February 2010 Archives

On Saturday, Mark Steyn posted an article at National Review Online talking about the relationship between the bankruptcy of Greece and President Obama's healthcare proposal.  Mr. Steyn points out that both events are part of the same story--the events just represent different phases of the story.

Mr. Steyn points out:

"What's happening in the developed world today isn't so very hard to understand: The 20th-century Bismarckian welfare state has run out of people to stick it to. In America, the feckless, insatiable boobs in Washington, Sacramento, Albany, and elsewhere are screwing over our kids and grandkids. In Europe, they've reached the next stage in social-democratic evolution: There are no kids or grandkids to screw over. The United States has a fertility rate of around 2.1 -- or just over two kids per couple. Greece has a fertility rate of about 1.3: Ten grandparents have six kids have four grandkids -- ie, the family tree is upside down. Demographers call 1.3 "lowest-low" fertility -- the point from which no society has ever recovered. And, compared to Spain and Italy, Greece has the least worst fertility rate in Mediterranean Europe."

The bottom line here is that any government gets more of what they subsidize.  If the government keeps extending unemployment benefits, unemployed people will be in less of a rush to find a job when they lose one.  If being married means that you pay more in income taxes, fewer people get married.  When it doesn't pay to be responsible, fewer people become responsible.  When states have reason to believe that if they legislate themselves into financial failure, the federal government will bail them out, they have no incentive to cut costs. 

As the Democrat party continues its push to pass an extremely expensive healthcare reform bill, it potentially puts America further down the road of financial irresponsibility.  We still have the choice of whether we continue on the path that Greece is on or if we turn around while we can still prevent financial disaster.

On January 20th, Palestinian Mahmoud al-Mabhouh was found dead in a hotel room in Dubai hotel.  On February 20th, Reuters reported that the police chief in Dubai suspected that al-Mabhouh had been murdered by Israel's Mossad.  Mahmoud al-Mabhouh was a Hamas commander. 

On February 27th, the UK Times reported that Mossad was seeing an increase in applications from Israelis interested in joining the agency. 

The article in the UK Times points out:

"Governments across the world are lambasting Israel for what it considers a sloppy job done by agents who were caught on CCTV and may have left behind DNA. In Israel, the operation is being touted as a job well done. Israelis are discussing the killing with a wink, a nod, and pride in the agency, offically known as the Institute for Intelligence and Special Operations."

OK. Israel is being blamed for a very sloppy killing (very unlike Mossad), the world condemns it, and Israelis try to join Mossad.  But that's not where the story ends.

Scott Johnson at Power Line  posted a story yesterday which further complicates the issue.  Although the authorities in Dubai are saying that Mossad murdered al-Mabhouh, the only people arrested for the crime so far are two Palestinian Arabs. 

The New York Times reported on February 24th that two of the suspects in the murder named by the Dubai police have fled Dubai for Iran. 

The bottom line here is that this story makes absolutely no sense at all.  The murder was very sloppy for Mossad, the two suspects who were arrested were Palestinian Arabs, and two of the suspects have fled to Iran.  Somehow I don't think that if I were an Israeli member of Mossad, Iran would be on my list of places to flee. 

I am awaiting further developments in this story before I draw any conclusions as to who did what!

Yesterday's Providence Journal posted the latest information on the ongoing battle to save Central Falls High School.

The article points out:

"The board of trustees overseeing the school system in Central Falls, one of the poorest communities in the state, voted Tuesday to fire 88 high school teachers and other support staff by the end of the year. Other administrators will also lose their jobs."

Jane Sessums, president of the Central Falls Teachers' Union, has stated that the teachers will appeal to the school district's board of trustees.  She is planning to meet with union leaders and labor representatives before deciding to take additional legal action.

The Superintendent of the school, Frances Gallo, said that initially she hoped that teachers would agree to a series of changes that would help the school improve academically.  These changes included additional training for the teachers, a longer school day, requiring teachers to offer more tutoring, and requiring teachers to eat lunch with the students once a week.  When the teachers union said that they would not agree to these changes without receiving additional pay, the school district offered to pay the teachers for the additional training they would receive over the summer, but not for the longer day or eating lunch with the students once a week.

When the negotiations broke down, Ms. Gallo made the decision to fire all the teachers, with the understanding that many of them would be rehired.

I really believe that this is a case of a union getting in the way of something good being accomplished.  The school district offered to pay for the additional training in the summer.  I think that was appropriate.  With that concession, I don't understand why the teachers didn't agree to the suggested changes.  Although it would be my worst nightmare, it seems to me that a dedicated teacher might enjoy lunch with his or her students once a week.  (I might even enjoy it if the cafeteria food was good!)  I also wonder how long the day was going to be extended.  I realize that teachers put in a lot of time after school, but I wonder if a little flexibility on the part of the teachers would have made a big difference here.  Again, I wonder if the union got in the way of progress.

Hopefully this will be resolved in a way that is best for the students at the High School.  I wonder, though, if it is time to reevaluate the role of unions in the public sector. 

Thursday's Washington Examiner posted an op-ed piece by Charmaine Yoest, president and CEO of Americans United For Life.   Ms. Yoest points out that the issue of issue of federal funding for abortion was not mentioned Thursday at the healthcare summit until House Minority Leader John Boehner brought it up mid-afternoon.  At that point, President Obama did not directly address the issue, and it was not addressed until almost the end of the session.  Nancy Pelosi stated that there was no public funding of abortion in the current bill.  Seventy-two percent of Americans oppose federal funding of abortion. 

The healthcare bill currently under consideration requires private health insurance plans to cover abortions, and it allows federally-subsidized plans to cover abortions.  The latter is a change in the law.  The bill imposes an abortion tax on people who use the health exchange.  The current healthcare bill also fails to protect the conscience rights of people in the healthcare profession who do not want to participate in abortions.  This could be a real problem for Catholic hospitals. 

The article points out:

"That is what the president's plan has in common with the Senate bill. But his plan actually goes further than the Senate bill on Life. It calls for $11 billion for "community health centers" - many of which like Planned Parenthood, provide abortions. There is no language to restrict the use of this money for abortion."

Even if this money is not used directly to fund abortions, if this money is used for administrative costs, it will free up more money within the organization to fund abortions.  It really is time to start from scratch on the healthcare reform bill.

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article yesterday about a Democrat party attempt to tie the hands of our intelligence professionals. 

According to the article:

"The Democrats attempted to subject anyone who interrogates a terrorist in a less than gentle manner--for example, by "exploiting the phobias of the individual," which refers to the notorious caterpillar in the cell--to 15 years' imprisonment. As usual, Andy McCarthy blows the whistle on the Democrats' perfidy."

Fortunately, someone read the bill they were voting on and this provision was not passed.

Pete Hoekstra is quoted in the article as saying:

"That Democrats would try to bury this provision deep in the bill, late at night, when they thought everyone's attention would be focused on the health care summit is a testament to the shameful nature of what they were attempting.

"Republicans brought this to the attention of the American people, who were rightly outraged that Democrats would try to target those we ask to serve in harm's way and with a unified push we were successful in getting them to pull the bill."

It is unfortunate that defending our country has become so political.

 

It's beginning to feel like a very long (and not particularly well played) chess game.  Kim Strassel at the Wall Street Journal posted an article about Thursday's healthcare summit.  The summit was designed to showcase President Obama's skill at finding common ground and solving problems.  Unfortunately, someone forgot to mention that the President has not previously exhibited these skills and there was no reason to believe that he has them.

The conventional wisdom is that President Obama will make some sort of speech on Wednesday or Thursday followed by a push by Congress to pass the bill through the reconciliation process.  There are a few risks involved in this.

The Senate Parliamentarian is in charge of ruling what parts of a bill are eligible for the reconciliation process, but he can be overruled by the President of the Senate (the Vice-President, Joe Biden).  In the Senate, total debate on a reconciliation bill is limited to 20 hours; however, after that 20 hours has passed, motions and amendments can be offered and considered without debate.  This could be a procedural nightmare if the Republicans decide to block the bill by offering endless amendments. 

Another risk of using the reconciliation process is the possible backlash of public opinion.  Although many Americans believe healthcare reform is a good idea (myself included), polls indicate that most of us do not want the government taking over our healthcare system.  This is an election year--all of the House of Representatives is up for election in November and one-third of the Senate.  It is unusual historically to have major legislation passed in an election year, even if it is a mid-term election.

There is also the question of whether or not there are enough votes in the House of Representative to pass the healthcare bill if it is passed in the Senate through the reconciliation process.  The public funding of abortion issue would have to be dealt with, and some of the exceptions made in various provisions for certain states might become an issue.  If Medicare Advantage is not a good program, why are senior citizens in Florida allowed to continue their participation in the program while senior citizens in the rest of the country would not be allowed to access it?

