets worse.  Marc Falkoff, a lawyer for some of the Guantanamo detainees, published a book called Guantanamo: The Detainees Speak.  One of Rubaish's poems was in this book and was described by Attorney Falkoff as "most moving to me and that I find most literary."   Now Mr. Rubaish is free to use his literary talents to convince Muslims to join him in the jihad against the west.

This is one reason that closing Guantanamo is short-sighted and dangerous! 

On November 29th, the New York Times reported that Switzerland had voted to ban the construction of minarets, the prayer towers of mosques.  In a related story on November 30, Fox News reported the following:

"Amnesty International said the vote violated freedom of religion and would probably be overturned by the Swiss supreme court or the European Court of Human Rights."

Wow.  There are a lot of things here to look at. 

Time Magazine reported on March 19, 2008:

"The Vatican has confirmed that it is negotiating for permission to build the first church in Saudi Arabia."

Has Amnesty International commented on the lack of Christian churches in Muslim countries?

Blogger News Network reported on April 24, 2007:

"There are a 900 000 Philippinos in Saudi, 90 percent Christian, and an estimated 600 000 Keralan Christians from India, not to mention Hindus, not to mention Christians from Africa, Lebanon, or Palestine. Yet there is no Christian church in Saudi Arabia.  More prosperous Catholics can fly to the small Gulf states for Christmas and other feast days. Yet there is something misearable for a Catholic Christian not to be able to receive the sacraments, and the idea that small groups of Christians meeting for rosary or bible study face arrest."

The Swiss have voted to ban the construction of minarets, and the EU and Amnesty International cried 'foul,' but somehow Amnesty International closes its eyes to the lack of religious freedom in the Muslim world.

Will the vote of the Swiss people for a law in their country which affects only their country be allowed to stand?

 

Today's American Thinker has an update on what is happening in the case of Rifqa Bary.  Rifqa was the Muslin teenager who converted to Christianity then fled to Florida because she feared for her safety.  The Florida court returned Rifqa to Ohio and placed her in foster care with the hope of eventually reuniting her with her parents.  The update is on Rifqa's situation, but also on the apparent bias of the reporter covering the story.

The American Thinker article points out that the courts are ignoring Islamic Law, which states that if a person who has left Islam does not return to the religion, he is to be killed.  It doesn't sound to me as if that leaves a lot of room for negotiation.

Rifqa has been kept pretty much in isolation.  The few visitors she is permitted are fingerprinted. 

The article points out:

"Hussein Wario, a native of Kenya and, like Rifqa, an apostate from Islam, tells the truth that Heagney ignores: "I am very concerned for Rifqa. If the judge reunites her with her family, you know that she will either be severely persecuted or killed here in the United States or elsewhere. An ardent Muslim father would rather kill his child in order to preserve his family from ridicule (from fellow Muslims) than see him or her alive. Mr. Mohamed Bary would be hailed as a hero to Muslims if he were to carryout-God forbid-Islamic judgment on Rifqa because she refuses to revert to Islam.""

 

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal posted an opinion piece by John Fund with a possible explanation of why the Democrats are so determined to pass a healthcare reform bill that is opposed by a majority of Americans.  According to the article, "Public support for the bill averages only 39.2% backing in all polls compiled by Pollster.com."

So why are the Democrats so determined to pass the bill?  76% of Democrats back the healthcare reform bill--the Democrats in Congress are afraid that if they do not pass a healthcare bill, the base of the Democrat party will not vote in 2010 and many Democrat Congressmen will join the ranks of the unemployed. 

The article points out:

"That fear is backed up by a new poll taken for the Daily Kos, the left-wing Web site: 81% of self-described Republicans say they are certain or likely to vote in 2010 compared to 65% of independent voters and only 56% of Democrats. "Democrats have simply not been given enough of a reason to come out and vote yet," writes liberal blogger David Dayen. "The left is waiting for that long-promised 'change' they can believe in.""

It seems to me that somewhere along the line, our Congress has stopped representing the people who elected them and started representing their own self interest.  I guess we just need to keep voting people out of office until we find people who will represent us.

The Hill is reporting today that Senator Sherrod Brown's (D-Ohio), Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.)are planning to sign on to Republican Senators Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and David Vitter of Louisiana's amendment that would require lawmakers to join a public insurance plan included in healthcare legislation. 

