January 2010 Archives

This is a picture taken at Christina's in Walpole, Massachusetts, the last stop on Scott Brown's victory tour.  There were a few thousand people there.  Senator Brown made a few short remarks and spent the rest of the time shaking hands and talking to the people who had come to see him.  

There were people of all ages in the crowd.  There were parents with young children and older children.  One of the people standing near me was a World War II veteran.  There was someone there I talked to who was a Union member who generally voted Democrat, but had voted for Scott Brown.  There was another young man there who was involved in starting an alternative biofuel company and was interested in passing information along to the Senator.  There was a young man who was involved in construction who had worked on Scott Brown's campaign because he was out of work.  It was impressive to see that many people come out on a cold Sunday night to see our new Senator and to wish him well. 

Best wishes, Senator Brown, may you bring to Washington to same honesty and integrity you have shown in Massachusetts.  

The Obama Administration has done something right.  Now don't panic.  But they did.  Breitbart.com (and Bettina H. Chavanne and Michael Bruno at Aviation Week) are reporting on the sale of more than $6 billion in military equipment to Taiwan.  Needless to say, China is protesting the sale. 

Breitbart states:

""The latest US move to sell weapons to Taiwan, which is part of China, constitutes a gross intervention into China's internal affairs, seriously endangers China's national security and harms China's peaceful reunification efforts," Wang quoted the protest as saying."

I'm not really sure Taiwan considers itself a part of China. 

Aviation Week points out:

"Washington has adhered to a "one China" policy for decades, yet under the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, the United States also allowed itself the right to provide Taiwan with weapons and services for its self-defense (Aerospace DAILY, May 28, 2009)."

Unfortunately, the only way to deal with a bully is to stand up to him.  China is not a free country and cannot be depended upon to allow Taiwan to exist in peace.  The only way to keep Taiwan free is to make sure it has the weapons it needs to defend itself.  I am impressed that the Obama Administration is upholding the freedom of Taiwan.

Power Line reported yesterday on the progress being made in putting together the upcoming Iraqi elections.  There was a bit of a sticking point as hundreds of Sunni candidates who were planning on running in the elections were disqualified because of alleged ties to the Baath Party.  The Iraqi constitution states that former Baathists cannot hold public office.  A crisis in the election has been averted and a compromise reached. 

Max Boot at Commentary Magazine writes:

"A fragile but working democracy, an increase in foreign investment, a steep decline in attacks over the past several years--all these are signs that Iraq is hardly unraveling. That doesn't mean that it is on a one-way flight to Nirvana. American vigilance and involvement remain essential. But an awful lot has gone right recently--more than I would have predicted back in 2007, when the surge was just beginning. Perhaps, just once in the Middle East, the pessimists will be proven wrong."

Watching Iraq form a democracy is something like raising a teenager--there are a lot of things that can go wrong, but sometimes you just have to focus on the things that are going right.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air reports today that the wind turbines the State of Minnesota purchased to provide an alternative energy source for the state do not work in cold weather.  When the state purchased them (for a mere $3.3 million for eleven wind turbines), the manufacturing company said they would work in cold weather. 

According to the article:

"KSTP reports that none of the wind turbines work, prompting the Twin Cities ABC affiliate to dub them "no-spin zones." "

The article further points out:

"Special hydraulic fluid designed for colder temperatures was used in the turbines, but it's not working, so neither are the turbines.

"There is a plan to heat the fluid, but officials must find a contractor to do the work."

I guess if we have enough global warming, the wind turbines will work.  The article points out that wind power can be a good additional or supplemental source of energy, but it is not yet reliable as a primary source of power.  We are not yet at a point as a nation or as an economy where we can give up carbon-based fuel.  The only way we will reach that point is if the government lets the free market do its own research and reap its own rewards.

Investor's Business Daily posted a very interesting article yesterday after the stock market closed down on Friday.  The economic news that came out Friday was very positive--the economy posted its best gain in six years--so why did the stock market go down?

The is the chart (from Investor's Business Daily) of the number of cabinet members in various presidential administrations with private sector business experience: 

President Obama's problem is his policies and the people charged with putting them in place.  As you can see, Obama has appointed a group of people with lots of ideas and little practical experience.  The article points out that every initiative that is coming out of this White House is anti-business--the auto industry takeover, the cap and trade bill, the proposed bank regulations, etc. 

The article concludes:

"We're reminded of another young president and the steps his administration took in early 1962, when nothing was wrong with the economy and stocks had been hitting new highs. Suddenly, the SEC announced an investigation of the mutual fund industry, JFK himself rescinded a steel price increase and the market plunged 28% in 14 weeks. It was the policies then, too."

I'm really not sure if President Obama is capable of changing to a pro-business (rather than a pro-union) administration, but I suspect that if he is not willing to make a course correction, the ballot box will do it for him.

On Thursday, according to The Hill, the Senate voted for a $290 billion debt-limit increase in the federal budget.  Other than the fact that this shows how out of control spending is, there are some other things to consider here.  The measure needed sixty votes to pass.  It received those sixty votes because all of the Democrats voted for it (with the exception of Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana) and one Republican voted for it (Senator George Voinovich of Ohio). 

Senator Paul Kirk, Jr., of Massachusetts voted for the measure.  Why is that important?  The vote of Senator Kirk was needed to pass the measure.  The purpose of the measure is to raise the debt ceiling far enough so that the Democrats in Congress don't have to raise it again in an election year.  Senator Kirk's vote is important because of the circumstances that allowed him to vote.  During the last year of his life, Ted Kennedy cast very few votes in the Senate.  For that year, Massachusetts had, in essence, one Senator.  As Senator Kennedy was dying, it suddenly became very important for Massachusetts to be correctly represented in the Senate, and the laws of the state were changed to allow the Governor of Massachusetts to appoint a Senator rather than wait for the special election required by law.  The law was changed in Massachusetts and went into effect immediately (against the State constitution, but the Court in the State upheld the politics--not the law).  Scott Brown was elected to the Senate on January 19th.  He has not been certified, sworn in, or allowed to vote yet.  Niki Tsongas who won a special election in Massachusetts on October 16, 2007, with 51 per cent of the votes was sworn in and voting on October 17, 2007.  Scott Brown won 52 per cent of the votes.

At the very least, Paul Kirk, Jr., should refrain from voting on any issues in the future.  He has never been elected to the Senate and should make way for someone who was.

Does anyone know when Scott Brown will be sworn in?

According to yesterday's New York Daily News, the White House has asked to Justice Department to look into alternate venues (other than New York City) for holding the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.  Mayor Bloomberg and other political leaders in New York City have protested the trial because of the increased risk to the city and because of the high cost of security for the city during the trial. 

The article states:

"The order to consider new venues does not change the White House's position that Mohammed should be tried in civilian court."

Have they truly considered the downside of trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian court?  First of all, the defense has to have access to all information against the defendant.  This gives a lawyer for a terrorist access to our intelligence and how we collected it.  There have in the past been instances of lawyers of terrorists passing information back to terrorist networks.  We really do not need that to happen here.  Secondly, do we really want to provide a platform for this fanatic to spout his rhetoric?  Third, has anyone considered the circus this trial is likely to become?  For further insight into this, see the recent RightWingGranny article on the trial of 'Lady Al Qaeda' currently playing in New York City.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is a terrorist.  He is not an American citizen.  Why he would be entitled to all the rights and privileges of an American citizen after plotting to kill thousands of American citizens is beyond me!

A few days ago James O'Keefe was arrested in Louisiana and accused of attempting to wiretap Mary Landrieu's office.  Well, as the facts are coming out, this doesn't seem to be the case.  The Washington Examiner reported today that Mr. O'Keefe did not even have wiretapping equipment in his possession. 

"The government has now confirmed what has always been clear:  No one tried to wiretap or bug Senator Landrieu's office.  Nor did we try to cut or shut down her phone lines.  Reports to this effect over the past 48 hours are inaccurate and false.

"I learned from a number of sources that many of Senator Landrieu's constituents were having trouble getting through to her office to tell her that they didn't want her taking millions of federal dollars in exchange for her vote on the healthcare bill. When asked about this, Senator Landrieu's explanation was that, "Our lines have been jammed for weeks."  I decided to investigate why a representative of the people would be out of touch with her constituents for "weeks" because her phones were broken.  In investigating this matter, we decided to visit Senator Landrieu's district office - the people's office - to ask the staff if their phones were working."

It seems as if the government might have overreacted a bit in this case.  It seems that there are charges against Mr. O'Keefe that may prove valid, but it is obvious that the media attempt to smear Mr. O'Keefe and ultimately Andrew Breitbart fell flat.  I would also like to mention at this point that there were many Americans who reported not being able to contact their Senators and Representatives during the healthcare debate.  I think the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts was the only way many Americans felt that they would be heard.

 

 

 

There are two sources of this story--Hot Air yesterday and Reuters today.  Both deal with the healthcare reform bill which seems to have come back to life recently.  The Hot Air article refers to an interview by Hugh Hewitt of Senator Jon Kyl yesterday in which Senator Kyl stated that the Democrats were prepared to use the reconciliation process on the bill.  On the other side of the coin:

According to Reuters:

"Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid reiterated there was no rush to pass the healthcare overhaul, the object of more than six months of intense political brawling in Congress.

"This is not a one-year Congress. It's a two-year Congress," Reid told reporters. "We're going to do healthcare reform this year. The question is at this stage procedurally how do we get where we need to go?""

This is a very interesting statement for a variety of reasons.  Remember how important it was to get healthcare reform passed last fall?  Now there's no rush.  The other thing to remember as this goes forward is that all of the House of Representatives and one third of the Senate are up for election in about ten months.  That fact alone will make it very hard to get any major legislation passed this year--especially legislation that is so unpopular with the voters.

Hot Air reports that:

"ABC News' Rick Klein and Jonathan Karl report: The renewed optimism voiced by some Democrats over the prospects of passing a health care bill may be just a little premature.

Though House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is saying she thinks she can pass the Senate version of the health care bill if the House and Senate can agree on changes by using the budget process, the price tag for those changes could approach $300 billion, Democratic sources tell ABC News. That's a figure that's likely to give moderate Democrats sticker shock."

Frankly, unless all Democrats running for office have a burning desire to leave Washington after the 2010 elections, I really doubt this bill will pass.

 

The Superbowl is February 7.  It should be a great game.  The commercials are always interesting because they represent the cutting edge of what is happening in the advertising world.  They are sometimes controversial because of either the content, the approach, or the cost.  This year is no exception.

Today's Washington Examiner posted a story on a Superbowl advertisement taken out by Focus on the Family.  The ad shows Tim Tebow and his mother talking about her decision not to abort him despite being warned by doctors of a serious health risk.  Under normal circumstances this would be an inspiring story, but we have reached the point in our culture where an inspiring story that involves choosing not to have an abortion is no longer inspiring--it's 'sexist' and in some circles called 'hate speech' or divisive.

According to the article:

"Jehmu Greene, head of the Women's Media Center, is leading a drive to punish CBS for airing the ad, which she claims is "sexist.""

I am looking forward to seeing the ad.

 

My Way news did a basic fact check on some of the major points of President Obama's speech last night.  They pointed out differences between his actions and his words in a few major areas.

The proposed freeze on government spending for the next three years (if Congress agrees to it) would amount to less than 1 percent of the deficit.  The proposal is similar to the proposal President Obama criticized John McCain for during the presidential campaign.

An executive order to form a fiscal commission would have little chance of success.  The reason many Republicans voted against the idea is that they see it as a smoke screen to be used to cover Democrat tax increases.

The proposed healthcare bill has already been shown to prevent many people from staying with their current healthcare plans--for example, Medicare Advantage (with the exception made for the state of Florida).

Attempts to limit the influence of lobbyists are somewhat disingenuous.  Lobbyists have as much influence in the Obama Administration as they have had in the past.

The article also deals with the issues of transparency in this administration and jobs created by the stimulus.  The problems in these areas are obvious.

It is an interesting article, but the truly interesting part of the article is the fact that it was written.  There was a time when any criticism of Obama would have been fact checked--not his speeches.

This chart is from Wikipedia.com. 

 

As Hugh Hewitt points out at his blog:

"President Obama and the Democrats in Congress have increased the deficit from $161 billion to $1.75 trillion in two years!  The "cut" is to $1.17 trillion in 2010. The panic of 2008-2009 required one-time expenditures to arrest the fear, but the Democrats used the crisis as an excuse to print billions and billions of dollars.  And they refuse to stop."

Unfortunately any promise made to freeze spending at the current level is only a temporary measure while they figure out how to raise everyone's taxes without getting all Democrats voted out of office!