This should be a very interesting week.

Ben Smith at Politico posted an article yesterday about the Democrat party's plans to use conservative talk radio to get thier message out.  This should be interesting.  The Democrat group Organizing for America has put up a cite which guides people who are not conservative through the process of talking to conservative talk show hosts.  The cite is radio.barackobama.com.

Some of the talking points:

• This plan will give millions of Americans new choices in health insurance by making coverage more affordable, ending the denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions, putting power in the hands of consumers instead of insurance companies and providing one of the largest tax cuts in history while also reducing our national deficit.

That is totally untrue, and hopefully the conservatives listening are well enough informed to know that.  The plan will put power in the hands of the government.  The plan raises taxes for four years before providing any benefits--that is how they got the Congressional Budget Office estimate of the cost of the plan to be relatively low.

• Too many in Washington are now saying that we should delay or give up on reform entirely, but Americans understand the stakes for our economy and our lives, and we want action.

Healthcare reform is not directly related to the economy--other than the fact that the government wants to take it over.  Action that causes more harm than good is not useful action.

The website also encourages people to be polite and share a personal story about how healthcare costs affect them.  How about actually relating what is in the bill?

On February 15th, I posted this picture from Michael Yon's blog:

This is the letter posted at the above link that Michael Yon received from the young soldier's parents:

Dear Michael Yon,

Today we were sent your story of February 14, 2010. The "unknown" Canadian is our son Danny.  He is a 23-year-old soldier from Vancouver, Canada.

Your photographs were extraordinary and have impacted so many people here in Canada. There has been an outpouring of affection for the Americans who helped Danny in his moment of need.  For that, we thank you for recording these acts of kindness into history.

Danny's injuries were the result of an explosion on February 12, 2010. Four Canadian soldiers were injured and tragically one Canadian soldier was killed.  Within 20 minutes of the explosion, Danny was airlifted by helicopter to Kandahar.  Upon arrival he received emergency surgery that saved his life and prepared him for the flight to Bagram that you were on.

After landing in Bagram, Danny was again airlifted by a US transport aircraft to the US Army run Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany.  There he underwent additional surgery that closed up his wounds.  Once stabilized, the Canadian government dispatched a Challenger jet to bring him home. This afternoon in Vancouver, the shrapnel that did all the damage to him was finally removed.  Danny is now recovering in hospital.

This was Danny's second tour of duty in Afghanistan and his platoon on this tour has had heavy causalities and injuries.  Physically, Danny will overcome his injuries. He also has the support of his family, his friends and his community to deal with the emotional side of this war.  Our hearts go out to those families who have had the loss of a soldier or who have had to deal with greater injuries.

Danny and his whole family are very grateful, and are actually overwhelmed, by the support he received while in US care. The Canadian military have also been wonderful.  It is our intention to personally thank everyone who worked so hard to save Danny's life. We have already made contact with Major Deborah "Lucy" Lehker to thank her.

Sincerely,

Jim & Holly

Thank you, Danny, for your service.  Thank you, Jim and Holly, for taking the time to say thank you and remind us that even though the cost of war is high, cooperation between countries saves lives.  Best wished to Danny in his recovery.

I have spent the morning watching the bipartisan healthcare summit.  I seems to me that the Democrats are trying to say that there is agreement on the majority of healthcare issues their bill will solve, so the Republicans should pass the Democrat bill.  There may be agreement on the problems, but there is absolutely no agreement on the solutions.  That is becoming very obvious.  There were a lot of lies in what I heard.  As Harry Reid said that the Democrats had no intention of using the reconcilliation process, Politico reported on the Democrat strategy to pass this bill. 

According to Politico:

A Democratic official said the six-hour summit was expected to "give a face to gridlock, in the form of House and Senate Republicans."

Democrats plan to begin rhetorical, and perhaps legislative, steps toward the Democrats-only, or reconciliation, process early next week, the strategists said.

This does not sound as if the meeting is being held in good faith.

There is also reporting on the meeting by Real Clear Politics.  This is the link at Real Clear Politics to the President explaining that the reason that the Democrats have more speaking time at the healthcare reform summit--"I don't count my time because I'm the President."  This is the link at Real Clear Politics to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi saying "Health reform will create 400,000 jobs 'almost immediately.'"  Somehow I expect those jobs will be union jobs in the government.

The general problem with this healthcare summit for the Democrats is that the Republicans are quoting parts of the approximately 2,200 page bill back to the Democrats who are not happy about having to defend their bill.

I know the stated purpose of this meeting was to bring to people together.  In practice, it is only highlighting the differences between the Republican and Democrat ideas on healthcare reform.  Generally speaking, the Democrat party wants healthcare taken over by the government and the Republicans want the free market to be used to correct some of the more serious problems.  The Republicans are looking for small practical steps to solve rising healthcare insurance costs, and the Democrats are looking for a government takeover of the entire healthcare industry.

Frankly, the videotapes of this meeting could be marketed as a cure for insomnia.

Needless to say, there is a lot of chatter on the internet about the death of Sea World animal trainer Dawn Brancheau.  Mcclatchydc.com reports today that Tilikum, the 23-foot, 6-ton male orca that was responsible for Ms. Brancheau's death, had been involved in the death of two other people since 1991. 

The San Francisco Chronicle yesterday posted a story that pointed out that there are no documented cases of a killer whale attacking a person in the wild.  The author of the article wonders if there is something in the captivity of the whales that causes the occasional aggressive behavior toward their trainers. 

The author of the San Fransicso Chronicle article concluded:

"To put it plainly, the corporate exhibiting of killer whales today in show parks is for pure and simple profit. Any "research" claimed by these overpriced popcorn and hotdog purveyors has barely more credibility than the so-called "research" conducted by the Japanese whale-killing ships in the Antarctic.

"Let's not just free Willy. Let's free them all. Or, at the very least, stop the harvesting of wild killer whales and let the last generation of captive orcas live and die in peace, without the stress and harassment of performing. Many of the Dawn Brancheau's friends say the last thing she would want is for anyone to harm Tilikum, that she loved the killer whale that took her life. No greater good could come out of this tragedy than for compassion, wisdom, and grace to guide our response. It is, after all, the human thing to

That may be the best idea on the subject I have heard.  I will admit I have enjoyed the shows at Sea World, but it may be time, out of respect for the creatures involved, to let those shows end.  There are some animals who enjoy performing for their trainers (dogs, I believe, fit in that category), but the killer whale is a very large wild animal that may not adapt well to captivity. 

Today's Washington Examiner posted a story about the obvious conflict of interest involved in the government hearings on the Toyota acceleration issue.  First of all, there is the obvious problem that the government holding the hearings has a controlling financial interest in General Motors--Toyota is one of General Motors' biggest competitors.  The other problem is that one of the largest contributors to the Democrat party (currently in control of Congress, thus holding the hearings) is the United Auto Workers Union.  Toyota has successfully avoided being unionized at its manufacturing plants in America.  The article points out that 19 of the 36 Democrats on the committee investigating Toyota received large contributions from the UAW for their 2010 campaigns.  That includes the chairman of the committee, Henry Waxman.

The article points out:

"Nineteen of 36 Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee cashed sizable UAW campaign contribution checks to their 2010 re-election campaigns, including the present and immediate past chairmen, Henry Waxman and John Dingell. Similarly, 12 of 25 Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee got such checks. Are Democrats who have long claimed that money corrupts politics now so brazen as to claim they are exempt from such special interests influences?"

The obvious conflict of interest makes it nearly impossible to come to an objective and practical plan of action to prevent future safety issues in any auto company.

There is another problem with the hearings.  The two 'expert' witnesses that Congress has called have a history with American automobile manufacturing.  Joan Claybrook was the head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration under Jimmy Carter.  She was responsible for forcing car makers to install air bags.  She pushed the requirement through despite warnings that the technology needed further development in order to avoid killing infants and children.  Because of her actions, at least 65 deaths resulted, including infants and children.  The other expert is Clarence Ditlow, executive director of the Center for Auto Safety, who condoned the use of rocket ignitors in the NBC report that stated that GM pickup trucks were dangerous.  Both these people have histories in the auto industry that are questionable at best, and their testimonies should be viewed with skepticism.

Auto manufactures should be held to a high standard of safety in the product they manufacture, but I question the objectivity of this committee when they choose to overlook some of the major recalls on other cars, such as the Chevy Cobalt.  Because it is owned by the government, Chevy will probably be given a pass on any safety problems it has in the near future.,

Boston.com reported today that former Patriots fullback Mosi Tatupu has died at the age of 54.  Mr. Tatupu was an asset to the communities around Foxboro during his playing years with the Patriots and after he retired--he participated in numerous charitable events and later became the coach of the King Philip High School football team in Wrentham, Massachusetts.  His son, Lofa, is a Pro Bowl linebacker for the Seattle Seahawks.