The article states:

"A Coburn spokesman, however, pointed out that Brown actually voted against the Coburn amendment when the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee debated it.

""We're delighted to have Sen. Brown's support of Dr. Coburn's amendment, particularly after he voted against it in HELP Committee," said spokesman John Hart. "We're glad that he shares our view that members of Congress should lead by example and enroll themselves in the public option.""

If members of Congress are willing to lead by example and be covered by their own health insurance bill, I might be willing to take another look at the bill.  Until then, I remain skeptical.

Andy McCarthy posted an article at The Corner on National Review Online stating that he has information from reliable sources that Louay Safi has been brought to Fort Hood as a instructor to lecture our troops headed for Afghanistan on Islam.  Safi is a top official of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and served as research director at the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT).

According to Mr. McCarthy:

"ISNA was identified by the Justice Department at the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing conspiracy trial as an unindicted co-conspirator. The defendants at that trial were convicted of funding Hamas to the tune of millions of dollars. This should have come as no surprise. ISNA is the Muslim Brotherhood's umbrella entity for Islamist organizations in the United States. It was established in 1981 to enable Muslims in North America "to adopt Islam as a complete way of life" -- i.e., to further the Brotherhood's strategy of establishing enclaves in the West that are governed by sharia. As I detailed in an essay for the April 20 edition of NR, the Brotherhood's rally-cry remains, to this day, "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Koran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope." The Brotherhood's spiritual guide, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who issued a fatwa in 2004 calling for attacks on American forces in Afghanistan, openly declares that Islam will "conquer America" and "conquer Europe.""

Congress has already begun its investigation of the party crashers at the White House.  Do you suppose they might be willing to investigate who chose this man for this job?    

According to the U. S. Department of Labor the unemployment rate has dropped to 10 per cent.  If you go to their website, you can get a little more information on how the numbers actually stack up.

Among the major worker groups, unemployment rates for adult men (10.5 percent), adult women (7.9 percent), teenagers (26.7 percent), whites (9.3 percent), blacks (15.6 percent), and Hispanics (12.7 percent) showed little change in November. The unemployment rate for Asians was 7.3 percent, not seasonally adjusted.

I might mention here that historically, every time the minimum wage is raised, teenage unemployment goes up.

Among the unemployed, the number of job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs fell by 463,000 in November. The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over) rose by 293,000 to 5.9 million. The percentage of unemployed persons jobless for 27 weeks or more increased by 2.7 percentage points to 38.3 percent.

Employment in professional and business services rose by 86,000 in November. Temporary help services accounted for the majority of the increase, adding 52,000 jobs. Since July, temporary help services employment has risen by 117,000.

This does not paint a great picture for the future.  The number I was looking for but didn't find was how many civilian jobs versus government jobs were added to the economy.  The rise in temporary help seems to me to be an indication that businesses are unsure about the future because of the economic policies of the current administration.

As the scientific community begins to deal with the fallout from the leaked emails from the CRU, the weather (as usual) is simply weird.   Tuesday's Houston Chronicle was discussing the possibility of snow in their area on Friday.  New England was in the 60's today with the possibility of snow on Sunday!  The article in the Houston Chronicle points out that Houston generally gets snow about every four years, and never this early.  At some point I think we as people need to realize that we are simply not important enough to cause weather changes--the weather changed before we had the industrial revolution and it will change long after we are gone.  I do think we need to deal with pollution in practical way in order to take care of the planet, but the current ideas on global warming are nothing more than wealth redistribution programs.  I hope someone at the global warming summit in Copenhagen has some common sense!

According to Tuesday's New Haven Register, the fourteen New Haven firefighters, who were denied promotion in 2003 due to a racial quota system, will be promoted.  A formal promotion ceremony is scheduled for December 10th. 

Last week the Civil Service Commission, in a unanimous vote, certified two 2003 promotional lists for fire captain and lieutenant, clearing the way for the city to present the lists to the fire commission. 

The victory here is for people who believe that people should be promoted on merit regardless of the color of their skin.  If a minority is not doing well on a specific test, spend some time teaching the members of that minority what they need to know in order to be promoted, don't penalize the people who scored well on the test.

Martin Luther King, Jr., wanted color blindness--not color preference.