I apologize to any regular readers of this site for repeating this link, but I am not enough of a computer geek to know how to keep something at the top of my web page indefinitely!

This is the link to today's blog entry from Team Rubicon in Haiti.  Their blog shows pictures of what they are doing and also has an entry from someone else working there.  The team is privately funded--they paid their own way there with personal credit cards--and would appreciate donations of any amount to help cover their expenses.  Donations are tax deductible--information is at their website.

If you have wanted to give to Haiti in some way, but haven't found your outlet yet, please check out Team Rubicon.  You can easily follow exactly how your donation is being used.

Power Line reported yesterday on the trial of Aafia Siddiqui, also known as "Lady al Qaeda."  The trial is taking place in federal court in New York City. 

According to the article:

"New York Daily News report "Lady al Qaeda cries foul: Accused terrorist Aafia Siddiqui says toss Jews from jury pool." Lady al Qaeda was not only concerned about the jury pool; she also had a bad feeling about Judge Richard Berman."

Lady al Qaeda had to be ejected from the courtroom twice.  There was also an incident where a spectator formed the likeness of a gun with his hand and threatened the jury.  Two of the jurors were dismissed because they felt threatened. 

The article concludes:

"The Guardian notes that in May 2004 the Department of Justice listed her among the seven "most wanted" al Qaeda fugitives. She was arrested by Afghan police after being caught in July 2008 with two pounds of sodium cyanide, a list of New York targets, and instructions for chemical and biological weapons. When an American team tried to question her in a police headquarters building, she grabbed an unsecured M-4 rifle and opened fire on Army officers and FBI agents. She appears to be an enemy combatant whose case belongs before a military commission rather than in federal court."

If the trial of this 'lady' can cause so much chaos, can you imagine what the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is going to be like?

As anyone who has 'fought city hall' will tell you, sometimes things are not as they appear to be.  Yesterday's New York Times reported that James O'Keefe had been arrested in New Orleans for plotting to tamper with the telephone system in the New Orleans office of Senator Mary Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana.  What the actual truth of the story is I don't know, but what I think will be interesting to watch is how the major media reporting of the story tries to link Andrew Breitbart to the arrest.

If you remember, James O'Keefe was the young man responsible for making the ACORN videos showing ACORN employees willing to help someone break the law.  Andrew Breitbart was, to a large extent, responsible for getting them out on the internet.

The non-mainstream media reporting on this can be found (currently) in three places--Hot Air, Hugh Hewitt's website, and BigGovernment.com.  Big Government is Andrew Breitbart's website, and from what I understand, he will be doing his best to bring you the whole story.

As you read the mainstream media reports on this incident, please keep one thing in mind.  Andrew Breitbart at Big Government has fought ACORN and is fighting government corruption.  There are a lot of people in government and in the media who would prefer that his website were not around.  Whatever the truth is in this story, the story will be used to try to put an end to the Big Government website's credibility.  If you understand the tactics being used to silence people who oppose big government and liberal policies, you are less likely to fall for those tactics.

Cleveland.com has uncovered the idently of Ellie Light.  Who is Ellie Light?  Ellie Light is the name used in a number of letters showing support for President Obama written to some 60-plus newspaper editors around the country.  Ellie Light claimed in her letters to be a resident of whatever community the newspaper represented.  Ellie Light is actually Barbara Brooks who lives in Bakersfield, California.  Actually, the update on the article at Cleveland.com now claims that the letter writer is Barbara Brooks ex-husband.  I wonder what the truth actually is!

So what is the problem with this whole thing?  The newspapers Ellie Light wrote to published her letters (defending President Obama) as if she were a local resident (which is what she implied in her letters).  The article points out:

"This followed The Plain Dealer's publication on cleveland.com Thursday that a woman using the name Ellie Light was duping newspapers nationwide by giving them "local" addresses in letters to the editor that she penned defending President Obama's progress in advancing the Democratic agenda. Many newspapers will not publish letters unless they are from local readers."

This basically dishonest and misleading.  I understand her wanting to have her political viewpoints heard (that's why this blog exists), but I do question her methods.  In the age of the internet and of local elections which have national impact, I guess all of us (including newspaper editors) need to be very careful of our sources.

Rich Lowry has posted an op-ed at the New York Post today about the Obama Administration's treatment of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Christmas Day underwear bomber.  Mr. Lowry viewed Umar Abdulmutallab as a sort of message in a bottle to our national security team trying to deal with the ever-present threat of terrorism.

The article points out:

"But the Obama administration shut him down. It didn't go so far as to tell the Customs and Border Protection officers to cover their ears and try not to listen when Abdulmutallab made incriminating statements on the initial ride to the hospital, but it came close. It had an FBI team inform Abdulmutallab of his right to remain silent, after which he predictably remained silent."

Unfortunately this decision may come back to haunt us.  The article points out the steps that should have been taken to get information on ongoing terrorist plots against our country, but were not taken.  It also points out that if the Obama Administration had been adamant about trying Mr. Abdulmutallab in a civilian court, they still could have done it after getting information from him on the terrorists camps and activities in Yemen. 

This is my favorite quote from the article:

"It's not as if the civilian case against him would have been jeopardized. When you are caught with a bomb in your pants, with dozens of witnesses to your crime, you are going to jail for a very long time (unless, perhaps, a hapless administration has to strike a plea deal to try to get you talking again)."

Hopefully the information Mr. Abdulmutallab had in his head can be learned from other sources.  I am sure there is much there that would have been helpful to our intelligence agencies.

Townhall.com reported Monday on one section of the American economy that has grown since President Obama took office. 

According to the article:

"According to a report released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) last Friday, in 2009 the number of federal, state and local government employees represented by unions actually rose by 64,000. Coupled with union losses in the private sector economy, 2009 became the first year in American history that a majority of American union members work for the government. Specifically, 52% of all union members now work for the federal, state or local government, up from 49% in 2008. Or, to better illustrate these statistics: three times more union members work in the Post Office than in the auto industry."

This is not good news for all of us taxpayers.  The article points out the differences between collective bargaining in a private sector setting versus collective bargaining in the public sector setting.  In the private sector, profits have to be considered--with no profit there is no company.  This keeps the demands of the unions in check.  In the public sector, there is nothing to prevent excessive union demands--the state, federal government, or municipality can simply raise taxes.

Meanwhile, state and local government employees make more than private sector employees.  The average wage for a government employee is $39.83 an hour in wages and benefits; the average wage for a person in the private sector is $27.49 an hour in wages and benefits.  That is a difference of almost $500 a week or $26,000 a year.  That is serious money when you figure that it is coming out of someone else's pocket.

Boston.com is reporting that a new law went into effect on January 1st in Massachusetts that will require that all children in day care longer than four hours and/or who eat a meal to have their teeth brushed on-site.  Parents are allowed to opt out of this rule (at least for the time being). 

In a time of rising unemployment, dropping house prices, a growing state fiscal deficit, and terrorism, this is the priority of the State of Massachusetts?

According to an article at WCVB TV Channel 5 in Boston, one daycare center has already begun to put the program in place with a few guidelines:

• "We're providing the toothbrushes, the holders, the cases and the toothpastes, as well," said Chan.  (Nicole Chan, who works at Knowledge Beginnings in Needham, Mass.)
• Teachers are the only ones who can hand the child their toothbrush.

I understand the need for good oral hygiene, but I have a few questions:

• Who is going to enforce this mandate?
• What new agency is going to be formed (and funded) to pay for this?
• If these children were at home with their mothers, would their teeth be brushed at noon?
• What will be the penalty is a daycare center does not comply?
• What is the health risk to a child who mistakenly grabs or is handed the wrong toothbrush?
• Is there any way to store a large number of used toothbrushes in a sanitary environment?

This whole idea seems like a nightmare to me.  It truly seems to me to be the embodiment of the "Nanny" state.

Another Senate race in November just got more complicated.  According to The Hill today, Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden will not be running for the Senate in Delaware.  When Joe Biden became Vice-President, Ted Kaufman was appointed to fill his Senate seat.  Mr. Kaufman has stated that he is not interested in running for the office in November.

Representative Mike Castle is expected to be the Republican candidate for the Senate seat. 

At the same time that Beau Biden annouced that he would not run for the Senate, Representative Marion Berry (D-Ark.) on Sunday became the sixth Democrat this cycle to announce he would be retiring from politics.  Representative Berry has stated that he thought the Democrats were overzealous in their pursuit of legislative initiatives like healthcare.

The House members that have chosen not to run in 2010 have generally been "Blue Dog" Democrats (theoretically conservative Democrats).  Their re-election has been made very difficult by the liberal policies the Obama Administration has espoused.  The problem for the Democrats is that although Nancy Pelosi would love to have many more liberal representatives and less Blue Dog representatives, the Blue Dogs have a much better chance of getting elected in most of the country.  Many of the current members of the House of Representatives won their elections in 2008 by claiming to be conservative; those members have not voted as conservatives and will have a difficult time being re-elected in 2010.

Scott Brown won in Massachusetts on a three part campaign--he would oppose the current healthcare reform bill, he was opposed  to treating terrorists as common criminals, and he wanted lower taxes.  With that message he was elected to the Senate in a one-party Democrat state.  Sounds pretty clear.  Well, maybe not.

Today's New York Daily News reports that the Democrats are still planning on moving ahead with their healthcare reform bill. 

The article reports:

"It's very clear, people don't want us to walk away from health care," David Axelrod, a senior Obama adviser, told ABC News' "This Week." "They want us to address their concerns with the program."

Oh?  I will admit that I am not opposed to some form of healthcare reform--tort reform, portability of insurance, an insurance pool (possibly subsidized by the government) for pre-existing conditions, tax credits for low income people to buy health insurance, and no healthcare insurance for illegal aliens (illegal aliens are entitled to healthcare by law, I just don't want to see them given free healthcare insurance).  However, I would be willing to wager almost anything that a Democrat healthcare bill will not include those things.

Healthcare insurance, however, is not my number one priority.  I do wonder why the Obama Administration seems to be so reluctant to see that the majority of Americans do not want their healthcare tampered with.

Saturday, Byron York, at the Washington Examiner reported on the progress of Charles Grassley's request to Eric Holder regarding Justice Department lawyers who had privately worked on cases defending Guantanamo detainees. 

According to the article:

"This prior representation, I think, creates a conflict of interest problem for these individuals," Grassley said, adding, "I want to know more about who is advising you on these decisions." Grassley asked Holder to give the committee "the names of political appointees in your department who represent detainees or who work for organizations advocating on their behalf...the cases or projects that these appointees work with respect to detainee prior to joining the Justice Department...and the cases or projects relating to detainees that have worked on since joining the Justice Department."

It should come as no surprise to anyone that Senator Grassley's request for information has gone unanswered.  The request was made two months ago. 

The Judiciary Committee has also sent Eric Holder a letter asking why Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is being tried in the criminal court system rather than as an enemy combatant. 

Both of these requests for information from the Justice Department are seen as an indication that the Republicans are moving toward a more aggressive approach to challenging the Obama Administration's approach to terrorism.

 A blog I am unfamiliar with called Loud Citizen reported on a speech given by Ray Kelly, New York City Police Commissioner, to the New York Young Republicans Club on Thursday.  First of all, I would like to say that I am thrilled that New York has a Young Republicans Club!

Mr. Kelly said the usual things a police commissioner would be expected to say-"Crime is down, tourism is up, come to Times Square and see a show."   He mentioned that New York City has surpassed Orlando as the number one tourist destination in America. 

The article quotes Mr. Kelly as he spoke on the decision to have the trial of  Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:

"We were not consulted," Kelly said tersely of the decision. He stated that the trial "will raise the threat level of this city," a threat that "will not fade any time soon." And it affects more than lower Manhattan, we learned. "We will have to look at the entire city as a potential target."

This decision has made many New Yorkers very angry.  The questions after the speech all concerned the upcoming trial and the security concerns involved. 

In response to one question, the article points out:

"Kelly's answer included a faint "Ray" of hope: Michael Isikoff's recent Newsweek report of whispers that the trial plan is "potentially in jeopardy." Isikoff had made this known well before the January 19 Senate Dem-olition, so in the post-Brown climate, what senior officials were leaking anonymously may soon appear on the record. It cannot help that lower Manhattan's Community Board 1 is likely to unanimously reject the trial next week, and demand that Holder move it to a non-residential location."

One of the side effects of the recent election in Massachusetts is the feeling of empowerment among voters.  The residents of New York City are hoping that the Obama Administration will listen to their concerns about having the trial of KSM in their neighborhood.

It didn't get a lot of media coverage, but tens of thousands of people met on the National Mall on Friday to commemorate the 37^th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.   CNSNews posted a story covering the event.