I am sure the sports reporters will list all of his accomplishments as a player for the New England Patriots (and there were many), but those of us who live in the area will remember him more for the things he gave to the community.  Mosi Tatupu will be fondly remembered and greatly missed.

Tuesday's Washington Times posted an article pointing out that newly-elected Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown was one of five Republicans who voted for the jobs bill and avoided a filibuster.  The bill comes up for a final vote today. 

According to the article:

"The bill would increase business tax write-offs for expenses, continue funding for the national highway-building program and offer a payroll tax holiday for businesses that hire unemployed workers. The payroll tax break would apply to every worker hired in 2010 who had been unemployed for at least 60 days, and businesses would be given a $1,000 credit for each employee retained a full year."

According to the article, Senator Brown released the following statement:

"This Senate jobs bill is not perfect. I wish the tax cuts were deeper and broader, but I voted for it because it contains measures that will help put people back to work,"

The headline on the article on the same subject in the Washington Post reads:

GOP's Brown branded turncoat for jobs bill vote

Good Grief!  The man has voted twice in the Senate that I am aware of.  One vote I agreed with and one vote I have mixed emotions about, but let's give the man some space!  I voted for Scott Brown because I felt he would vote according to his conscience.  He is proabably not as conservative politically as I am, but he was elected in Massachusetts to fill a seat held by Ted Kennedy since the 1960's.  Give the man a break. 

 

 

Because the meeting of the bipartisan minds on healthcare reform is scheduled for Thursday, there are a lot of comments and articles up on the internet dealing with healthcare reform.  Here are some excepts from a few.

Investor's Business Daily posted an article on Monday stating the the use of the reconcilliation process to pass healthcare would not be in keeping with the rules of the Senate.  The article states:

"New regulations on health insurance companies, to name just one aspect of the bill, have nothing to do with spending or revenues, the debt limit or any other budget-related matter. Using reconciliation on health care is as absurd as using it to send a constitutional amendment to the states for ratification, or to pass a treaty, or to confirm a Cabinet secretary or Supreme Court justice."

The article concludes:

"If the White House insists on defying the American people, the Loyal Opposition has a duty to take their side."

The Hill posted an article Monday pointing out that the healthcare reform bill proposed by President Obama is partially paid for by rescinding the "black liquor" tax break abused by paper companies that claim undeserved alternative fuel tax credits.  The jobs bill proposed by  Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and ranking member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) bill also rescinds this tax break.

The article also points out:

"In addition, the president's proposal also broadens the Medicare tax to unearned income that includes capital gains, business lobbyists say. The inclusion of capital gains will be highly controversial as lobbyists have already vowed to do everything in their power to keep the tax from affecting this type of investment." 

This sounds more like a tax bill than a healthcare reform bill.

The New York Post also weighed in today on the subject of healthcare reform.  The article points out:

"After months of swearing that his health legislation would lower the skyrocketing costs of insurance premiums, Obama finally acknowledged that actually it would not.

So, instead, he has included a new provision that can simply outlaw premium increases his administration deems "unreasonable and unjustified.""

The New York Post points out that if the Obama healthcare reform proposal would actually lower health insurance premiums, there would be no need to pass a law outlawing premium increases.  Those of us who were around in the 1970's remember what wage and price controls do.  This is essentially the same thing.  When you limit the profits of a company, they tend to do less of what they were doing.  To limit the right of insurance companies to raise their rates will ultimately limit the amount of healthcare available to all of us.

The only way to move forward with a healthcare plan is to scrap everything proposed so far and start over.  I posted and article yesterday on the small bill (rightwinggranny.com).  There is a way to successfully do healthcare reform in only one page.  It's time to consider that proposal.

The news on the unraveling of man-made climate change theory is not being widely reported in the American press, but the British press has stayed on the story.  The guardian.co.uk reported Sunday that scientists have been forced to withdraw the numbers previously published on rising sea levels. 

A study published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience predicted that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.  The study was supposedly based on data from the past 22,000 years.  The Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) had released a study in 2007 stating that the sea level would probably rise18cm-59cm by 2100.  These statements have now been retracted.

The article states:

"In a statement the authors of the paper said: "Since publication of our paper we have become aware of two mistakes which impact the detailed estimation of future sea level rise. This means that we can no longer draw firm conclusions regarding 21st century sea level rise from this study without further work.

""One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years. Because of these issues we have retracted the paper and will now invest in the further work needed to correct these mistakes.""

In a world where the weatherman may not even get his predictions for next week right, I think we need to be careful how seriously we regard his projections for the next century.

An alternative healthcare reform bill is posted on the internet at smallbill.org.  The bill is, literally one page long.

A few highlights:

• The small bill increases spending by $180 billion, Obamacare increases spending by $2.5 trillion.
• There are no tax increases in the small bill.  Obamacare increases taxes by $1.0 trillion.
• There are no Medicare cuts in the small bill.  Obamacare cuts Medicare $800 billion (according to CBO projections for the Senate bill from 2014 to 2023).
• Obamacare insures 260,000 new people for every $20 billion spent.  The small bill insures 1.1 million people for every $20 billion spent.
• Unless doctors' pay under Medicare is cut by 21%, Obamacare results in $217 billion in deficit spending.

The details of how this is done are listed on the small bill website listed above.  Remember, it only took eighteen pages to found our nation.  We should be able to do healthcare reform in less pages than that!

More information on the small bill can be found at the Weekly Standard..

There are two sources for this article, one in today's Washington Examiner, and one in today's Washington Times. 

The Washington Examiner article deals with the fact that the healthcare reform bill has been rejected by the American people.  Most of us find the idea that we can give every American health insurance while spending less money than we do now a little unbelievable.  Democrat Jay Rockefeller, in referring to Presient Obama's policies on 'clean coal', stated, "He's beginning to not be believable to me."

The current conventional wisdom says that President Obama will use the reconcilliation process to pass a totally Democrat healthcare reform bill.  The Republicans are being invited to a very public meeting on Thursday to provide cover for this effort.  Passing healthcare reform with less than sixty votes by using parliamentary trickery is not likely to impress the American voters.  It will probably cost many Democrats who vote for the plan their seats in November.

The Washington Times article points out that the Republicans do have an alternative healthcare reform plan:

"Republicans, however, have devised a creative way around this vexing dilemma that would simultaneously decelerate the fiscal deficits and health care costs while improving care. It's contained in the Patients' Choice Act, co-sponsored by Republican Sens. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Richard M. Burr of North Carolina and Republican Reps. Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin and Devin Nunes of California. Specifically, their Medicaid transformation would save the states and federal government $1 trillion and $300 million, respectively while gutting the current third-rate system in favor of one that delivers first-class, stigma-free care and develops a template for outcomes-based care that essentially would serve as a laboratory to provide the health care system at large the keys to successful structural reform by which to bend down that vaunted cost curve."

Hopefully, because the cameras will be rolling, Republican ideas will also have a seat at the table.

Today's Jerusalem Post posted an article about the delivery of Russian S-300 anti-missile system to Iran.  Evidently, Russia promised the system in its bid to gain more influence in the Middle East, but seems to be waffling on if or when it will actually deliver the system.

The article points out:

"...last week's visit by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to Russia, aimed at acquiring a guarantee from Moscow that it will not sell Iran the S-300, was seen by Russia as a very positive development. Netanyahu walked away from the meeting expressing confidence in Russia's desire to maintain regional stability."

There are a few things to consider here.  First of all, Russia has never been known to be a team player on any team.  Russia will do whatever it needs to in order to get whatever it wants.  It is not a country known to be overly cooperative with any other country.  Second of all, if this system is delivered, it will make an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facility much more complicated--not impossible--just more complicated.  The third thing to consider is the state of anti-government feelings in Iran.  The rather perverse government of Iran may be attempting to instigate an attack against Iran in an effort to unite the people of Iran against a common enemy and end the current unrest.

Unfortunately, there are no good options in dealing with an Iran about to become a nuclear power.  The only hope of avoiding that is another Iranian revolution.

There are two recent articles posted on the internet commenting on the latest Democrat party talking point--"the United States in ungovernable."  One is at Power Line, written by John Hinderaker, and one is at the Washington Post, written by Charles Krauthammer.  Both articles remind us that this is the common cry of a party trying to pass unpopular laws.