 

According to NBC News New York yesterday, New York City officials were not consulted by the Justice Department before deciding to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others in civilian courts in New York City.  (As an aside, where are they going to find a 'jury of their peers?')   Mayor Bloomberg was informed the morning that Attorney General Eric Holder made the announcement. 

According to the article:

"The terror suspects are expected to arrive in New York early next year, at least 45 days after the Justice Department formally notifies Congress of its plans to bring the suspects here."

New York Police Department Commissioner Ray Kelly has stated, " The fact is we weren't asked.  And we will make the best of a situation.  We weren't."

Because of the budget crunch that many city and state governments are currently facing, New York City has fewer policemen today that it did on September 11, 2001.  I hope that the federal government will at least increase the security funding for the City during the trial.

 

Last week, the Telegraph.co.uk reported that five members of the Australian Congress have resigned rather than follow their party and vote for Australia's version of Cap and Trade legislation.  Professor Ian Plimer, an Australian geologist and global-warming skeptic, pointed out last summer that the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) threatens to cause enormous economic damage in Australia's industrial and mining heartlands, which are both dependent on Australia's vast reserves of coal.

The article observes:

"For the rapidly increasing number of us who believe that AGW  (Anthropogenic global warming) is little more than a scheme by bullying eco-fascists to deprive us of our liberty, by big government to spread its controlling tentacles into every aspect our lives, and scheming industrialists such as Al Gore to enrich themselves through carbon trading, this principled act by Australia's Carbon Five is fantastic news."

I agree. 

Obviously there were numerous articles written last night and this morning about the President's speech at West Point last night.  The sources for this article are a piece by Rich Lowry in the New York Post, an article by Chris Stirewalt in the Washington Examiner, and an article by Michael Rubin at Forbes.com. 

Rich Lowry begins his analysis of the speech by giving the President credit for stepping up to the plate and sending most of the additional soldiers that General McChrystal requested.  He then mentions the President's commitment to begin bringing the troops home in 18 months.  Mr. Lowry points out that some Americans see that as a commitment to a speedy victory, others see it as a promise to get the troops home well before the next presidential election.

Chris Stirewalt points out:

"To anti-war liberals, it was a reminder of their revulsion every time George W. Bush used the (9/11) attacks as a pretext for his foreign policy. From the moment Bush grabbed the bullhorn at the ruins of the World Trade Center, they felt that he had co-opted a national tragedy for his own agenda.

"So it came as a particularly cruel irony for many of the president's most ardent supporters when he argued for escalating a war most liberals believe should be ended, framing his argument in the same terms that launched the Bush doctrine."

Mr. Stirewalt points out the President Obama won his party's nomination on an anti-war platform.  He regards last night's pledge by President Obama to increase troops while promising their withdrawal as cynical.  There are some real doubts that the war can be successfully wrapped up in eighteen months.

Michael Rubin stated that he felt the President ignored the advice of General McChrystal by sending only 30,000 troops.  He points out that General McChrystal is experienced in counterinsurgency and asked for the number of troops he needed to get the job done quickly and efficiently.  To send him less is to undermine the mission.  Mr. Rubin points out why the commitment should be open-ended depending on conditions on the ground.  The message the President is sending to the Afghanis is 'we have your back for the next eighteen months, after that you are on your own.'  All the Taliban now has to do is go into the villages and say, 'the Americans are leaving in eighteen months, and we will still be here.  Watch what you do.'   It's the equivalent of giving the mob the names and locations of all the people currently in the federal witness protection program.  Anyone who helps us for the next eighteen months will be putting his life on the line.

The content of the speech was not totally unexpected.  This was a speech that was designed to please everyone and wound up making very few people happy. 

My main source for this article is a news item found in the November 27, 2009, issue of THE WEEK.  I have not linked to the site, because you need to be a subscriber to the magazine to read the articles on the site.  The background information for the article comes from a website called the Institute for Justice.

In June of 2005, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the City of New London, Connecticut, could, under the rule of eminent domain, seize the homes of several homeowners in order to use the land for a purpose that would generate more tax revenue for the City.  One of the homeowners, Susette Kelo, challenged the City's right to do that, and the case eventually went before the US Supreme Court.  Unfortunately, the Court ruled that the City could take the land of one property owner and give it to another person.  This was a horrible ruling, and undermined the whole concept of protecting private property ownership, but it happened.