Since Roe vs. Wade made abortion legal thirty-seven years ago, more than 50 million babies have been killed. 

According to the article:

"Men and women who are part of the Silent No More Campaign shared stories about how abortion has hurt them. They carried signs that said "I regret my abortion." Others carried signs mourning the loss of fatherhood from abortion."

I understand that there are rare times when an abortion is a medical necessity.  It should not be illegal to perform an abortion in those circumstances.  However, abortion is not the same as birth control, and we need to make that clear as a society.  As a society, we need to place value on both a mother and her unborn child.  We need to make sure that a mother has available to her the resources she needs to see her pregnancy through to term and make the decisions she needs to make that are best for herself and her child. 

Abortion is not simply a political issue.  It affects the lives of everyone involved in the decision.  We need to be ready and willing to help in crisis pregnancies and to help those who have had abortions heal emotionally after the process.

Hot Air reported on Thursday that three Democrat Senators have signed on to a bill co-sponsored by thirty-five Republicans stating that a rule submitted by the EPA to regulate greenhouse gasses "shall have no force or effect."   The bill would bar the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases.

Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas are the three Senators that voted with the Republicans.  Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln also voted with John Thune (a Republican) to end the TARP program.  That vote failed. 

The writing is on the wall.  The American voter does not support radical leftist policies.  If the Democrat leadership chooses to ignore this fact, the election in November will be a resounding defeat for the Democrat party.  The entire House of Representatives is up for election every two years, so the members of the House have to be careful how they vote.  Senators are reelected every six years on a rotating basis.  The three Senators named above are all up for election this year.

A lot can happen between now and November, but generally speaking, this could be a very interesting year!

This article is based on two articles, one by Ed Morrissey at Hot Air yesterday, and one by Paul Mirengoff at Power Line, also yesterday.

During the Presidential campaign, President Obama railed against the interrogation techniques used against terrorists by the Bush Administration.  He swore to do better.  Well, as Congress begins to investigate the handling of the Christmas Day bomber, there are a few questions that need to be answered. 

The article at Hot Air points out that the Obama Administration's only plan for dealing with Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was to send him through the normal criminal justice system.    The article at Hot Air points out:

"In testimony Wednesday before the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, and Michael Leiter, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, all said they were not asked to weigh in on how best to deal with Mr. Abdulmutallab. Some intelligence officials, including personnel from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, were included in briefings by the Justice Department before Mr. Abdulmutallab was charged. These sessions did provide an opportunity for those attending to debate the merits of detention vs. prosecution. According to sources with knowledge of the discussions, no one questioned the approach or raised the possibility of taking more time to question the suspect. This makes the administration's approach even more worrisome than it would have been had intelligence personnel been cut out of the process altogether."

Power Line points out that the "High Value Detainee Interrogation Group" (HIG) that President Obama was going to set up to take the place of the techniques used during the Bush Administration has not been set up yet.  What are they waiting for? 

The Power Line article cites the Associated Press report, which stated:

"Captured after a bomb hidden in his underwear ignited but failed to explode, Abdulmutallab spoke freely and provided valuable intelligence, officials said. Federal agents repeatedly interviewed him or heard him speak to others. But when they read him his legal rights nearly 10 hours after the incident, he went silent. ...

"After being restrained and stripped bare by fellow passengers and crew, Abdulmutallab was handed over to Customs and Border Protection officers and local police."

We have all heard the story that when Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was arrested, the first thing he did was ask for a lawyer and a trip to New York City.  Unfortunately, under President Obama he got both, but under President Bush, lives were saved because he was properly questioned.

This sort of bureaucratic nonsense is going to cost American lives.  It's time to get whatever apparatus this administration wants to use to question terrorists in place so that future plots can be stopped before they are carried out.

Now that the Republicans can filibuster, the Democrats want to change the rules.  According to The Hill yesterday, Tom Harkin (Democrat from Iowa) intends to introduce legislation that would take away the power of the minority party in the Senate to filibuster.  I can't believe that Scott Brown had any idea when he got in his truck and talked to the voters of Massachusetts how far the impact of his election would go. 

The article in The Hill goes into the details of the bill, when it will be introduced, etc., but there is something else going on here.  The voters of Massachusetts elected a man who a few months ago was relatively unknown in the state to fill the seat of Ted Kennedy.  That seat should have been a lock for the Democrats.  Martha Coakley was not really out of line in assuming that she did not have to campaign.  Anyone with a "D" after their name should have been elected.  But the Democrats lost the seat.  One of the reasons was that the voters felt that the Democrats were taking them for granted and not listening to them.  Well, wanting to change the filibuster rule is more of the same.

The current healthcare reform bill has never done well in public opinion.  The Democrat spin is that everyone will love it once it takes effect.  The other spin is that it is budget-neutral--sure it is--for the first four years you collect the taxes, after four years the benefits begin, therefore over a ten year period it is budget neutral.  What happens next, do you suspend everyone's healthcare for four years so you can play that trick again?  So how do you pass it--you move the goalposts in the middle of the game!

Obviously, the Democrats in Washington are not yet listening to the American people.  Republican victories in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts have simply not been recognized.  I guess we need to throw out more incumbents in November.

This is the link to Team Rubicon, a self-financed and self-deployed group of former Marines, soldiers and health care professionals currently providing emergency relief in Haiti.  They are obviously very busy, but have taken the time to post updates on what they are doing.  If you care to donate to the team's efforts, the link allows you to see exactly what your donation is supporting.

According to Hot Air yesterday, Paul Ryan, a Republican Representative from Wisconsin and the ranking member on the House Budget Committee, has told National Review Online that the Democrats plan to use the budget-reconcilliation process to pass the healthcare bill.  According to Mr. Ryan, they are meeting this weekend to sort out the details. 

Using the reconcilliation process to pass a healthcare bill would mean that the Democrats would only need 51 votes to pass the legislation. 

I'm just not sure I believe this.  Every member of the House of Representatives is up for election every two years--that means they all have to run in 2010.  I can't believe that the voters in moderate states would reelect people who took such drastic measures to pass a healthcare reform bill that is so unpopular with Americans.  There also have to be some shell-shocked Senators running for reelection this year after what happened in Massachusetts. 

I'm not sure why this story is being put out, but I really don't believe that the Democrats would be so determined to drive their political party off a cliff.

Yesterday America's Right posted a story about the independent filmmakers who exposed the corruption in ACORN.  The two had posed as a prostitute and a pimp seeking to buy a house to use as a brothel employing underage illegal aliens.  The ever-so-helpful people at ACORN gave them tips on how to fill out the paperwork to get a loan and how to hide what was actually going on in the house.

As a result of the videos Hannah Giles and James O'Keefe III released of their encounters with ACORN, ACORN was excluded from playing a part in the 2010 Census, and legislation was passed through Congress cutting off their federal funding (unfortunately, their funding was reinstated--see RightWingGranny article of November 28,2009).

Meanwhile Ms. Giles and Mr. O'Keefe III have now been sued by an employee of ACORN for making tapes without the consent of the people being taped. 

The article at America's Right goes into detail some of the legal action being taken against the filmmakers.  It is a travesty that ACORN is still functioning with government support.

I only wish a judge would simply throw this case out of court.

Charles Krauthammer posted an article at the Washington Post today analyzing the impact of the election of Scott Brown to the Senate in Massachusetts.  Aside from the irony of a Republican who opposes national healthcare taking Ted Kennedy's Senate seat, there are a few changes in Washington due to the election of Scott Brown. 

First of all, there was the expected 'blame game.'  According to the President, the election of Scott Brown was the result of anger over what has happened over the last eight years.  Mr. Krauthammer points out that the logic in that statement is somewhat lacking.  Why would a person angry at George Bush vote for a Republican?

Mr. Krauthammer points out the three items Scott Brown ran on--opposition to the current healthcare reform bill, opposition to giving terrorists the rights of citizens, and support for lower taxes.  He also criticized the backroom deals that this administration has made in order to push the current unpopular healthcare reform bill forward.  All of these items are things that most Americans support--regardless of party. 

The article ends with the following quote;

"If you lose Massachusetts and that's not a wake-up call," said moderate -- and sentient -- Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, "there's no hope of waking up."

The 'moderate' Democrats in Congress are getting very nervous.

The source for this article is a post at yesterday's Washington Examiner.  CBS's "60 Minutes" ran a story recently on the unusually high percentage of NFL players that come from American Samoa.  In the process of explaining this phenomenon, the reporter mentioned that the economy of American Samoa had been ruined by a minimum wage mandate from Congress. 

According to the article: 

"...In 2007, Congress bypassed the usual method of having the Labor Department adjust American Samoan wage minimums and dictated that the current $3.76 for canning fish would increase to $7.25 in stages by 2014. It wasn't all that long before Chicken of the Sea said goodbye, we're gone, have fun."

This was followed by Star Kist cutting back on their work force.  The Samoans had not supported the minimum wage increase--they know they are competing with Thailand, which pays sixty cents an hour. 

Raising the minimum wage has generally increased unemployment for low wage workers.  The last increase resulted in an increase in the number of teen agers unemployed.  Generally speaking, minimum wage earners are people entering the work force who do not stay at minimum wage for very long.  When the minimum wage is increased, fewer entry level people are employed.  It is really not a good idea in a struggling economy.

The Washington Times reported today on a 5 to 4 Supreme Court decision to allow interest groups, unions and corporations to pay for political ads.  These groups had been barred from doing this under the The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). also know as the McCain-Feingold Bill of 2002. 

The interest groups will be allowed to purchase issue ads and donate money to issue groups; they would not be allowed to donate to a specific candidate. 

The article points out:

"The ruling does not overturn laws limiting how much corporations and unions can contribute directly to a candidate, nor does it overturn the ban on so-called "soft money," the uncapped donations to political parties that had swamped the political process in the 1990s."

In the age of the internet, there is a much easier way to keep campaigns and candidates from buying an election.  Even if a home does not have internet access, every library in the country has computers that can be used to access the internet.  All Congress has to do to clean up political campaigns is legislate a requirement that all donations to a political campaign or a candidate (or an interest group or a politcal action committee) be posted on the internet at the website of the group receiving the donation within 24 hours of the receipt.  This would give us true transparency and allow people to see who is supporting the candidates and issues.

The Supreme Court decision today is a positive step for the First Amendment.

Yesterday CNSNews reported that a bill currently before the Senate would nationalize the student loan program and end the current program of federally subsidized private loans.  I printed an article about this move at RightWingGranny on September 13, 2009.  The article links to a Wall Street Journal article which explains the details of the plan. 

According to the article at CNSNews:

"The Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act - currently being considered by the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee - would eliminate the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program. FFEL loans are federally subsidized and make up approximately 80 percent of the student lending industry."

The idea behind nationalizing student loans is the Democrat claim that it would save money.  Their calculations failed to note, however, that some loans don't get paid back.  When the default rate was considered, the amount of money that might be saved was cut in half.  The other part of the equation is the cost of the bureaucracy that would be created to oversee the program.

The thing to remember when the government is planning to take over an industry or a business or service, is that without a profit motive, the incentive for efficiency is non-existent.  A business has incentive to become more efficient because it will lead to greater profitability.  The government is not in business to make a profit and generally operates under the idea that if they spend more than planned, they can increase taxes.  That's the kind of thinking that got us the deficits we currently have.

Can you hear me now?  That is the question the voters in Massachusetts are asking Congress today. 

The Hill is reporting today that the Democrats in Washington are rejecting calls to amend the healthcare bill or to pause in their efforts to rush the bill through Congress so that the President can sign it.  Jim Webb was quoted at Politico this morning as saying that work on the healthcare bill should be suspended until Scott Brown is seated in Congress.  No one seems to be listening to him.

The right course of action at this point would be to scrap the current bill and start over.  A bipartisan healthcare bill would include tort reform, portability of health insurance, an insurance pool set up to cover people with pre-existing conditions, and tax credits to help low income people afford heath insurance.  The last item has a double purpose--you can't get the tax credit unless you pay taxes.

I am not opposed to the idea of providing health insurance for every legal citizen in America.  Health care is already available (according to law) to every person in the country legally or illegally.  I do object to insuring the poor at the expense of the elderly.  I also object to the bribes given out in the Senate to buy votes.

Health Insurance reform is not a bad idea--the challenge is to do it effectively.  A bipartisan group of legislators might be able to figure that out.

This article was written by Meghan Lapp, who has worked in the commercial fishing industry.

Commercial fishing is one of New England and America's oldest and most traditional industries. Additionally, commercial fishing provides an important food source to our nation. It is, however, under attack from all sides.