The Power Line article quoted George Will speaking Sunday morning on ABC (he is responding to a comment by Evan Bayh)

"GEORGE WILL: Well, it's hard to take a lecture on bipartisanship from a man who voted against the confirmation of Chief Justice Roberts, the confirmation of Justice Alito, the confirmation of Attorney General Ashcroft, the confirmation of Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State. Far from being a rebel against his Party's lockstep movement, Mr. Bayh voted for the Detroit bailout, for the stimulus, for the public option in the healthcare bill. I don't know quite what his complaint is, but, Terry, with metronomic regularity, we go through these moments in Washington where we complain about the government being broken. These moments have one thing in common: The Left is having trouble enacting its agenda. No one when George W. Bush had trouble reforming Social Security said, "Oh, that's terrible - the government's broken.":"

One of the joys of the new media is that it puts the facts at everyone's fingertips and allows all of us to evaluate statements like 'the government is broken' in the context of history.

Charles Krauthammer points out that the government seems to be broken only at times when we have Presidents who don't seem to be able to accomplish anything.  It magically gets fixed when a different President is elected.

Mr. Krauthammer points out that the filibuster is viewed as wonderful or horrible depending on who is in power:

"...Of course, just yesterday the same Paul Krugman was warning about "extremists" trying "to eliminate the filibuster" when Democrats used it systematically to block one Bush (43) judicial nomination after another. Back then, Democrats touted it as an indispensable check on overweening majority power. Well, it still is. Indeed, the Senate with its ponderous procedures and decentralized structure is serving precisely the function the Founders intended: as a brake on the passions of the House and a caution about precipitous transformative change."

The government isn't broken--it's listening to public in refusing to pass some of the more radical and expensive programs of the Obama Administration.  Now if it would only stop the runaway spending...

 

Today's UK Times Online posted a story about the war our soldiers in Afghanistan are fighting against the improvised explosive device (IED), the Taliban's weapon on choice. 

The article points out:

"In Afghanistan now, in the battle for Marjah, the coalition has 15,000 soldiers ranged against an estimated 400 Taliban fighters. It sounds like no contest. Yet progress is slow and bloody because the Taliban have ringed the town with IEDs in what soldiers call the "belt of death"."

The IED has been around for a while.  It was used by Guy Fawkes to try to blow up the British Parliament.  Lawrence of Arabia used them, the Viet Cong used them, and the IRA used them.  The term IED was coined by the British Army to describe the bombs the IRA was making.

Aberdeen proving ground in Maryland is developing a robot that will enable American soldiers to disarm roadside IED's without putting themselves in danger.  The robots cost $150,000 each.  One soldier working with the robots, Sergeant John Stricklett, lost three robots on his last deployment to Iraq.  He comments in the article that if he had been walking down the street to disarm the IED's involved, he would have been lost.

Another suggestion on how to find and disarm the IED's has been to use honeybees.  The article points out:

"A defence research laboratory in Los Alamos has found they (honeybees) can be trained within 20 minutes to recognise a particular chemical. It proposes putting bees in a detecting machine with a monitor that registers a signal when the bees stick out their tongues. But the logistics of carrying bees inside army vehicles moving around Afghanistan have proved unworkable." 

The real answer to finding and disarming IED's is having alert soldiers who pay attention to details in their surroundings.  I remember reading in an article from an embedded reporter that he had learned not to go on patrol with any group of soldiers driving a vehicle with a dirty windshield--if the windshield was dirty, it was easy not to spot the tripwires that often triggered the IED's.

Today's Washington Examiner posted an article about various municipal counties encouraging illegal aliens to participate in the 2010 census.  Why is that important?  The article points out that each illegal alien is worth about $1,000 in federal funding.  According to the Department of Homeland Security, there are an estimated 10.8 million illegal immigrants in the United States at this time, down from 11.6 million in 2008.  At $1,000 each, that is $10.8 billion going to support illegal aliens.  Meanwhile, there is talk about cutting Social Security, which Americans under the age of 80 have paid into all their lives.  This is just wrong.  Why are we funding something that is illegal?  Illegal immigrants are not paying taxes, social secuiry, or legally participating in the American workplace.  We need to make our immigration laws more reasonable so that the people who are here illegally that are hard working and want to contribute to our economy can be here legally and those who are simply taking federal handouts can be sent home.

 

According to today's Washington Times, Afghan President Hamid Karzai has asked NATO to do more to protect civilians as their troops take Marjah from the Taliban.  I understand the need to protect innocent people, but how do you do that when the Taliban is using the residents of the area as human shields? 

According to the article:

"Once the town is secure, NATO plans to rush in a civilian Afghan administration, restore public services and pour in aid to try to win the loyalty of the population and prevent the Taliban from returning.

"As the assault entered its second week, Marines and Afghan soldiers faced hours of sporadic but intense gunfights from insurgent snipers -- often firing from compounds where families could be seen taking shelter. Troops crouched for cover in muddy ditches, firing rifles, machine guns, and grenades as Taliban bullets whizzed by."

Again, I understand the need to protect innocent civilians, but not at the expense of losing NATO soldiers or the expense of losing the war.  What we need are some really good snipers.  If the Taliban soldiers know that they will be safe as long as they hide with civilians, I am not sure victory is possible.

The problem is not our disregard for civilians, it is the Taliban's use of civilians as human shields. 

Yesterday CNS News posted a story from Phoenix, Arizona, about Faleh Almaleki, a 48-year-old Iraqi immigrant, who used his Jeep Cherokee to run down his daughter and another woman in a Peoria parking lot Oct. 20 because his daughter had become too Westernized.  The killing is described as an 'honor killing.'

According to the article:

"Faleh Almaleki is charged with first-degree murder, aggravated assault and two counts of leaving the scene of a serious accident.

"He has pleaded not guilty to all charges." 

Mr. Almaleki will not face the death penalty.

When a person immigrates to this country, he is free to practice his religion, but when some aspect of that religion (murder or honor killing) violates United States law, he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.  Honor killings are happening with increasing frequency across this nation, and the American court system needs to send a loud and clear message that this is unacceptable.

Yesterday's Providence Journal (Providence, Rhode Island) carried the story on the ongoing battle between Frances Gallo, the Superintendent of the Central Falls school district, and the teachers' union over how to fix the failing Central Falls High School.

According to the article:

"Gallo said she offered the high school's 74 teachers "100-percent job security" for the 2010-11 school year, if they'd agree to her six conditions to transform the low-performing school.

"But teachers union President Jane Sessums said that while the issue of job security certainly came up in negotiations, Gallo never promised to protect every job."

I have no idea who is telling the truth, but shouldn't the emphasis be on making sure that the children in that school get the best education possible?  Ms. Gallo, in response to the lack of agreement with the teachers' union, has sent letters to every teacher at the High School terminating them at the end of the year.  The school district's Board of Trustees will vote on Gallo's recommendation Feb. 23.

According to the article:

"A new federal requirement mandates that states must identify their lowest-performing 5 percent of schools and fix them by using one of four methods: school closure; takeover by a charter or school-management organization; transformation; or "turnaround" which requires the entire school staff be fired and not more than half be rehired in the fall."

It sounds to me as if Ms. Gallo's options are somewhat limited and that she is in compliance with the law. 

I have no idea why the school is failing, but as someone who gradulated from public school in the 1960's. I feel that a large portion of our educational system is not giving the students the basic survival skills they need to be successful when they graduate.  I know that family situations are very different today than they were in the 1960's and that might be part of the problem, but we need to find out why some schools are successful and some are not. 

The Seaford Star, a Delaware newspaper, posted a story about the farmers in Delaware who took it upon themselves to plow the roads after the snowstorms last week.  Many of the farmers of the state began plowing state roads after the snowstorms before being asked.   

According to the article:

"Among those Sussex farmers who took to the roads were brothers R.C. and J.C. Willin from near Seaford. Their farm has had a contract with the state to clear snow-covered roads since 1979. The Willins were called out by the state at 9 a.m. Sunday, Feb. 7, and ended their work a week later, at 5 p.m. Sunday, Feb. 14. They used two John Deere tractors, one 300 horsepower fitted with a 16-foot blade and the other 250 horsepower with a 14-foot blade. "Our tractors perform a service that trucks can't do," J.C. said. He and his brother not only cleared roads from the state line to U.S. 113, Greenwood to the Nanticoke River, they also pulled out vehicles, including state road trucks and in one instance a National Guard truck, that were stuck in the snow."

Why am I posting this story about Delaware farmers?  The thing that has always made America a great country was the private sector.  People who saw a need and filled it, helping their neighbors and earning a profit in the process.  This story is an example of that quality. 

The article further relates:

"Baxter also had equipment at the Georgetown Fire Hall to help clear its driveway. In Sussex County, 16 farmers responded to a call from the Emergency Operations Center to help clear roads ahead of fire engines and ambulances. "Emergency planners are in critical need of heavy-duty machinery, such as large tractors, that would lead the way for fire trucks, ambulances and EMS trying to respond to emergencies down snowdrift-covered roadways," center director Joseph Thomas said in a statement released at 9 p.m. Wednesday. DelDOT spokesman Westhoff said that in Kent County, a group of teen farmers responded to his call for help getting access to a radio station between Harrington and Milford."