So let's look at where we are now.  The taking of the property was used to lure Pfizer Pharmaceutical Company to New London to build a research center.  Pfizer Pharmaceutical Company arrived, built its New London research center on the seized property, and this week announced that it was closing the plant.  Most of the plants 1,400 employees will be relocated to nearby Groton. 

Now the City of New London won't even have the tax revenue from the people who once lived in that area of New London.  They will simply have a vacant research center.  Poetic justice at its best.

Yesterday's Washington Examiner reported that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has released figures showing that health insurance costs will rise if the current healthcare bill is passed.  Roughly 43 percent of the American people would be paying more for their health insurance.  Everyone's premiums would increase, but 57 percent of Americans would recieve government subsidies to cover the increase in premiums.  Where does the money come from to finance the government subsidies--the taxpayers.  We get hit coming and going!

The CBO also reports that 19 percent of people with private insurance plans would be hit by the 'luxury tax' on those plans.  All premiums would be expected to increase slightly due to the fees that would be levied on insurance companies and the taxes levied on  manufacturers of medical devices.

This does not strike me as cost-saving, deficit-busting lelgislation.

One of the things that is supposed to be the basis of American law is that the law (and rules) apply equally to every man.  We have gotten away from that is some cases, but theoretically it is still a binding principle.  One of the problems with the healthcare bill currently under consideration in Congress is that if passed, it does not apply to Congress.  One of the problems with Social Security funding problems is that Congress is not under Social Security--they have no incentive to fix it!  Anyway, you get the picture.

Well, the concept of 'rules for thee but not for me' has reared its head in a big way in the climate-change debate--and this time it's not Al Gore.

Mark Steyn posted something today at The Corner at National Review about Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 

According to the article, Dr. Rajendra has stated:

"Hotel guests should have their electricity monitored; hefty aviation taxes should be introduced to deter people from flying; and iced water in restaurants should be curtailed, the world's leading climate scientist has told the Observer."

I admire the man's dedication.  It's impressive until you mention a few facts. 

According to the article:

"Dr Rajendra Pachauri flew at least 443,243 miles on IPCC business in this 19 month period. This business included honorary degree ceremonies, a book launch and a Brookings Institute dinner, the latter involving a flight of 3500 miles."

Please read the Mark Steyn post on this, I love his conclusion.

As President Obama prepares to make his speech tonight at West Point, there are a few things to keep in mind.  A timetable for withdrawal is seen by the Arab culture as weakness--it says to the average terrorist, "All we have to do is lay low until they leave."  That is why we still have a fairly large force in Iraq--the Iraqis are taking over their security, but we are there in case we are needed.

The Wall Street Journal reported today that John Kerry's Senate Foreign Relations Committee has released a 43-page report today saying that Osama Bin Laden is still at large due to the unwillingness of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to deploy more troops at Tora Bora in 2001.  This is a somewhat amazing statement to make after President Obama has stalled for four months in providing General McChrystal the troops he needs.  It is also something of a rewrite of the history of American efforts to capture Bin Laden.

According to a Washington Times article on July 4, 2006, commenting on a Richard Clarke book, "Against All Enemies."  :

"Mr. Clarke's book is also a crucial complement to the September 11 panel's failure to condemn Mr. Clinton's failure to capture or kill bin Laden on any of the eight to 10 chances afforded by CIA reporting. Mr. Clarke never mentions that President Bush had no chances to kill bin Laden before September 11 and leaves readers with the false impression that he, Mr. Clinton and Mr. Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger, did their best to end the bin Laden threat. That trio, in my view, abetted al Qaeda, and if the September 11 families were smart they would focus on the dereliction of Dick, Bill and Sandy and not the antics of convicted September 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui."

I added the boldface type.

It needs to be mentioned that as Senator Kerry releases this report condemning the fact that we did not send enough troops into Tora Bora in 2001, we need to remember what he was saying at the time.  The Wall Street Journal reminds us:

"In 2001, readers may recall, the Washington establishment that included Mr. Kerry was fretting about the danger in Afghanistan from committing too many troops. The New York Times made the "quagmire" point explicitly in a famous page-one analysis, and Seymour Hersh fed the cliche at The New Yorker."

John Kerry has taken so many stands on troop levels in Afghanistan it makes my head hurt!