                The commercial fishing industry in the US is regulated by NOAA, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and several regional Fishery Management Councils, as established by the Magnuson Stevens Act. That Act creates guidelines to assist these agencies in creating and implementing fishery management plans, through obtaining the "best scientific evidence available" and taking "into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities", and "to the extent practicable, minimize[ing] adverse economic impacts on such communities".  

                Despite such clear language, these government agencies continue to disregard and distort the guidelines in virtually every practical way, making commercial fishing in New England and the rest of the nation harder and harder for fishermen.  Instead of consulting with fishermen themselves on fish stocks, populations and movements, NOAA and the NMFS have repeatedly and deliberately based their plans, restrictions,  and national statements (capitalized upon by national media) on faulty 'science'.

                For example, we have been told by NOAA and the NMFS for years that the New England groundfishery  (i.e.,  fishing for such species as flounder, fluke, haddock, cod, monkfish,  etc.)  has been chronically "overfished". The truth is that the New England groundfishery has been chronically underfished, resulting in the decimation of the livelihoods of hard working fishermen in such ports as New Bedford and Gloucester. In 2008, NE fishermen could have caught up to 75% more fish than they actually caught, without damaging fish stocks. But because of purposefully unworkable regulations, they didn't catch 280 million dollars of fish that they were allowed to catch. (From http://www.fishnet-usa.com/chronic_underfishing.htm).

                Most claims of "overfishing" are simply not true. Again- not to be repetitive- there are reports from New England fishermen themselves, who are actually on our waterways day after day and are more aware of real-life fish stocks and patterns than anyone else, that they have never seen "so many fish...in 34 years of fishing" (http://www.gloucestertimes.com/fishing/local_story_017215951.html?keyword=topstory), but they are simply not allowed to catch them. Not only is this true, but fishermen are increasingly being shunned from positions where they influence fishery management policy. Why is this going on? Why are our fishermen and their knowledge disregarded and fish stocks misrepresented?

                Perhaps it can be explained as a huge conflict of interest. The fact is that most of the scientists and officials in positions of power within the National Marine Fisheries Service and NOAA (including NOAA chief Jane Lubchenko) have been involved with and funded by organizations such as Pew Charitable Trusts and other environmental organizations for years. (For an expose on what would be condemned as a gross conflict of interest in any other industry, see  http://capeannsalon.yuku.com/topic/983).  Such organizations gross millions of dollars every year, fund marine 'research' and have huge lobbying power and media ties. 

                Now, fishermen are fighting back. They are beginning to unite in an effort to turn the tide and return fishermen to the place they were originally intended to have- that of being a true consideration when fisheries management plans are developed. They are crying for an amendment to the existing fisheries legislation. The new legislation, called the Flexibility in Rebuilding American Fisheries Act, has two bills in Congress- one in the House of Representatives (HR 1584), and one in the Senate (S. 1255). A united rally of both commercial and recreational fishermen are set to gather on the steps of the Capitol building in Washington, DC, on Feb. 24, 2010, under the banner of United We Fish to demonstrate support for the bill and gain Congressional attention. (See http://unitedwefish.blogspot.com/,  Jan 2 entry.) It is the first time such a united front has ever been presented to Congress on these issues. You can help by signing a letter that will be distributed to Congressmen and women who have shown support for the Flexibility legislation by clicking here: http://fs16.formsite.com/FixMagnusonNow/form793561462/. As many signatures as possible are needed, so please consider signing and coming to the aid of these fishermen. Without the passage of this legislation, many men and women in New England and the greater United States stand to lose their jobs and way of life. Another pro-Flexibility legislation petition can be found at: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/241380953. Please take the time to sign both and give our fishermen a chance. You can also get involved by calling or emailing your Senators and Representatives and asking them to support the Flexibility in Rebuilding American Fisheries Act.  Thank you!

Martha Coakley has just conceded the Massachusetts special Senate election.  I am watching her make her concession speech.  She comes across better in her concession speech than she did in her whole campaign. 

I voted for Scott Brown.  I appreciated the way he ran his campaign--there were no negative ads--he simply stated what he wanted to do.  There were Scott Brown signs everywhere, and for the past few days there were about three people carrying Scott Brown for every person carrying a Martha Coakley sign.

This has to be a problem for the Democrats in Washington.  Despite what we are being told, this is a vote against the Obama agenda.  Scott Brown made some very wise political decisions during the campaign--he nationalized the campaign and talked about national issues and how they would affect the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (they call it a Commonwealth because after you are done paying your state taxes, that's what it is!).

Scott Brown was the beneficiary of the perfect political storm.  There is currently a political deafness in Washington, D. C., that the people in Massachusetts chose to reject.  There is a new wind blowing in American politics.  It is not a Republican wind--it is a 'listen to the voters' wind.  Scott Brown did not win in Massachusetts because of the Republican vote--he won because of the Independent (in Massachusetts they call it unenrolled) vote.  Had Washington been listening to the American voter (or at least given the impression of listening), Martha Coakley would be on her way to Washington. 

Scott Brown ran a good campaign.  He was a charismatic candidate who knew how to reach out to people.  We can expect to see much more of him in the future.

Blackfive has posted a story on some personal relief efforts in Haiti.  Blackfive is a military-oriented website.  He posts a story about a group of ex-special forces men who put together a medical team to go into Haiti.  It seems that because of the violence in Haiti, there was a need for medical people who could do security and for security people who can work as medics.  The group they have sent is called Team Rubicon.  Their blog can be found at badgerjake's blog.  The group went to Haiti on their credit cards, they are hoping for donations to help with the debt they are incurring.  Please check out both of the above links for further first-hand information on what is happening in Haiti and what these brave men are doing to help.

This is the link to the You Tube video of the Black Panthers intimidating voters in the 2008 Presidential election.  Today's Washington Times has the report on the Justice Department's dropping charges against the men in the video who were clearly brandishing nightsticks in an attempt to intimidate voters.  Meanwhile, Joan Vennochi at the Boston Globe accuses Scott Brown supporters of intimidating supporters of Martha Coakley.  The basis for her comment--an unheard comment at a campaign rally and some rude comments by some Brown supporters.  Meanwhile, the negative ads in the campaign have come from Martha Coakley and have not necessarily been truthful.  I am somewhat amazed by the hypocrisy of the Democrat party in ignoring a true physical threat to voters while calling stupid remarks intimidation. 

Today is the day that Massachusetts votes to fill the Senate seat vacated by the death of Senator Ted Kennedy.   Senator Kennedy was elected to the Senate in a special election in 1962 to fill the seat vacated when his brother John became President.  He could be counted on by the Democrats as a powerful liberal voice who wielded a significant amount of power.  Whoever replaces him will be joining the Senate as the newest member.  That fact in itself changes the power structure of the Senate.

The Washington Times reported on Saturday that Ed Schultz, one of the newscasters on MSNBC, stated, "I tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts I'd try to vote 10 times. I don't know if they'd let me or not, but I'd try to. Yeah, that's right. I'd cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. 'Cause that's exactly what they are."

That attitude from a newscaster is not constructive.  It does nothing to encourage the integrity of the election process, and it certainly adds nothing to the civility of our political process.  One of the foundations of a democracy (or a representative republic, as we are) is the integrity of the voting process.  The polls indicate that Scott Brown will win the election in Massachusetts.  I like that idea, but more importantly, I like the idea of an honest election.

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal posted an article on what to look for in the special election in Massachusetts  

On Sunday, Martha Coakley appeared at a church with Boston's Mayor Menino (known locally as Mumbles Menino) and then appeared later with Barack Obama at Northeastern University.  This video at You Tube gives you some indication of the excitement Ms. Coakley was able to generate by her appearance.   Scott Brown was on a bus tour of the state, stopping at Worcester in the afternoon.

According to the Wall Street Journal, these are the things to look for:

• Will the independent voters turn out?  The article points out, " Most recent party enrollment data for state, as of Oct. 15, 2008, showed Democrats with 37% of registered voters and Republicans accounting for 12%. But 51% were independents."
• Will core supporters turn out?  Scott Brown needs to have the support of Democrats and Independents as well as Republicans (he seems to be doing well in that area--people who have never voted Republican are planning to do just that in this election).
• Can a Republican win in Massachusetts?  Yes, there have been Republican governors, and Ronald Reagan won the state in 1980 and 1984, but it is essentially a one-party state.
• Will there be a backlash against President Obama and his healthcare proposals?  This is Massachusetts--I have no idea!

The weather here in Massachusetts today is cold with snow showers.  The weather tomorrow is supposed to be more of the same.  New Englanders are a hearty bunch, and I am not sure if the weather will affect the turnout or not.

Tomorrow will be an interesting day!

According to today's New York Post, the Obama Administration has cut $700 million dollars which would have gone to supporting New York's charter school movement.  The United Federation of Teachers, which opposes the charter school movement is seen as the victor in this action. 

The Obama Administration's track record on vouchers and charter schools is not good.  On December 14, 2009, the Washington Post reported that included in the omnibus spending bill passed by Congress was the end of the Washington Opportunity Scholarship Program.  Senators Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) proposed a bipartisan measure for a reauthorization of this program, but I could not find any reference to this proposal.  In the House, Thomas.gov reported on H. R. 4312, which proposed to fund the voucher program in Washington, D. C.  The status of the bill is currently listed as: Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

The article at the New York Post details what has gone on in that state concerning charter schools and their funding.  It is a shame that we are dealing with politicians that give a higher priority to the wishes of the unions than to the education of our children.

Andrew Breitbart at Big Journalism reported yesterday on the theft of $42 million of  Laborers International Union of North American (LIUNA) funds by Melissa King.  LIUNA Local 147 is a 100-year old union, traditionally Irish, that represents the men who dig New York City's subway, water, and sewer tunnels.  They are known as the "Sandhogs."  Ms. King was paid $540,000 a year to handle all administration functions of their benefit fund.  She has held that job since 1980.

According to the article:

"Starting in 2002, prosecutors charge, King illegally transferred about $42 million from three union accounts covering pensions, vacation pay and other benefits to accounts she personally controlled. A large portion of it, to put it lightly, was unrelated to union business. Of the alleged thefts, $7.2 million went to pay off American Express bills, more than $3 million to equestrian businesses (apparently she was grooming her daughter for an equestrian career), and $713,500 to a jewelry business. The criminal complaint states she also transferred $500,000 to an E*Trade Securities account without union authorization."

The actions of Ms. King will impact the Sandhogs retirement benefits.  The union members work hard and are paid well.  It's dangerous work, and they are well paid in retirement as well. 

The fact that this women stole $42 million dollars of their retirement benefits should be news. How much of this story have you heard in the 'mainstream' media?  It seems to me that $ 42 million is a significant amount.  Shouldn't someone have mentioned this?

This is not a new story, but anyone who has ever checked their luggage when boarding an airplane can appreciate it.  I should mention that I flew United from Providence, Rhode Island, to San Deigo, California, and back in the past two weeks, and my luggage was well-treated, and the flight crew was courteous and helpful.  Please check out the video at You Tube entitled "United Breaks Guitars."

Hot Air posted a story today about the United Nations agency for 'climate change.'  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has withdrawn its claim that the Himalayan glaciers will be destroyed within twenty-five years by man-made climate change. 

According to the article:

"A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report."

Think about the implications of this statement.  There was never any scientific research behind the claim in the first place--it wasn't faulty science--it was no science!  The idea that the poorer countries of the world would use false climate claims to blackmail the richer nations of the world into paying them reparations is obscene.  Take a look at some of the poorer countries that were at Copenhagen asking for money from wealthier countries.  Are the governments of those poorer countries such that any money they received would go anywhere other than the pockets of corrupt leaders?  Why was it assumed that only wealthy countries were polluting?

The current science of climate change is not scientific!  The leaked emails, the reports of temperature monitors being placed next to air conditioning exhausts, and wrong numbers being used in the calculations are an indication that the science is flawed. 

Even if scientists can somehow show that the planet is warming, can they prove that it is not a normal climate cycle?  That seems to be the question. 

I just arrived home in Massachusetts after a week in San Deigo.  When I left, about ten days ago, there wasn't a whole lot happening in the special election for the Senate; now, things seem to have changed.

Michael Graham at his blog at 96.9 Boston Talks posted a report today about the motivation he is seeing among Scott Brown supporters.  There are a lot of hand made signs supporting Scott Brown, and people are turning out for rallies in support of the candidate.

A P News reported today on the campaign visit to Massachusetts by President Obama to show his support for Martha Coakley. 

The article cited one theory as to why the race is so close:

"This is, in effect, a referendum on the national health care bill," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said. "It is perfectly clear if it's unpopular in Massachusetts, it's unpopular everywhere. The American people don't want us to pass this bill."