Delaware is not used to dealing with the amount of snow they have recently seen.  They are not equipped to handle it, nor would it be productive for the state to be prepared for major snowstorms when they are not a common occurrence.   Thank you, Delaware farmers, for your initiative and willingness to help your fellow citizens.

Big Goverment has posted an article by Matt Latimer about a group formed by doctors opposed to President Obama's healthcare reform called Docs4PatientCare. 

The article describes the group:

"Founded by Dr. Hal Scherz, a prominent Atlanta physician, the group of doctors expressed concern that like so many other professional groups, the AMA's leadership have been  thoroughly "Washingtonized" - caring more about the pleadings of other lobbyists on K Street, White House invitations and Capitol Hill committee appearances than the professions they are supposed to represent.  As doctors have taken a battering over several decades from insurance companies, HMOS, and government agencies, Scherz says the AMA was a bystander." 

The group is concerned about what the current healthcare reform legislation will do to the practice of medicine in this country.  They have been meeting with Congressmen and their staff members to explain the impact of this legislation.  One such meeting is described:

"Another memorable incident cited by members of the group occurred when one of their members, Joyce Lovett MD, an African American female pediatrician, got the doctors into a meeting of the Congressional Black Caucus.  A debate opened up over the health care plan and soon the doctors were text-messaging their colleagues visiting other offices around the capitol for reinforcements.  As the room began filling up, the doctors, doing well in the back and forth of debate, seemed to be changing some minds.  At that point, a worried Black Caucus leader and diehard partisan, John Conyers, broke up the meeting, saying the doctors were more interested in embarrassing the first black president than in achieving real reform.   Unused to this sort of political attack, the astonished doctors told other caucus members  how they felt after taking time from their practices and patients to come all the way to Washington only to hear a member of Congress insinuate they were racists.  One caucus member privately dismissed Conyers' "old ways of thinking," suggesting that the CBC might be ready for fresh, and more innovative, leadership."

Meanwhile, according to The Hill:

"Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.), the top Republican on the Ways and Means committee, said that President Barack Obama and Democrats' reported efforts to finish a healthcare bill before the coming summit could scuttle chances for bipartisanship."

The 'bipartisan' meeting scheduled for next week is set up to be cover for the Democrats as they ram through healthcare reform against the wishes of the American people.  The Democrats are going in with the idea that the Republicans should simply sign on to their plan--they have no intention of listening to Republican ideas.  After the meeting, the Democrats will declare the Republicans 'the party of no,' and push through the legislation with 51 votes (through the reconcilliation process).  This is obscene, and every Democrat who votes for this healthcare bill should be voted out of office in November.  I am not sure whether or not the next Congress can undo this mess, but I sure hope they can.

This is a developing story, so I am sure there is more to come.  What I am posting here comes from Fox News on Thursday and CBN News on Thursday.

In December five arabic translators at Fort Jackson were arrested for trying to poison the food supply at Fort Jackson.  The men are Muslims. 

According to CBN:

"A source with intimate knowledge of the investigation, which is ongoing, told CBN News investigators suspect the "Fort Jackson Five" may have been in contact with the group of five Washington, D.C., area Muslims that traveled to Pakistan to wage jihad against U.S. troops in December. That group was arrested by Pakistani authorities, also just before Christmas."

Fox News reports that the investigation began approximately two months ago. 

This story is still developing, so I really don't have a lot to say except that I am reminded of the quote of General Casey, "Ft. Hood was a tragedy but the greater tragedy would be loosing our diversity."  I wonder if he has changed his mind yet.  Diversity at the cost of American lives is definitely not worth it.

Yes, you did read that headline right.  Yesterday, The Hill reported on two Democrat Senators who are beginning to go after the natural gas industry.  In question is hydraulic fracturing, a drilling technique that injects fluids and sand underground to break-up rock formations so that natural gas can escape to the surface. "Fracking" has given producers access to rich gas reserves stuck in shale rock.

Some environmental and community groups fear that the process results in the contamination of drinking water. 

The article points out:

"Drilling companies insist fracking is safe. Energy In Depth, an industry-backed group formed specifically to fight federal regulations, said hydraulic fracturing is an "essential component of producing clean-burning energy in America today" in response to the inquiry.

""If the responsible development of shale gas represents a potential game-changer for the United States, hydraulic fracturing represents a non-negotiable tool needed to leverage that potential into reality - and the jobs, revenue and opportunity that come with it," the group said."

I have no idea if this process is safe, but I am amazed at the roadblocks the Democrat party routinely puts in the way of America's energy independence.  Until I hear a scientific argument about this process, I will be a bit skeptical.  It may be that the normal sources of American energy may have to be destroyed in order to bring in 'green' energy.  One of the reasons I am skeptical about this kind of attack on our own energy sources is that a lot of our political leaders are heavily invested in companies related to 'green' energy.  They have a personal and financial reason for wanting to move away from conventional sources of energy to 'green' energy.

Evidently the messages the voters sent in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts have not yet gotten through.  During his Massachusetts campaign, Scott Brown frequently promised to be the 41st vote against the current heathcare reform.  He was elected.

Today at The Foundry, a website sponsored by The Heritage Foundation, Brian Darling posted a story about the current efforts by the Democrat party to force healthcare through Congress, to the President and into law.

There will be a bipartisan meeting on healthcare reform at the Blair House on February 25th.  The President called this meeting saying that it was time for bipartisan cooperation on the bill.  That is what he is saying; that is not what he is doing.

According to the article:

"According to The New York Times, the plan is to have the President submit reconciliation legislation to be posted on the internet this weekend. The legislation will be crafted in a manner so that it can be passed using special reconciliation procedures created solely to enact laws to reduce the deficit as part of the annual budget.  The next step is for the President to conduct his half day bipartisan summit at the Blair House on February 25^th. With that faux-bipartisan stunt over with, the President will be free to pass legislation in a partisan manner that tosses aside the regular rules of business in the Senate."

Any Democrat who signs on to this idea will probably be unemployed after the November election.  This is not bipartisanship at all; it is Chicago-style politics.  The voters have made it clear that they do not support the current healthcare reform bill.  I don't understand why this administration is so totally deaf to the will of the American voters.

On Tuesday, Carol Platt Liebau at Townhall.com posted her perspective on the retirement of Evan Bayh.  There are a few aspects of this retirement.

Ms. Liebau points out that legislative agenda of the Obama Administration had put Senator Bayh in a very awkward position--either supporting the very unpopular agenda of President Obama (and losing his reputation as a moderate Democrat) or going against President Obama, angering the Democrat base and having to deal with any 'Chicago style' consequences.

Ms. Liebau points out:

"Sure, he's getting out because of partisanship . . . from his own side.  And he's doing it while he still has a viable reputation as a centrist, without either attracting the abuse that would come from the left if he resisted the Obama agenda in the Senate or jettisoning the reputation as a moderate he's cultivated, if he were to knuckle under to the Obama/Reid/Pelosi crew."

Leaving now is probably a very wise move in terms of his political future.

Meanwhile, yesterday's New York Times reports that because no Democrat gathered enough signatures to run in a primary election in Indiana, party leaders will pick a candidate later this year.  This is exactly the kind of politics the American people are protesting--back room deals by party leaders.  Because Senator Bayh waited until the last minute to announce that he would not be running, it was almost impossible for anyone to get enough signatures to be on the ballot--thus a primary election was ruled out, allowing the party leaders to choose the candidate.

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal posted a story about BP PLC, Conoco Phillips, and Caterpillar, Inc. announcing that they will not be renewing their membership in the  three-year-old U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP).  This group was a coalition of businesses and environmentalists working in Washington to build support for the capping of greenhouse gas emissions. 

One of the reasons for not renewing their membership is the growing belief that no significant legislation will be passed in Washington because it is a very contentious election year.

The article also reports:

"Last week, the head of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Billy Tauzin, said he would step down as president of the industry's main lobby in Washington, amid criticism from some in the industry over the alliance he made last year with the White House to support health-care legislation."

USCAP was started initially to give some of the businesses that would be most affected by climate-change legislation some input into the legislation.  Many of USCAP's ideas were incorporated into legislation, adopted by the House, that would require companies to reduce carbon emissions or buy pollution credits from firms that did.  Many of the companies in USCAP were unhappy with various provisions in the bill passed in the House, but felt that Cap and Trade legislation was inevitable.  The fact that Congress has not been able to move forward on the President's agenda combined with growing skepticism about the science of man-made global warming has convinced many people that Cap and Trade will be at least temporarily shelved.

Cap and Trade legislation would have made a few powerful people in Washington very wealthy.  The buying and selling of carbon credits is an industry in its infancy that is heavily invested in by both Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi.  It is also noteworthy that the UN climate change organization was planning to use climate change as a way to force industrial countries to give large sums of money to third world countries (many of which have totally corrupt governments).  Climate chinge was going to be used as an excuse for setting up a world-wide welfare state paid for by nations that actually work and produce things.

 

There are a lot of things going on in Texas right now.  The state is going through economic growth, and because the state has instituted medical malpractice rules, medical facilities are relocating there, and because of state tax policies, businesses are relocating to the state.  The state government has been extremely successful in keeping the state prosperous.

An article in today's El Paso Times gives all of us a clue to the state of Texas' financial success. 

According to the article:

"Texas Republican leaders Tuesday ramped up their fight against federal environmental efforts by filing suit to avoid facing limits on carbon dioxide emissions."

Just for the record, the Tenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Texas seems to be one state that is willing to stand up to the federal government to protect the people of the state. 

The article further points out:

"Gov. Rick Perry, Attorney General Greg Abbott and Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples started a legal battle against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

"They said an "endangerment" finding that was released in December by the agency was based on faulty science and would hurt Texas' economy.

""They are using sweeping mandates, draconian punishments, to force a square peg of their vision into the round hole of reality," Perry said. "In the process they are preparing to undo decades of progress while painting hardworking entrepreneurs as selfish (and) destroying hundreds of thousands of jobs in the process.""

We need more states to stand up the federal government and reclaim their rights!

Today's New York Daily News posted an article about Michelle Obama's campaign against obesity in children.  Although I appreciate her interest in the problem, there are a few things that need to be added to the discussion.

First of all, Mrs. Obama has stated that when her daughters' pediatrician pointed out that their Body Mass Index (BMI) was higher than it should be, she made a few changes in the family diet and solved the problem.  Seems logical enough.  Why then, can't the average American citizen do the same thing (without government intervention)?   Why is the government planning on spending $10 billion dollars to do what parents ought to be doing?

I have a few suggestions.  Let's put recess back in our schools.  In the era of political correctness and extreme self esteem policies, some schools have outlawed tag and dodge ball, games that force kids to move around.  Part of the program to fight obesity has been to wean children off video games.  That is not totally necessary.  There are aerobic video games (wii fit has a few and I am sure there are others).  If your child is playing video games, why not just change the games?  Competition in team sports has come under attack; let's get it back.  Let's tell our children to strive to be the fastest runner, the highest hurdler, etc.  These programs should already be in our schools.  Let's take the snack machines out of the schools.  Let's also become educated consumers who read labels before we buy groceries.

The article in the Daily News went in a different, but totally valid direction.  The article pointed out that part of the nutrition problems in this country are in poorer families who receive food stamps.  The food stamp allowance is not enough to put healthy food on the table.  Generally speaking, a well-balanced diet tends to be more expensive. 

The article concludes:

"This whole thing reminds me of a chapter in a book Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) wrote a few years ago, in which he less than brilliantly proposed that we would reduce childhood obesity by putting even more restrictions on what families can buy with their food stamp benefits. Again, he made no mention of needing to increase how much families get - and suggested that children are fat because their parents choose the wrong foods.

"Enough sidestepping of the core issue. People need enough money to eat well. I'm tired of policymakers pretending to tackle social problems without giving up a penny to ordinary citizens."

I understand the author's point, but let's do something about helping lower income families find a way to get off food stamps.  Our current war on poverty has obviously not worked, it's time for a total revision of the poverty programs we have in place, including an examination of the bureaucracy that supports them.

 

 

Today's Investor's Business Daily posted a story on a recent article in the New York Times citing lack of bipartisanship as the cause of Congress' current out-of-control spending.  This seems to be the current talking point of the Democrat Party.

According to the Investor's Business Daily article:

"Along with the New York Times story, VP Joe Biden bemoans a "broken" Washington. Sen. Evan Byah, D-Ind., said Monday he won't run for re-election in part due to "too much partisanship." Several liberal pundits fret that America has become ungovernable. That includes the Washington Post's Ezra Klein and the Times' Tom Friedman, who can't stop gushing about the "reasonably enlightened" Chinese autocracy."

This is ridiculous on a number of levels.  First of all, the Democrats were not talking about bipartisanship until Scott Brown was elected.  Up until February 4th, they had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and an overwhelming majority in the House (including an illegally appointed Senator from Massachusetts who legally should not have voted after January 19th).  Had the Democrats been united, they could have passed any legislation they wanted.  They totally froze the Republicans out of drafting the healthcare reform bill, bought votes, and bribed people, and they still couldn't agree on a bill that they could pass.  They will probably attempt to get the bill through by using the reconcilliation process after seemingly allowing the Republicans a voice in the process.  So far the only bipartisanship has been against the healthcare bill--with Republicans and Democrats opposing it.  The same is true with the Cap and Trade legislation.  The House passed it, but there are not enough votes in the Senate to get it through--again the bipartisanship is against it--not for it.

Investor's Business Daily concludes:

"The Tea Party movement is about the only political force that really sees deficits and spending as a top priority. The grass-roots revolt and general disgust by independents could sweep dozens of Republicans into Congress this November. Expect the NYT to decry the increased partisanship, but those new lawmakers will likely demand major changes to put the nation's fiscal house in order."

Politically it is going to be an interesting year.  That said, this will be the year the American voter decides whether or not America will survive financially.  It is up to the voters at this point.

This article is based on a story in the Arizona Republic that ran on January 21, 2010.

There is a bit of buzz in Massachusetts about the fact that our newest Senator, Scott Brown, has endorsed (and agreed to help) John McCain in his primary bid for the Republican Senate nomination in Arizona.  There are a few things that need to be looked at in this endorsement.

As the article states:

"Scott Brown has made the statement, "When few thought I had a chance of winning, John stood by me and supported my campaign. He was the first one," Brown said in the message. "I want to thank him for his support for me and I want to encourage you to continue to support John.""

I am not a supporter of John McCain.  He is a war hero and deserves credit for that, but I do not appreciate him as a Republican.  Generally speaking, he has stabbed the Republican party in the back on numerous occasions, and has taken positions on illegal immigration that are totally unworkable.  However, I think Scott Brown is correct in supporting John McCain.  I voted for Scott Brown because I felt that he would make decisions on the basis of what he thought was right.  After watching him in the Massachusetts legislature for a few years, I didn't always agree with him, but I respected him as a man of integrity.  To turn his back on John McCain after Senator McCain had helped him get elected would have been tacky.  I would also suspect that Senator Brown never thought that he would have to take a stand for Senator McCain in an Arizona primary election.  I guess the lesson to be learned here is that when you accept help from a powerful politician, you never quite know when and how you will be asked to reciprocate.

Today's Washington Times reports that President Obama has announced roughly $8 billion in federal loan guarantees to build the first U.S. nuclear power plant in three decades.  This is good news.  This plant will create jobs and generate much needed electricity.  The only issue with any nuclear plant is what to do with the waste after the power is generated.  The planned facility for storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada has been blocked by Senator Harry Reid.

This is an area where Republicans can truly back the President's policies.  The only thing I would add is to mention that in France, which gets about two thirds of its electricity from nuclear power, the nuclear power plants are standardized throughout the country.  That means that a nuclear power specialist trained at one plant can work at any plant in the country.  It would be a really good thing to do something similar in America to help ease our dependence on foreign oil and grow our economy.

Yesterday, The Hill posted an article on the cost of the offshore oil drilling ban.  A recently released report by the Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) and the Gas Technology Institute (GTI) states that U.S. oil-and-gas drilling bans will increase consumer energy costs and decrease cumulative U.S. GDP by $2.36 trillion over the next two decades.

The report was commissioned by the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. 

The article points out:

"The Consumer Energy Alliance, which counts energy companies among its funders, highlighted the findings today. David Holt, the group's president, said it's easy to measure how energy development adds to jobs, stable energy prices and other benefits."

It does seem rather odd that a country such as America, that is so rich in natural resources, would refuse to develop them.  Think of the jobs, the tax money going to the government to help reduce the deficit, and the increased national security that would result from energy independence.

Yahoo News is reporting today that Indiana Senator Evan Bayh will not seek another term as Senator.  He stated that he has lost his desire to remain in Congress because of the political gridlock and the extreme ideology that is prominent in the Senate.  Unfortunately for the Democrats, he made this decision only a few days before the filing deadline to run for his Senate seat.

Evan Bayh is a politically savvy Democrat.  He has a reputation as a moderate although he has supported some of the more extreme Democrat proposals in this Congress.  There is a strong possibility that Senator Bayh will be a Presidential candidate sometime in the future, and I believe getting out of Congress now is a smart move for that reason.  The approval ratings of the current Congress are at 20 per cent or less.  Even though the Democrats have had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate since November of last year, they have not been able to pass healthcare reform or cap and trade.  They are seen as totally ineffective by the American people, and it is to Senator Bayh's advantage to distance himself from the current Congress. 