Regardless of whether or not this is a referendum on the healthcare bill, the popularity of Scott Brown may reflect the frustration of voters all over the country.  Voters have called their Congressmen and voiced opposition to the current healthcare bill and have largely been ignored.  There is a feeling among a large number of voters that their representatives are not representing them.  A vote for Scott Brown may be an expression of this feeling.

Tuesday may be a very interesting day.

Today's Atlanta Journal Constitution has a report on the progress of the proposed healthcare reform bill.  The Democrat party this weekend is trying to rescue a flailing Senate candidate in Massachusetts while attempting to put together a healthcare bill that will be acceptable to all its members.  The Senate race in Massachusetts should have been an easy victory, but a young, charismatic Republican candidate is currently leading the race.  Meanwhile, Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank has opined that if the Scott Brown wins in Massachusetts, the healthcare reform bill is dead (I can only hope that is true!). 

Meanwhile, Ben Nelson of Nebraska has asked that the Nebraska exception that would require the other 49 states to pay for Medicaid expansion in that sate be eliminated.  One wonders about the status of the "Louisiana Purchase" given to Senator Mary Landrieu, or the Medicare Advantage exception given to Florida. 

The real answer to healthcare reform is not included in this bill.  The obvious starting point is tort reform, but that would involve angering the lobbyists from the American Bar Association, a major contributor to Democrat campaigns.  Until tort reform is addressed, medical costs and medical insurance costs will continue to rise.  The current healthcare reform bill does nothing to address that problem.

It's time to scrap the current healthcare reform bill and start over.

Ralph Peters has a post today at the New York Post on the government report just released concerning the shooting at Fort Hood.  Mr. Peters points out the the report is lacking in two specific areas--it doesn't deal with what happened at Fort Hood and it avoids the issue of why it happened.

The report never mentions Islamist terror.  The only criticism in the report is of the "military medical officer supervisors" in Major Hasan's chain of command at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center.  Admittedly they should have reported what seemed to be obvious, but the question then becomes, "Why didn't they?"  The answer, of course, lies in the concept of political correctness.  The officers in charge of Major Hasan were afraid that criticism of a Muslim would have a negative impact on their careers.

The stories that came out shortly after the Fort Hood shooting listed signs that Major Hasan had become extreme in his religious beliefs and his hatred of America.  He was being observed because of some of the internet websites he was visiting.  Major Hasan is not the first American Muslim in the military to inflict harm on his fellow soldiers.  We need to take an honest look at the warnings that were ignored in his case, and we need to make sure similar warnings are not ignored in the future.

On Thursday, the Jacksonville Daily News (Jacksonville, North Carolina) reported that 25 members of the Marine Aircraft Group (MAG) 26 had returned home after spending a year in Iraq.  I realize that our troops are constantly rotating in and out of war zones and some come home every day, but this was not a quiet homecoming.

According to the article:

"...Tony Fialkowski, national coordinator for the organization Warriors' Watch,... was one of three motorcyclists who traveled from as far as Pennsylvania to escort the men in style from their landing point at Cherry Point to where their families waited at New River. Though he participates in more than 600 homecomings every year, Fialkowski said, this one had special significance: The former Marine was stationed with MAG 26 for more than a year, four decades ago."

The article further reports:

"As part of the final Marine aviation element to leave Iraq in the continuing process of turning the nation's Al Asad region over to Army units, (the executive officer of MAG 26, Lt. Col. Frank) Crisafulli said the deployment had been about transition and releasing control to Iraqi forces. As the nation prepares for a ballot election this month, Crisafulli said, "this time it's really an Iraqi election. They've just got ownership of it.""

Thank you to all the men in the unit who came home, but please follow the link to the article to see the children of one Marine welcoming their father.  We need to remember the sacrifices that the wives and children of our soliders, sailors, and airmen make.  Thank you to all of our military and thank you to all their families for the sacrifices you also make.

On a personal note, this homecoming was special to me because one of the men in that unit has been very generous in sharing some of the pictures he has taken while he was overseas.  Welcome home, all of you!

Today's Boston Herald posted a story stating that Martha Coakley told a group of teamsters in Watertown yesterday that she was planning to support the "Express Carrier Protection Act," which would allow FedEx to unionize.  Currently, FedEx falls under the Railway Labor Act and which does not allow its workers to form unions.

Just off the top of my head, it seems to me that FedEx is doing a pretty good job of delivering packages.  As far as I know, people have the choice to work for FedEx or not to work for FedEx and when anyone takes a job there, they are aware that they are not part of a union.  Frankly, I see nothing to be gained by unionizing FedEx, and since FedEx is based in Memphis, Tennessee, not Massachusetts, I wonder why unionizing it is being brought up in the Massachusetts Senate race.

I might mention at this point that FedEx is not unionized and the Post Office is unionized.  The Post Office is also a private delivery service (it is no longer government run), and the contrast in efficiency is rather obvious.

 

Brian McGrory, in an article in today's Boston Globe, has a few observations on the campaign of Martha Coakley for the Massachusetts Senate seat (the election is Tuesday, please vote!).

Ms. Coakley has declared, "I've traveled the state and met tremendous people."  Mr. McGrory replied in his article, "If she did, it was under cover of darkness, with an assumed name."

Because the election is in Massachusetts, where Democrats always win, Ms. Coakley did not bother to campaign until the polls began to show that Scott Brown was gaining momentum.  Obviously, a Scott Brown victory would be an earthquake for both Massachusetts and the US Senate.

The article describes the anger of Massachusetts Democrats about the lack of campaigning by Ms. Coakley.  She seems to represent the current group of Democrats who do not feel that contact with the public is an important part of their job either in campaigning or serving.

The solution to the current deafness in our political representatives can be found in the special election on Tuesday.  A vote for Scott Brown is a vote for someone who actually plans to represent the people who elected him.

 

According to the Washington Times yesterday, when Martha Coakley (running in a special election in Massachusetts for the Senate) was asked about the conscience clause that applies to medicine (Under the clause, workers in health-care environments ranging from doctors to maintenance men can refuse to offer services, information, or advice to patients on issues like contraception, blood transfusions, etc..if the workers are morally against it.), she had an interesting answer.

She was being interviewed by Ken Pittman and was asked about religious freedom in the emergency room regarding birth control and the Catholic Church.  She replied:

 "The law says that people are allowed to have that. You can have religious freedom but you probably shouldn't work in the emergency room."

If you follow the link above, you can hear the audio of the interview.

Another reason to vote for Scott Brown on Tuesday.

 

Today's New York Post is reporting that Democrats and the President have agreed that the tax on "Cadillac" health plans will not apply to unions until January 1, 2018.  This will save union employees approximately $60 billion, while other employees with "Cadillac" plans will have to pay a forty percent tax on their health insurance plans (approximately $ 90 billion).  The value of dental and vision insurance plans would continue to be exempt for union employees even after 2018. 

The tax on "Cadillac" plans was put into the healthcare bill instead of a tax on the wealthy.  The threshold for the tax is slightly higher than was originally planned. 

The bargaining table included some powerful unions.  The article reports:

"Participants included AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka and Andy Stern, head of Service Employees  International Union; Anna Burger, head of Change to Win; and the leaders of unions representing teachers, government workers, food and commercial workers, and electricians."

This is not the way to run the government.  Aside from the total lack of transparency in the healthcare negotiations, the number of special deals made with special interest groups and some states is appalling.

As I have said before--the only way to stop this runaway train is to elect Scott Brown in the special election to be held in Massachusetts on Tuesday.  His vote is the only thing that can stop this horrible bill. 

According to WHDH News in Boston, Sal Esposito is a resident of East Boston who has recently been called for Jury Duty.  He is expected to show up for Jury duty in Suffolk Superior Court on March 23rd.  There is only one problem--Sal Esposito is a cat.  His owners have asked that he be disqualified because he does not speak English, but the disqualification was not allowed.  They have also gotten a letter from his veterinarian stating that Sal was a short haired, male, neutered, domestic feline.  So far, Sal is still scheduled for Jury duty.

Since Jury duty is based on voter registration, I just want to know if Sal will be voting in the special election on January 19th.

Today's Washington Times reports that the House Judiciary Committee (controlled by the Democrats) voted down a resolution to require the Justice Department to tell Congress why it dismissed charages against members of the New Black Panther Party for threatening behavior at a Philadelphia polling place in 2008. 

The Washington Times reports:

"The 15 Democrats, led by Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, sent the resolution to the House floor with an adverse recommendation, voting it "unfavorably" out of committee. They described the Philadelphia polling disruption as an "isolated incident" that received sufficient punishment when the New Black Panther Party member who carried a nightstick was barred from carrying weapons at polling places in the future."

If you follow the logic of that statement, I can rob a bank and have the charges dismissed as long as I understand that I can't rob any more banks. 

The backbone of our democracy is the free election process.  It amazes me that anyone in Congress (even the Democrats) would be so short-sighted as to ignore this incident and its implications.

Just in case you haven't seen the video, here is the link--You Tube.

Google is threatening to stop doing business in China.  The two articles that are sources for this article are from Power Line Blog yesterday and The New Republic, also yesterday.  Both articles cite incidents of the security or privacy of internet users being compromised.

Power Line Blog points out:

"First, this attack was not just on Google. As part of our investigation we have discovered that at least twenty other large companies from a wide range of businesses--including the Internet, finance, technology, media and chemical sectors--have been similarly targeted. We are currently in the process of notifying those companies, and we are also working with the relevant U.S. authorities.

"Second, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. Based on our investigation to date we believe their attack did not achieve that objective. ...

"Third, as part of this investigation but independent of the attack on Google, we have discovered that the accounts of dozens of U.S.-, China- and Europe-based Gmail users who are advocates of human rights in China appear to have been routinely accessed by third parties."

Admittedly, we all need to be careful what we post or send on the internet, but there is a general expectation of privacy.  That expectation obviously flies in the face of the control exercised by totalitarian governments, so I guess we should not be surprised by the kind of privacy violations we see here.

The New Republic points out:

"Google's overriding business goal is to encourage us to devote more of our time and entrust more of our personal information to the Internet, particularly to the online "computing cloud" that is displacing the PC hard drive as the center of personal computing. The more that we use the Net, the more Google learns about us, the more frequently it shows us its ads, and the more money it makes. In order to continue to expand the time people spend online, Google and other Internet companies have to make the Net feel like a safe, well-protected space. If our trust in the Web is undermined in any way, we'll retreat from the network and seek out different ways to communicate, compute, and otherwise store and process data. The consequences for Google's business would be devastating." 

When you consider the growth of the internet over the past fifteen years, it is easy to understand why Google would leave China.  The fact that Google has left China also points out a basic difference between commerce in a free society and commerce in a highly controlled society.  In a free society, Google can do business and protect its users.  This allows for instant communication and information to flow through that society.  In a highly controlled society, that communication is limited and the income and forward progress related to it does not happen.

Yahoo News has posted the latest Associated Press story on the 7.0 earthquake that occurred in Haiti.  Haitian President Rene Preval has stated that he believes thousands of people died in the earthquake. 

According to the article, President Preval stated:

"Parliament has collapsed. The tax office has collapsed. Schools have collapsed. Hospitals have collapsed," Preval told the Miami Herald. "There are a lot of schools that have a lot of dead people in them.""

The article reported that the Roman Catholic archbishop of Port-au-Prince was dead and the head of the U.N. peacekeeping mission was missing.

Many nations, including the U.S., Iceland, and Venezuela, said that they will begin sending aid and rescue missions.  The Red Cross is also expected to help.  The airport at Port-au-Prince is open, and hopefully aid and rescue teams will begin arriving as soon as possible.

If you have a favorite charity that will be involved in this, now is the time to make a donation.  The Red Cross is there, and Operation Blessing is headed there as I write this.

The Washington Examiner is reporting today on the North American International Auto Show in Detroit.  The article points out that China is now the most important auto market in the world and that Ford is the only healthy automobile company left among the former 'big three.' 

The article points out:

"While nobody who has ever run a business would deny the difficulties created by inconsistent or unpredictable federal red tape, the alternative solution favored by Lutz doesn't make much more sense. He favors a "gradual increase in the federal fuel tax of 25 cents a year, which in my estimation would have the benefit of giving automobile companies a planning base, and giving families that own vehicles a planning base."  While this might make it easier for car companies to plan their lineups, there is another side to the Lutz proposal.  Higher gas prices would force consumers to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles, thus boosting sales of cars like the Chevrolet Volt electric plug-in appearing in dealer showrooms later this year." 

The danger here is a government-owned automobile company that can influence legislation to create a better market to sell its cars.  Ford, while declining to take federal money, has increased its sales and the value of its stock.  Traditionally Americans support free competition between their auto makers.  I would be a shame to see the government mess that up because they owned one of the companies!  When the government took over General Motors, I believe many Americans decided they would not buy GM cars. 