The Democrat Party is moving left as the American people are generally moving right.  It is quite possible that if the Democrats lose badly in the 2010 Congressional elections, they will be looking to rebuilding their party and its image.  Evan Bayh would be one of the people who logically could help in that process.  I also believe that if President Obama's approval ratings are below 40 percent in 2011, Evan Bayh could challenge him in a Presidential primary.  That would be extremely unusual, but at that point, it could be very possible.

Power Line Blog reported today that:

"The National Security Agency (NSA) was recognized by Armstrong World Industries (AWI) on December 18 for being the nation's leader in recycling ceiling tiles. NSA started recycling ceiling tiles in September 2008 and processed more than 400,000 ceiling tiles by November 2009."

There is nothing wrong with recycling, but it seems to me that their focus might be better placed. 

The article also points out:

"As one of the largest employers in Maryland, NSA takes its responsibility to be a good neighbor and environmentally sound very seriously."

I support anyone who works to decrease their energy use and to pollute less, but it just seems to me that the NSA is spending its time of things that may be of little significance in the overall scheme of things.  For example, how much pollution did the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings create?  Shouldn't we be more interested in preventing another incident of that sort?

This is a picture taken from Michael Yon's Blog.  Michael is a former green beret who reports independently from Afghanistan.

 

"A crew from the United States Air Force spent Saturday night and Sunday morning airlifting different groups of wounded soldiers from Kandahar to Camp Bastion to Bagram, back to Kandahar, then back to Bagram, and back to Kandahar. These patients were from Afghanistan, Australia, Canada, and the United States. Here, an Air Force nurse caresses the head of a wounded, unconscious Canadian soldier while whispering into his ear."

Please remember to pray for Michael and for the American and NATO soldiers involved in the war in Afghanistan.

The United Kingdom's Daily Mail reported yesterday that Professor Phil Jones, who has been at the center of the climate change debate, has refused Freedom of Information requests because he may have actually lost the relevant papers.  In speaking to the BBC, Professor Jones admitted that there was a possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than it is now.  This is seen as an indication that climate change or global warming might not be man made.

The article points out:

"But Dr Benny Pieser, director of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said Professor Jones's 'excuses' for his failure to share data were hollow as he had shared it with colleagues and 'mates'.

He said that until all the data was released, sceptics could not test it to see if it supported the conclusions claimed by climate change advocates.

He added that the professor's concessions over medieval warming were 'significant' because they were his first public admission that the science was not settled."

There are two interesting facts about this story.  The first is that it was published in a British newspaper rather than an American newspaper.  The American media has been very hesitant to cover any story concerning the collapse of man-made climate statistics and data.  The other interesting fact about this story is contained in the following quote from the story:

"Even more strikingly, he (Professor Jones) also sounds much less ebullient about the basic theory, admitting that there is little difference between global warming rates in the Nineties and in two previous periods since 1860 and accepting that from 1995 to now there has been no statistically significant warming."

It is always a good idea to study weather trends in order to uncover patterns and new information about the earth's climate.  However, until we have at least a hundred years of reliable date, we really don't have enough information to really understand the long-range trends of climate change.

You can get a feel for the upcoming bipartisan 'healthcare summit' by the list of who is invited and who is not invited.  The Hill reported yesterday that House and Senate Budget Committee leaders are not included in the meeting. 

According to the article:

"Obama's administration on Friday released a list of its invitees to the Feb. 25 summit, but topping the conspicuous absences were the top budget-writers in each chamber. For the Senate, the list excluded Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), the ranking Budget Committee member who in recent weeks has been publicly courting the Obama administration for a seat at the table in the talks, and committee chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.)."

If the leaders of the Budget Committees are not invited to this meeting, what is the purpose of the meeting? 

The people invited to the meeting were:

"The invitee list focuses on leadership members, plus the top members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and Finance Committee and the House's Ways and Means Committee, Energy and Commerce Committee and Education and Labor Committee."

I suspect that the Republicans feel that they have to attend this meeting as a show of good faith, but I would strongly suggest that they stay home.  President Obama has refused to scrap the current healthcare bill and start from scratch--despite the fact that public opinion is overwhelmingly against the bill.  The Democrats have also refused to rule out the possibility that after the meeting they will use the reconcilliation process (only needs 51 votes in the Senate) to push the current bill through.  There is a real question here as to whether or not this meeting is being held in good faith.  I really think the Republicans should stay home, release their own healthcare plan, and then ask if anyone really wants to talk.

The Washington Examiner posted an article on Friday suggesting that the House of Representatives may be as much as one hundred votes short of being able to pass the President's healthcare reform bill.  The article points out that many Congressman in the House are frustrated at being asked to vote on unpopular bills that then die in the Senate. 

The article points out:

""'Both ends of the Capitol -- the House and the Senate -- are starting to wonder if they're on their own,' the official continued. 'You have a lot of frustration there. And the White House's reaction to all of that seems to be, 'Run against Congress' -- which, as you can imagine, doesn't go over very well with House members. The White House reaction seems to be, 'Position ourselves against Congress.'""

The entire House of Representatives has to run for reelection every two years.  Every House member is running in November.  In 2008, the Democrat party specifically ran candidates in conservative districts who appeared to be conservative.  Many of these candidates are now seeing their chances of reelection dwindle with each vote they are being asked to make on President Obama's controversial proposals.  That is particularly frustrating when the bills they vote on do not get through the Senate.  The feeling is that they have put their reelection in jeopary for no reason. 

Conventional wisdom is that the Democrats will try to pass the healthcare bill through the reconcilliation process--which would require only 51 votes in the Senate.  There seems to be some real question as to whether or not the bill would pass in the House after that was done.  There is a way to pass healthcare reform without the government taking over the whole healthcare industry, but President Obama does not seem to be willing to consider that idea.

 

On Thursday, Investor's Business Daily posted an article explaining how President Obama's quest for green energy is creating jobs--in China! 

The article states:

"According to the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University, nearly $2 billion in money from the American Recovery and Investment Act has been spent on wind power. The goal was to further energy independence while creating American jobs. It has done neither.

"Of the money spent, according to the report, nearly 80% has gone to foreign manufacturers of wind turbines."

This is not really what we were told to expect.  The article also points out that wind power is not particularly efficient.  To be specific, the article states--after decades of subsidies, wind provides only 1% of our electricity compared with 49% for coal, 22% for natural gas, 19% for nuclear power and 7% for hydroelectric. Wind turbines generally operate at only 20% efficiency vs. 85% for coal, gas and nuclear plants.

We have the natural resources to become energy independent.  Using our own natural resouces would create jobs here as well as strengthen our economy.  We need leadership with the foresight to realize that and act on it!

As government spending rockets out of control, it has dawned on some people in Congress that the American people are going to have to pay for all this spending at some point.  The sources for this article are yesterday's New York Post and yesterday's Washington Examiner.

All of us remember President Obama's campaign promise not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 per year (household income) or individuals making less than $200,000.  Well, that promise may have had an expiration date. 

According to the New York Post:

"The president is about to appoint a task force (not another one!) to study reining in the national deficit -- and, he says, "what I want to do is to be completely agnostic in terms of solutions."

Meaning, says Obama, that he "can't set the whole thing up where a whole bunch of things are off the table."

Including his once-sacred tax pledge."

According to the Washington Examiner:

"To further clarify that he was talking about across-the-productive-board tax increases, Obama added this observation: "The real problem has to do with the fact that there is just a mismatch between the amount of money coming in and the amount of money going out. And that is going to require some big, tough choices that, so far, the political system has been unable to deal with.""

The bottom line on both these quotes is the same--"Hold on to your wallet!!"  The other inconvenient thought is, "Who is responsible for all the spending?"  Why not control spending instead of crippling the economy and the taxpayer with higher taxes?

I just need to make a note here that anytime politicians in Washington form a committee (which they are going to do to solve the budget problem), it's because they don't actually want to take responsibility for their actions.  For example, when military bases are closed, it's always done by a committee, never by a political party or political leader.  As I said, hang on to your wallet!!!

Hot Air reported yesterday on the forced unionization of a cottage industry in Michigan.  Michelle Berry is an entrepreneur who runs a day-care business in her home.  She thought she was a private business owner.  Well, think again.

According to the article:

"She thought that she owned her own business, but Berry's been told she is now a government employee and union member. It's not voluntary. Suddenly, Berry and 40,000 other Michigan private day-care providers have learned that union dues are being taken out of the child-care subsidies the state sends them. The "union" is a creation of AFSCME, the government workers union, and the United Auto Workers."