 I am hoping to replace my gracefully aging Ford Mustang convertible with a new Mustang convertible this year!  I would not even consider looking at a General Motors car.

The Corner at National Review Online posted an article and a video today detailing an incident in Washington, D. C., in which a Weekly Standard reporter was shoved out of the way after asking an unfriendly question to Martha Coakley as she walked to her car.

The incident is also reported on the Weekly Standard Blog.  The Weekly Standard Blog reports:

"After Coakley finished her answer, she began walking away from the restaurant, and I walked behind her asking why health care industry lobbyists were supporting her at the fundraiser. She didn't reply.

"As I walked down the street, a man who appeared to be associated with the Coakley campaign pushed me into a freestanding metal railing. I ended up on the sidewalk. I was fine. He helped me up from the ground, but kept pushing up against me, blocking my path toward Coakley down the street."

As I have said before, I have no idea whether or not Scott Brown can win in Massachusetts, but the voters in Massachusetts have to decide exactly what they are willing to put up with from their political candidates.  I am a Massachusetts voter, and I am appalled by that sort of strongarm behavior.  One of the things that I have appreciated about the Scott Brown campaign is that they have run a very clean campaign.  I believe that Scott Brown represents a positive change in Massachusetts politics.  I would like to see him elected.

The New York Times reported yesterday that President Obama is considering a tax on large banks in order to reduce the deficit.  There is a practical and political purpose to this idea.  From a practical standpoint, the tax on banks would theoretically help bring down the deficit (this may be true, but as we all know, any tax placed on a business is passed on to the consumer).  From a political standpoint, the tax may calm the anger that the public has against large banks that received bailouts and then paid large bonuses to their top employees. 

The article poiints out:

"Lobbyists for bankers, taken by surprise, immediately objected to any new tax. They said financial institutions had been repaying their portion of the bailout money in full, with interest. Losses from the $700 billion bailout fund -- estimated to run as high as $120 billion -- are expected to come from the automobile companies and their finance arms, the insurance giant American International Group and programs to avert home foreclosures, and the president is aiming to recoup that money."

I guess my reaction to this news is simple.  Has the Democrat party ever met a tax they didn't like?  Since a large part of the financial bubble that caused our current financial crisis was caused by bad real estate loans, has anyone done anything about tightening the standards for borrowing money to buy a house?

According to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air today, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee  (DSCC) has recently purchased $567K in ads in the Boston and Springfield markets to support Martha Coakley's campaign. 

According to Mr. Morrissey:

"That's over $800,000 from the party in just 48 hours.  And they're not buying ads because they're believing that Boston Globe poll that puts Coakley up 15 points over Scott Brown, either.  The fact that they have to have an ad buy in Boston should be rather unnerving for Democrats around the country.  Democrats own Boston -- or at least they did."

The money spent in Massachusetts at the last minute was obviously money that was originally intended to be spent elsewhere.  However this election turns out, it has been more of an uphill climb for the Democrats than expected.  That alone is a good thing.

Opinion polls around the nation reflect the unpopularity of the healthcare reform bill and the other power grabs of the Obama Administration and the Democrat-controlled (filibuster-proof) Congress.  Electing Scott Brown to the Senate is the only sure way to stop healthcare reform.  Nothing else will work.

At one point during the debate, Scott Brown was asked how he would feel about being the vote that would kill the current healthcare reform bill while sitting in Ted Kennedy's Senate seat.  Mr. Brown had the good sense to observe that it wasn't Ted Kennedy's Senate seat--the seat belonged to the people of Massachusetts and that's who he would represent.

Sometimes when you look at the things a candidate does during an election campaign, you get a glimpse into the wisdom that they will bring to the decisions they make after they are elected.  Martha Coakley has shot herself in the foot many times recently, but her last move is amazing. 

According to the Boston Herald today, Ms. Coakley has begun an initiative in Massachusetts to make sure all garden clubs submit four years of financial records to the state.  The garden clubs are the organizations that maintain traffic islands, town halls, libraries, and veteran's hospitals across the state.  Most of these organizations bring in about $5,000 to $10,000 a year in annual dues and plant sales.  Garden clubs in the state have recently received a strong letter from the Attorney General's Office stating that they need to file four years' worth of financial records by February 4th.

According to the article:

"Coakley spokeswoman Jill Butterworth said the letter is part of a statewide push to ensure all charities file with the attorney general's office to let the public know how their money is being spent."

There does need to be accountability and transparency in any organization about how the money it collects is spent, but I would assume that the members of the organization would do a better job of controlling that than the state.  This is another example of the state wasting time harassing people doing a good thing, rather than dealing with people who intentionally break laws.

A website called PedalToTheMedal.com posted a story on Saturday about some animal rights activists who decided to protest at a motorcycle gang rally because the bikers wore leather.  I don't condone lawbreakers and bullying, and I don't necessarily think all bikers are horrible people, but I do think there was a certain lack of common sense in deciding to protest a motorcycle gang rally because they wore leather.  (I would like to note at this point that I was once privileged to sit in on keyboards for a biker band called the "Righteous Rockers" in New Orleans.)

Three of the protestors were reported missing after the protest, and the police had to be called in. 

According to the article:

"According to witnesses, protesters arrived at the event in a vintage 1960's era Volkswagen van and began to pelt the gang members with balloons filled with red colored water, simulating blood, and shouting "you're murderers" to passers by. This, evidently, is when the brouhaha began."

That's not a protest--that's assault!  Again, I do not condone violence, but it seems as if the animal rights group was not used to being challenged when they assaulted people, and the biker gang simply met force with force. 

Read the entire article to find our where some of the protestors were found!

The original goal of the President and Congress was to get healthcare reform passed by October.  That deadline (and a few others) have come and gone, and healthcare reform is still being ironed out.  What are the consequences of the delay?

Hot Air posted an article by Ed Morrissey today on what is happening to public opinion regarding the healthcare reform bill now being ironed out in Congress.  As time goes on, more and more people are learning what is in the bill, and the response is not positive.  Many young voters are starting to come to grips with the idea that they will be required by law to purchase health insurance.  Since one of the tenets of youth is the idea that you are 'invincible,' the idea of having to purchase insurance is not always well received. 

Rather than allow the 'invincible' youth to purchase a simple polilcy that would cover emergency hospitalization, the healthcare reform proposal requires them to purchase comprehensive healthcare coverage--at a much higher price.  This underwrites the cost of insuring the older population and the increased number of people being insured. 

Mr. Morrissey points out:

"For younger people, an inexpensive hospitalization policy makes the most sense, with the occasional doctor's visit handled with cash.  A full physical would normally cost only $200 or less, which makes spending $300 a month on a comprehensive policy (the Minnesota average for 2007) an obvious waste, even if someone got a full physical every quarter.  It doesn't take a postgraduate degree in economics to figure that out -- and to figure out why politicians need to use the power of federal government to coerce younger people into economic slavery to the vast majority of the country that need their risk subsidized."

The requirement for young people to pay for something they don't need, along with the serious reduction in medical care that will be available to the elderly, make this bill hard to swallow for people of all ages.  The more people learn about the current healthcare reform proposal, the less they like it.  That is a good reason for further delay!

Today's Washington Examiner posted an article by Hugh Hewitt about the Massachusetts special election to be held on January 19th.  Hugh Hewitt points out that in any other year, Martha Coakley, the Democrat candidate, would be ahead by thirty points.  The polls are all over the place--some polls have Scott Brown ahead by one point and other polls have Martha Coakley ahead by as much as fifteen points.  It will be an interesting election.

The election is about healthcare.  Massachusetts has universal healthcare.  All the taxes and federal control of healthcare included in the proposed federal healthcare bill will only be a negative for Massachusetts.  The voters are beginning to realize that voting for Scott Brown might be a positive for the state--he would be the vote to stop healthcare.  If elected, Scott Brown would serve the remainder of Ted Kennedy's term, and an election will be held in 2012 to fill the seat for six years.

The election of Scott Brown is the only way to stop Obamacare.  Our Congressmen and Congresswomen have chosen to ignore the calls and emails they have received telling them to vote against the healthcare legislation as it stands.  A victory for Scott Brown would force a bipartisan effort on healthcare that might actually result in real reform.

On January 8, Hot Air reported that U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan said that the government had failed to prove that a number of the statements made by Al Madhwani were untainted by previous statements he had made while held under harsh conditions in Afghanistan.  The Judge did rule, however, that statements the defendent made at hearings while in Cuba were reliable and justified holding the detainee.

Allahpundit, who authored the article, states that he is not concerned about any of the terrorists at Guantanamo being set free because he feels that the system being used to try them is rigged.  He feels that in situations where President Obama feels that the evidence is overwhelming and there is no need for a confession from the terrorist, the person is tried in a civilian court so that the President can boast about 'due process.'  When the case hinges on the confession, the case goes to a military tribunal so that the President can boast about 'the conviction.'  It's a system that has more to do with politics than justice.

The concern of the author of the article is that we need to make sure we have the process of trying terrorists in civilian courts perfected before we try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.  That would be a really good idea!

In her Washington Post column today, Kathleen Parker takes a look at what is happening in the campaign for the special election to be held in Massachusetts on January 19th.  This is the election that is being held to fill the late Ted Kennedy's vacant Senate seat. 

The candidates in the special election are State Senator Scott Brown,  Attorney General Martha Coakley, and Joseph L. Kennedy (no relation to the family of the late Senator Ted Kennedy).  Once Martha Coakley won the Democrat primary, it was assumed that she would easily be elected to the Senate.  That may actually happen, but Scott Brown has closed the gap between the two candidates to single digits.  Scott Brown was thirty one points down in November 2009; he is now down approximately nine points.  Momentum in political campaigns is a tricky thing, and right now the Scott Brown campaign has it.

Ms. Parker concludes:

"A Brown victory in one of the nation's bluest states would be as surprising as the rise of a young black senator to the presidency in 2008. It also would be a stunning referendum on the Obama administration. A phenomenon, if you will."

Scott Brown is not a perfect candidate, but I believe he would be an independent voice trying to represent the people who elected him.  That would be a pleasant change from many of the people currently serving in Congress.

According to a post at The Hill yesterday, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is questioning the Medicare savings the Democrats in Congress are claiming will occur with the passage of the current healthcare reform bill.

The article points out:

"The CMS report estimated that national health expenditures would increase by $222 billion or 0.6 percent from 2010 to 2019.
 
"The Senate plan purports to achieve $483 billion in Medicare savings over the next 10 years, including $118 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage plans, a program favored by Republicans that distributes Medicare benefits through private providers."

The CMS report stated that the increase in the number of people receiving some form of government healthcare is bound to increase the cost to some extent.  The slated cuts in Medicare are scheduled to occur at a time when the 'baby boomers,' a large segment of the country's population will become eligible for Medicare.  That simply does not make sense.

Chron.com, a blog that covers military and veteran's news, reported today on a discovery their reporter made in Iraq. 

The article reports:

"I was exploring Camp Cropper last week when I smelled something I never expected to smell in Baghdad: Texas barbecue.

"I followed my nose and found half a dozen soldiers from the Houston-based 72nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team grilling burgers outside their barracks."

The person manning the barbeque grill, Sgt. Alberto Salazar, explained that the barbeque was a 'bonding' experience for the Texas natives in Iraq and helped the time go faster while they were there. 

The article also pointed out that the barbeque sauces they had brought with them were running low, and donations of barbeque supplies would be appreciated.

If you want to help, please send any non-perishable sauces and seasonings to:

Charlie Company
3-141 Infantry
APO AE 09342

Anything sent will be promptly consumed and greatly appreciated.

Today's Boston Herald is reporting the lastest efforts by the Democrat party to pass the current healthcare reform bill despite the wishes of the American voters.  It has been mentioned here and other places that Scott Brown (running in a special election to take place in January 19th in Massachusetts to fill Ted Kennedy's Senate seat) would be the 41st vote and would potentially be the vote that stops the runaway train that is Obamacare.  Well, not so fast.  As the possibility arises that Scott Brown could win in Masschusetts (a Republican win in Massachusetts???  Wow!), the Democrats are moving to keep him out of the Senate until after the healthcare vote. 

The Boston Herald reports:

"Today, a spokesman for Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin, who is overseeing the election but did not respond to a call seeking comment, said certification of the Jan. 19 election by the Governor's Council would take a while.

""Because it's a federal election," spokesman Brian McNiff said. "We'd have to wait 10 days for absentee and military ballots to come in."

"Another source told the Herald that Galvin's office has said the election won't be certified until Feb. 20 - well after the president's address."

The article further points out:

"In contrast, Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Lowell) was sworn in at the U.S. House of Representatives on Oct. 18, 2007, just two days after winning a special election to replace Martin Meehan. In that case, Tsongas made it to Capitol Hill in time to override a presidential veto of the expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program."

This is just wrong.  If the certification of the special election is held up for political reasons, as is the plan by the Democrat party, it is a further indication of the lack of respect by many of our political leaders for the people who elect them.  We need to remember the actions of our political leaders when the next election takes place.

Yahoo News posted a Bloomberg.com story today on how we are going to pay for the proposed healthcare legislation.  The House may agree to the Senate idea of raising Medicare payroll taxes and taxing health benefits.  It also looks as if the surtax on the wealthy may be tossed out. 

The bottom line here is that someone has to pay for whatever healthcare plan is passed.  There is no free lunch.  Raising taxes on anything in a struggling economy will inhibit economic growth.  This is not the way to end a recession.

What we need to do is to scratch the current healthcare bill and start over.  Bipartisanship would be nice.  There are a few things that would actually work in dealing with the challenges we face in our healthcare system:

• Tort reform
• Coverage for pre-existing conditions
• Portability across state lines
• Tax breaks to help low income people pay for health insurance

Those are the only things that really need to be done to improve healthcare in America.  Anything else is overkill.

If you would like to see the current healthcare reform bill defeated and you live in Massachusetts, a vote for Scott Brown on January 19th would have that effect.  If you don't live in Massachusetts, please feel free to donate to his campaign!  The election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts may be the only thing that can stop this awful bill!

Remember Leon Panetta?  He's the director of the CIA.  I would think that the director of the CIA would want to be involved somehow in the aftermath of the attempted Christmas Day bombing or maybe in the aftermath of the killing of seven of his agents by a terrorist.  Well, I might be wrong.

Yesterday at Hot Air it was reported that Leon Panetta was vacationing in California during the Christmas holiday and didn't get back to Washington until the weekend after January 1.  Aren't these the same people who screamed because George W. Bush finished reading a book to little children rather than scare them by getting up and running from the room?  The deputy director of the CIA returned to Washington right after the killing of the seven CIA agents.

Doesn't anyone in this administration care enough to be there?

Wednesday's Wall Street Journal reported that the current healthcare proposal will bring back the marriage tax.  For many low and middle-income married couples, the difference in the cost of healthcare between being married and living together could be as much as two thousand dollars.  This has to do with federal subsidies which are linked to federal poverty guidelines. 

Generally speaking, when the government taxes an activity, it decreases.  The healthcare bill, in its current form, will weaken family life in America.  Since the family is the training ground and the building block of our society, we might not want to do that. 

Leadership U pointed out in 1994 that:

"One of the most significant factors contributing to the breakdown of the family has been the steady rise of unwed births. Since 1960, illegitimate births have increased more than 400 percent. In 1960, 5 percent of all births were out of wedlock. Thirty years later nearly 30 percent of all births were illegitimate. Among blacks two out of every three births are illegitimate."

The article at Leadership U also points out:

"Yet the consequences of fatherless homes is devastating. "More than 70 percent of all juveniles in state reform institutions come from fatherless homes." Children who grow up without fathers are more likely to be involved in criminal behavior because they lack a positive male role model in their lives. Fathers are not irrelevant. They may indeed spell the difference between success and failure for their children."

We need strong families in America.  Passing a tax increase on families (particularly at this time) is not a good idea.

Yesterday Investor's Business Daily posted an editorial on the recent action of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to make it more difficult for American companies to produce more oil and gas.  Secretary Salazar announced that he is placing new barriers on the development of America's oil and gas resources.

The editorial points out:

"Let's put this in perspective: Since 1859, when the first oil well was drilled in Titusville, Pa., the world has used 1.1 trillion barrels of oil. We have twice that amount locked up in oil shale deposits, mostly on federal lands. By comparison, the current No. 1 in proven oil reserves, Saudi Arabia, has just 266 billion barrels of oil."

This is not only bad energy policy, it is bad economic policy.  The development of alternative energy sources is a wonderful idea, but it is not here yet.  Until it is, the answer to America's high cost of energy is very simple--drill, baby, drill.

Today's Washington Examiner posted an article about a clash Wednesday between Egyptian troops and Hamas supporters along the Gaza border.  One Egyptian soldier was shot and more than a dozen Gazans wounded.

The article reports:

"Accompanied by a barrage of rocks, the shooting underlined the mounting tensions over Egypt's construction of an underground steel wall that could seal Gaza's southern border, block hundreds of smuggling tunnels and deprive Gaza's Hamas rulers of their only lifeline.

"Hamas is trying to rally Arab and Muslim public opinion against the barrier it has dubbed the "death wall." Hamas-allied Muslim clerics have denounced the wall as "haram," or forbidden by Islam, and protesters picketed Egyptian embassies in Lebanon and Jordan this week."

We sometimes forget that terrorism is a problem for some Arab nations as well as a worldwide problem.  Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1979.  As part of that treaty, the Sinai was returned to Egypt.  A little more than a year after signing that treaty, Egyptian President Anwar el-Sadat was assassinated by the Muslin Brotherhood, a group of Islamist radicals that we still have to contend with today. 

The tunnels at the Egyptian border with Gaza have been used to smuggle weapons into Gaza, but also to smuggle items that lessen the impact of a blockade which is intended to stem to flow of weapons and military items.  It is not only logical that Egypt would want to stop the smuggling, it is in their best national interest to do so.

The thing to remember in dealing with any news from the Middle East is the propaganda factor.  When some cars of a caravan bringing supplies into Gaza were turned back recently, Egypt was immediately accused of preventing medicine from being brought to the people of Gaza.  Since only 45 vehicles of 200 vehicles were denied entry, I doubt medicine was the issue. 

On November 25th, The Commercial Appeal, a newspaper in Memphis, Tennessee, posted an article about a project being done by seventh-grade students at Horn Lake Middle School.  The students are studying World War II and are focusing on the Holocaust.

The article reports that:

"On Monday, students were on the receiving end of a speech from an 81-year-old Holocaust survivor.

""Lovely lady," Powell said. "Many of the children are the same age (12) that the survivor was when she was taken from her home. They would feel her pain if they were moved and their family members were killed. She knew immediately that her parents were sent to the concentration camp.""

The children in the seventh-grade class are collecting 1.5 million pennies, each penny to represent a child killed in the Holocaust.  The pennies are to be used in an online museum.

Power Line shared this story today with the following note:

"The link sent along by Ms. Powell is to the Memphis Commercial Appeal article on her class project. A friend who forwards Ms. Powell's message comments: "Anything we can do... promoting their effort (and helping the kids get the pennies) would be a mitzvah." The school's address is: 6125 Hurt Road, Horn Lake, MS 38637-2399."

What an innovative way to make a horrible part of history real.

The Washington Post reported yesterday that Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut will retire after serving his present term (and after receiving $100 million in pork in the current Senate healthcare bill).

The news that Senator Dodd is retiring is not a surprise.  The polls in Connecticut indicated that he would not be re-elected.  As Senator Dodd's retirement was announced yesterday, Senator, Senator Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.)  also announced that he would not seek re-election.

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal is expected to run for Chris Dodd's seat, and he should be able to keep the seat in Democrat hands.  Representative Chris Murphy is expected to challenge Senator Joe Lieberman for his seat in 2012.

Chris Dodd's approval ratings began to fall when it was disclosed that he had been given a special deal from Countrywide Mortgage at the time when he was on the committee that oversaw the mortgage industry.  If he had not retired, he probably would have been defeated in the coming election.

As the Democrats continue their secret negotiations on healthcare, Betsy McCaughey takes a look at the bills they are working with.  She posted an article today in the New York Post detailing which parts of the bill are unconstitutional.

This is a short summary of her article:

• Section 3403 of the Senate health bill, which establishes a commission to cut Medicare spending also says that this law cannot be changed or repealed in the future.  That represents one Congress telling a future Congress what they can and cannot do. 
• The amendment that allots $100 million to an unnamed facility (Sec. 10502, p. 328-329).  Why is the facility not named?
• The Senate bill (pages 320-324) says the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution provides the authority to require you to purchase health insurance.  There are some questions as to whether or not that is true.
• The Senate bill makes you enroll in a plan and then says that only doctors who do what the government dictates can be paid by your plan.

Finally Ms. McCaughey points out:

"Finally, the "takings clause" of the Fifth Amendment bars government from taking your property without compensation. It should protect everyone, no matter how unpopular -- even insurance companies, but Congress ignored it in writing the health bill. The Senate version goes beyond reining in insurance-company abuses, a just cause, and actually caps insurance-company profit margins at well below current levels, robbing shareholders."

Hopefully, if this bill passes, it will be immediately be challenged in court.  If it is allowed to stand, it will seriously erode the freedoms of the American people.

Politico.com reported yesterday that Curt Schilling has endorsed Scott Brown in the special election to fill Ted Kennedy's vacant Senate seat.  That really is not a surprise--Curt Schilling has endorsed Republican candidates before, but in a state full of semi-crazed sports fans (Red Sox, Bruins, Celtics, and Patriots), I wonder what the impact of the endorsement will be.  Curt Schilling recorded an eighty-second spot that is currently on Scott Brown's website explaining why he supports Scott Brown.  This could be a very close election.

CNN posted an article today by Steve Danyluk, an international first officer for a major U.S. airline and president of The Independence Fund, a nonprofit that supports troops wounded in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Officer Danyluk was flying over the Atlantic Ocean on an international flight when the Christmas Day attempted bombing incident took place. 

Officer Danyluk states in the article:

"I only learned about the incident after landing when I looked at the CNN Web site on my iPhone. I'm justifiably furious that I was not notified while airborne."

Why wasn't this pilot notified about the bomb on an international flight?  I thought we were told that all airlines and airplanes were notified?  The one actual constitutional duty of the government is to defend us.  Have they abandoned that part of their job in order to pass laws that probably are not constitutional? 

Does anyone remember September 11, 2001?  I wondered at the time why President Bush grounded all airlines--I really didn't understand.  Looking back, he probably saved a lot of lives by doing that.  It seems as if this administration chose to ignore the implications of having a bomb on an international flight.  Thank God they got away with their lack of action this time, but we may not be as lucky in the future.

Manners and tradition are an important part of British culture.  America tends to be a little looser on both, but in the past we have worked well with the British.  Tony Blair and George W. Bush probably didn't share a lot of political views, but they worked together very well to fight the war on terror.  They were on the same page.  Barack Obama, however, seems to have a habit of alienating America from its traditional allies.  This became obvious this week.

John Hinderaker at Power Line reported yesterday that the British Prime Minister's Office has disclosed publicly that MI5 (British Intelligence) had warned the United States about Umar Abdulmutallab (the Christmas Day bomber).  According to the Prime Minister's Office, the file on Abdulmutallab was sent to the US in 2008. 

The article states:

"Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was named in a file of people based in Britain who had made contact with radical Muslim preachers."

I am willing to bet that the British would have neglected to mention this fact publicly if George W. Bush were still in the White House.  Admittedly, mentioning or not mentioning the fact that America was alerted doesn't really change anything that happened (it sure does raise questions about the effectiveness of our anti-terrorism policies, however), but I suspect that this fact would have not been made public had President Obama been more polite and respectful to the British.

U S News & World Report reported yesterday on Harry Reid's plan to move the healthcare bill forward. 

The article reports:

"Despite their claims to the contrary, the way that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have handled the healthcare bill has been anything but transparent. And, if the left-wing blogosphere is to be believed, the two congressional leaders intend to keep the deliberations secret as they try to merge the House and Senate versions of the legislation into something that will pass both chambers."

There are a few reasons for this secrecy.  It avoids having to cut a deal with Michigan's Bart Stupak, who has stated that he will work to defeat the bill if it has federal funding for abortion.  Also, if the bill does not go through the standard House/Senate conference committee, it will not need 60 votes to pass in the Senate.  Evidently, the Democrat party is not sure they can get 60 votes again.  This process also blocks out the Republicans from the process.  This makes any success or failure of the new healthcare bill (taxes and healthcare) the responsibility of the Democrats.  This could make for a very interesting 2010 mid-term election.

The National Terror Alert website reported on January 1, 2010, that police responding to a disturbance call discovered in a rocket launcher in a Houston apartment.  The AT-4 shoulder-mounted rocket launcher can shoot a missile nearly 1,000 feet through buildings and tanks.  The person who lived in the apartment said that she was keeping the rocket for a friend, Nabilaye I. Yansane, whom she allowed to store items in her apartment. 

The article states:

"According to court documents, officers also found Jihadist writings that allegedly belonged to Yansane. The woman didn't want to talk to KPRC Local 2 about that, either."

The woman had called the police because she didn't want Yansane at her apartment.  Yansane was charged with criminal trespassing and pleaded guilty.  He was sentenced to three days in jail, which he has already served. No charges related to the rocket launcher or writings were filed.

The article states:

""Other people could have had access to the apartment, so maybe if a rocket launcher was located there, as is stated in the offense report, maybe it belonged to somebody else," attorney Garl Polland said."

There is nothing I can say to add to this story.

The concept of a nuclear-free world is a wonderful ideal, but like a lot of other ideals, it is an ideal--it does not work in real life.  Unfortunately, there always has to be a policeman on the block, and he needs to be armed better than the people who break the law.  Man left to his own resources cannot always be relied upon to do what is right.  Ask any elementary school principal why he has monitors on the playground at recess. 

The Los Angeles Times posted an article today on the president's goals to shrink the U.S. stockpile and reduce the role of such weapons in foreign policy.  In theory, that would be a wonderful thing.  In practice, that is a very foolish move to make when Iran and North Korea are in the process of obtaining nuclear weapons.  Generally speaking, laws don't really impact honest people--they instinctively do what is right--laws are there to deal with people who rob, steal, and destroy.  America's giving up her nuclear weapons or scaling back on the modernization or development of her nuclear program would only result in a world more vulnerable to bullies like Iran or North Korea and thus a more dangerous world--not a safer one.

According to the article:

"Obama laid out his vision of a nuclear-free world in a speech in Prague, Czech Republic, last April, pledging that the U.S. would take dramatic steps to lead the way. Nine months later, the administration is locked in internal debate over a top-secret policy blueprint for shrinking the U.S. nuclear arsenal and reducing the role of such weapons in America's military strategy and foreign policy."

Thank God we have some people in our government with some common sense.  We need to remember in this debate that some of our allies depend on our nuclear weapons to protect them.  For example, U.S. submarines in the Pacific carry nuclear-tipped torpedoes.  The Japanese appreciate this as a possible deterrent to a growing Chinese navy.  Some U.S. officials want to keep about 200 U.S. bombs at European bases to protect against possible aggression by the Soviet Union.  Again, American nuclear weapons are generally a deterrent to war rather than the cause of one.  If you disarm the policemen in a town, crime increases, it does not go down. 

In yesterday's Washington Post, George Will posted a story about Prospect Heights, a neighborhood in Brooklyn, New York, where the owners of the New York Nets would like buy 22 acres of land to build a huge complex of high-rise residences, commercial properties and a basketball arena for the NBA's New Jersey Nets.  The problem is that people already live in that 22 acres.  In order for the government to seize the land for development, it would have to be 'blighted.' 

According to the article:

"The Atlantic Yards site, where 10 subway lines and one railway line converge, is the center of the bustling Prospect Heights neighborhood of mostly small businesses and middle-class residences. Its energy and gentrification are reasons why 22 acres of this area -- the World Trade Center site is only 16 acres -- are coveted by Bruce Ratner, a politically connected developer collaborating with the avaricious city and state governments."

We saw this type of property seizure in New London, Connecticut.  The case went all the way to the Supreme Court in 2005.  An article at RightWingGranny on December 1, 2009, reported that Pfizer Pharmaceutical Company, who took the land in New London, has now closed its New London plant and moved some of its employees to Groton, Connecticut.  The greed which resulted in the seizure of private property resulted in a total loss of tax revenue--the land is vacant.  The city is not even collecting the amount of property taxes they were collecting before they seized the land.

Private property is one of the tenets of the US Constitution.  To undermine the protection of private property is foolish and undermines our whole system of government.  Hopefully the residents of Brooklyn will do better in court than the residents of New London. 

The Hill is reporting today that Iran has decided not to allow a visit by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry.  At the same time, Kerry spokesman Frederick Jones has stated that the Senator had no plans to visit Iran.  Iran's comment on the subject...

"Americans are more seeking to exploit the media and means of propaganda in a bid to gain an advantage," (rapporteur of the parliament's Nationals Security and Foreign Policy Commission Kazzem Jalali)  Jalali said. "...A number of the high-ranking officials in the present U.S. administration sent letters for talks with Iranian officials when they served as senators.

"The bills ratified in the US legislative bodies against Iran are examples of paradoxical behavior which we are witnessing from American statesmen towards Iran, and indicate that their policies on Iran are not honest," he added."

It gets rather interesting when you don't know who is lying--our own supposedly 'transparent' government or the brutal dictatorship that is Iran.  I also wonder who is exploiting the media.

Jim Geraghty posted something at the campaign stop at National Review on the special election to be held in Massachusetts on January 19th to fill the seat of the late Senator Ted Kennedy.  Massachusetts is a totally Democrat state.  Every now and again they elect a Republican governor the clean up the mess the Democrats make, but generally it is a one-party state.  The fact that Scott Brown raised more than $600,000 in December is amazing. 

This is a note sent to Mr. Geraghty by a worker in the Scott Brown campaign:

"First, thank-you for covering this race as the lack of national attention on this race at this time in the Senate is genuinely vexing to many of Brown's supporters.
 
"Secondly, at the ground level we have seen an incredibly unique phenomenon occurring here. Without the benefit of polls, I would say Brown is causing quite a groundswell of support from Republicans, unenrolleds and even Democrats. Now when registered Democrats are expressing an interest to volunteer, we know something is up.
 
"In the end, it might be the lack of national attention that helps us towards victory here. For Coakley's supporters don't even believe a race is occurring. And the fiscal conservatives of Massachusetts are by far, hands down the most motivated group in our state during this special election."

Scott Brown represents the potential 41st Republican vote in Congress.  He represents the vote that would be able to stop the runaway spending and the coming runaway taxation.  I don't know what his chances of winning are, but I do know that for the good of the country, he needs to be elected.

If you live in Massachusetts, please vote for Scott Brown on January 19th.

One of the most important things to understand when you are fighting a war is the mindset of the enemy you are fighting.  That has been one of the biggest mistakes made so far in the war on terror.  Al Qaeda understands our justice system and knows how to use it against us.  Al Qaeda is also not run by people we would consider rational.

Yahoo.news reported yesterday on the attack on the Danish cartoonist who drew a cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb as a hat.   Kurt Westergaard.has had death threats on his life since drawing the cartoon.  The would-be assassin broke into the cartoonist's house carrying a knife and an axe.  The would-be assassin was a Somali man who is accused of having links with Somalia's al-Shabaab militant group as well as al Qaeda militants.

We need to understand that the members of Al Qaeda do not fit the common definition of rational people.  Religion is the cloak they use as they work toward their goal of absolute power.  There is no secret that the ideal of radical Islamists is a worldwide Caliphate.  The bottom line here is that they intend to kill anyone who stands in the way of that goal--military or civilian--it doesn't matter.

It seems as if when ethical problems come up in an election or campaign, the names involved are always the same.  The story you are about to hear is almost three weeks old, but I have to admit, I hadn't heard any of it until tonight.

The Milford Daily News (Milford, Massachusetts) reported on December 17th that Scott Brown had filed ethics charges against the Martha Coakley campaign.  It seems that the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) used state computers and e-mail addresses to direct state employees to volunteer for Coakley, the Democratic state attorney general, who is running against Scott Brown for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat.

The article points out:

"Daniel Winslow of the Duane Morris law firm, writing the complaint on behalf of the Brown campaign, said the union admitted to improper use of public resources in the FOX 25 report."

This is the same union with close ties to ACORN and other paragons of virtue in the world of voting in America. 

The State Attorney General's Office (Martha Coakley's office) has stated that they have received the letter of complaint and will review it before commenting. 

This is amazing.  I looked for a follow-up story on the internet and did not find one.  The State Attorney General's Office (Martha Coakley's office) is supposed to be objective in their evaluation of charges against Martha Coakley's campaign.  I will be very surprised if anything is ever done.  Meanwhile, if you live in Massachusetts and you want this kind of abuse of power and abuse of the political system to continue, vote for Martha Coakley.  If you are fed up with having a different set of laws for politicians than for the rest of us, vote for Scott Brown.  It's that simple.

Power Line posted an interesting article yesterday which talked about security procedures on El Al Airlines.  John Hinderaker, who wrote the article, relates his experience when he traveled to Israel.  The Israeli security person (who seemed more like a tourist representative) looked Mr. Hinderaker and his wife directly in the eye and asked a few basic questions--who are you, where are you from, where are you going, etc.  After about thirty seconds, the woman concluded they were not terrorists and moved on.  Israel looks for the terrorist--not the weapon.  America is unwilling to adopt the Israeli system for fear of being accused of profiling.  Because of the 'lawsuit mentality' in America, adopting a policy of interviewing passengers could result in lawsuits.  Meanwhile, we have terrorists able to access our airplanes.

The article also points out that 2009 was the year that the majority of Americans figured out that the mainstream media was not telling the truth about healthcare reform or global warming.  The majority of Americans see the healthcare reform bill as the power grab it is and have begun to  realize that what we have heard over the years about global warming is not necessarily true. 

The strongest part of the American democracy is the informed voter.  As long as we have free access to the information we need to make informed decisions when we vote, we will stay free.

BigGovernment.com has posted a story stating that the Obama Administration has let the requirement that union leaders file a  Form T-1 Annual Report expire. 

The article states:

"After allowing only 11 days of comments from the public, the Obama Administration postponed requiring reports for another year. During 2010, the Obama Administration states that it intends to completely eliminate the financial disclosure."

How much this lack of financial accountability will impact future elections depends on the American voters.  Money is an important political force, but a well-informed voter who does his own research can overcome the attempt to buy an election.  That happened recently in the New Jersey gubernatorial election when New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine spent more than $12 million more than Republican candidate Chris Christie and Chris Christie won the election. 

The unions should be held accountable for how they spend the money they collect, but in the end, a well-informed voter is worth more than any amount of union money spent to buy an election (just for the record, a large percent of Governor Corzine's money was his own--not necessarily from unions).

Bloomberg.com reported Thursday that the Mayo Clinic in Arizona will stop accepting Medicare patients at one of its primary-care clinics in Arizona, saying the U.S. government pays too little.  The Mayo family clinic in Glendale, Arizona, will accept cash payments for services, but will no longer accept Medicare. 

According to the article:

"The Mayo organization had 3,700 staff physicians and scientists and treated 526,000 patients in 2008. It lost $840 million last year on Medicare, the government's health program for the disabled and those 65 and older, Mayo spokeswoman Lynn Closway said.

"Mayo's hospital and four clinics in Arizona, including the Glendale facility, lost $120 million on Medicare patients last year, Yardley said. The program's payments cover about 50 percent of the cost of treating elderly primary-care patients at the Glendale clinic, he said."

The article also states that many family doctors may also refuse to take Medicare patients because of the low reimbursement rates.  As Congress discusses a healthcare bill that will make major cuts in Medicare, this is one possible consequence of healthcare reform that needs to be examined closely.

This is not officially called healthcare rationing, but that's what it is.  The currently proposed healthcare bill is very damaging to elderly healthcare in this country.

Andy McCarthy at the Corner at National Review notes today that President Obama as of December 16th has granted Interpol the authority to operate in America without the constraints of the US Constitution.  The second source of this post is a Washington Examiner article by Mark Tapscott on December 31st.  

Mr. Tapscott points out:

"Put simply, this means the Constitution is no longer the supreme law of the land in America. Thanks to Executive Order 12425 , which Obama signed Dec. 16 without explaining why, the supreme law of the land is now arguably whatever Interpol says it is, most likely as directed by the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands, in conjunction with the United Nations.

"Maybe it's just a bureaucratic snafu. Or perhaps Obama sincerely means to subsume U.S. law to what he views as a morally superior international body."

This was done by an Executive Order--not by passing a law through Congress.  Mr. Tapscott points out that Interpol and ICC [the Intenrational Criminal Court] took seriously a request by Iran to place the top twenty-five civilian and military leaders of Israel on the international "Most Wanted" list because of their actions in the war in Gaza.  Interpol and the ICC are not necessarily the most objective judges in international situations.

I pointed out in a recent article that the Organization of the Islamic Conference is a 57 nation group that includes all Muslim nations and makes up the largest voting bloc in the UN.  As Muslim dictatorships gain more control in the United Nations, we can expect to see international organizations related to the United Nations attempt to limit the rights of citizens in free countries.  The laws that protect Americans in criminal proceedings could be upended by UN intervention at the same time those rights are being given to terrorists attempting to destroy this country!

At some point someone in government needs to point out that our elected officials take an oath to uphold the US Constitution.  This executive order needs to be examined by Congress and the American people in that light.