To me, the obvious problem here is that Ms. Berry accepted the child-care subsidy from the state.  I wonder if she would have been enrolled in union membership had she refused this money.

The article points out the dangers of growing government interference in our lives and the growing power of unions within government.  The article details what the future will look like unless we begin to change how we govern.

Today's Providence Journal reports that Patrick Kennedy, the Democrat Senator from Rhode Island, will not seek reelection.  In the video message Senator Kennedy released, he alludes not only to his father's example of public service but also to that of his aunt, Eunice Shriver. Her creation of the Special Olympics for disabled children gave her more of a private life than elective office allowed to her brothers, Ted, Robert and John F. Kennedy."

I probably agree with very little of Senator Kennedy's politics, and I am not sorry to see him step down from public office.  However, based on his recent personal history, I hope that he will seek help for himself in the areas where he has repeatedly had problems.  This is a man who has endured some very difficult moments in his life, and my sympathies go out to him.  Possibly the recent death of his father will cause him to reevaluate his life so far and find the things that will truly bring him peace.  I wish him the best in whatever he chooses to do in private life.

 

Today, Science Daily posted a story on a research study showing that eating chocolate may lower your risk of stroke.  This is my kind of story!  Evidently, there were three studies involved in reaching this conclusion.

According to the article:

"The first study found that 44,489 people who ate one serving of chocolate per week were 22 percent less likely to have a stroke than people who ate no chocolate. The second study found that 1,169 people who ate 50 grams of chocolate once a week were 46 percent less likely to die following a stroke than people who did not eat chocolate."

The article pointed out that chocolate contains flavonoids, an antioxidant, which may be the reason for the lower risk of stroke.  The article also pointed out that the results are not considered conclusive--it was suggested it might be possible that healthier people eat more chocolate.  Either way, I'm looking for my Hersey bar!

 

Today's New York Post posted an article about Virginia Senator Jim Webb.  Senator Webb is up for reelection in 2012.  Senator Webb voted for Obamacare when it first came before the Senate--complete with cornhusker kickback and Louisiana purchase, but seems to have learned his lesson since then.  When Scott Brown was elected in Massachusetts, Senator Webb immediately released a statement saying that all votes on healthcare reform should be suspended until Scott Brown was seated.  Politically, that was a very wise move.  It was also a move that reflected the wishes of the people that he is called to represent.  He has stood against the trials of terrorists in civilian courts and has stated that the war in Afghanistan needed a clear plan.  Senator Webb is obviously a man who has his own ideas, but is willing to be flexible in order to represent the people who elected him.  He is the kind of man who will make bi-partisanship possible.  We need more Democrats like him.

Tom Campbell has a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Chicago. His faculty advisor was Milton Friedman. Prior to that, Tom had obtained his B.A. and M.A. degrees in economics from the University of Chicago, on the same day in 1973. He then entered Harvard Law School where he served on the Harvard Law Review Board of Editors. He graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law in 1976. After law school, Tom served as law clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Byron White. Thereafter, Tom returned to the University of Chicago for his economics doctorate, received in 1980. His free market economics training cemented a life-long commitment to limited government and greater individual liberty. He has posted an article at BigGovernment.com detailing his plan to lower the deficit.

These are the highlights of Dr. Campbell's plan:

• Cap non-defense discretionary spending to fiscal year 2009 levels for a savings of $101 billion. The White House Budget caps this item at fiscal year 2010 levels of $690 billion, but this category already grew from $589 billion in fiscal year 2009--a 30 percent increase.  They let it rise by 30 percent before deciding to cap it. We should cap it at once. 
• There is no evidence that the stimulus bill has produced the 2 million new jobs the President claims, over what the private sector would have produced if the same funds had been allowed to stay with the private sector.  Yet the White House proposes increasing the amount spent from $202 billion in [delete FY] fiscal year 2009 to $353 billion in fiscal year 2010 and $232 billion in fiscal year 2011.  I propose cutting this increase in spending over fiscal year 2009 in half for a savings of $292 billion.
• Use the TARP money the banks are returning to pay down the debt for a savings of $200 billion.  The money was approved for a specific purpose: to buy the bad mortgages from banks. Since the banks are now returning the money, it should be used to reduce our federal borrowing. It's not "free money," available for other uses, as the White House has proposed.
• Medicaid and SCHIP are 7 percent of the federal budget and spending in this category rose nearly 30 percent from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2010. We need to approach Medicaid and SCHIP the way we did welfare in 1996: don't trim at the edges but announce that there will be a cap and stick with it.  Doing so would save $45 billion.

The above suggestions save $750 billion in fiscal year 2010 alone, more than half of the projected deficit.  Is anyone in Washington listening?

Yesterday Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted a story about one of the consequences of the out of control spending our government is currently engaged in.  When you borrow money from someone, you sometimes find yourselves in conflict-of-interest situations because of your debt.  We are about to see this principle in action in Taiwan.  The Chinese government was unhappy about our recent sale of arms to Taiwan.  The Chinese military has suggested that China launch an attack on the American dollar (haven't we attacked it enough?).  Officers at China's National Defence University and Academy of Military Sciences want a broad response to our sale of weapons to Taiwan-- increased defense spending, adjustment of PLA deployments, and possible sale of some U. S. bonds.

Mr. Morrissey points out:

"If a significant creditor sees a political advantage by devaluing our bonds and forcing us to increase interest rates to sell bonds, that nation will do considerable damage to the American dollar and our financial standing.  It could get to the point where we have no one left to buy our bonds, while we still must meet interest payments on outstanding paper.  And make no mistake: China is in position to do that, if they choose to suffer the short-term consequences of making their paper worthless."

We have been at the mercy of countries who hate us for years because of our refusal to develop our own domestic energy resources; now we are going to be at the mercy of more countries that hate us because of our increasing debt.  The answer is to control our spending and develop energy independence.  America was founded on the idea of individual responsibility, the work ethic, and a pioneer spirit; we need to remember that.  The people in Washington work for us--we do not work for them.  We need to remember that in November.

As I sat here today in the beautiful snow of Massachusetts, I heard John Kerry claim that the record snowfall in Washington, D. C., was the result of climate change.  OK.  I would like to submit that the 80 degree temperatures in July in New England are also the result of climate change.  The argument is not that there is climate change.  The climate changes every year from July to December.  The argument is whether or not man is responsible for climate change. 

There is an article posted today at National Review Online which details the history of dramatic pronoucements about 'the coming ice age', 'acid rain', 'overpopulation,' etc.  It points out how the science of climate change has been compromised recently by people who were more interested in getting a certain result than in actually practicing the scientific method.

Anyway, back to my rant.  At one point a large part of Europe and the United States of America were covered by glaciers (New England still has the rocks to prove it!).  Admittedly, I don't go out much in the winter, but to the best of my knowledge there are no glaciers currently in my back yard.  They are gone.  They melted.  Was this the result of some ancient tribe and their SUV's?  Somehow I doubt it.  I remember colder and snowier winters in New England than the one we are currently having.  I also remember colder and warmer springs, falls, and summers.  The weather changes.  The weather changed before man inhabited the planet earth, and it will change after man inhabits the planet earth. 

I believe we have a responsibility not to pollute our air and ruin our planet, but I also believe that we can exist comfortably and prosperously and still be good stewards of the environment.  I also believe that when it comes down to it, climate change is much more dependent on things bigger than mankind--solar activity (which we have not control over), slight shifts on the earth on its axis (such as after the earthquake and tsumani a few years ago), carbon dioxide levels (which we may impact, but not nearly as much as natural events--volcanoes, etc.), and other natural events.  We have a responsibility to be kind to our planet--but we do that when we plan our actions with nature in mind.  When we begin to value nature more than we value people, we have lost our way and abdicated our responsibilty to our fellow man.   

Tomorrow marks the 31st Anniversary of the Iranian Revolution that brought Ayatollah Khomeini to power. In the past, the Iranian regime marked this anniversary with demonstrations designed to show the regime's power--military parades and large gatherings of enthusiastic followers of the regime.  This year may be a little different. 

This is a tinderbox.  An article at The Corner at National Review reports:

"...they have decided to keep the Supreme Guide, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, away from the main ceremony. Although the crowds will consist mostly of rent-a-mob elements, many of them shipped to Tehran from the provinces, no one can guarantee the kind of sheep-like discipline that has marked such gatherings in previous years. Today Iran is in a decidedly insurrectionary mood. With hundreds of figures from past governments, including two former presidents and one former prime minister, having joined the opposition, along with scores of former lawmakers, there is every possibility that even supposedly loyal crowds could switch sides on the spur of the moment."

The feeling among Iran-watchers is that if the regime cracks down hard on the protestors (which are expected to be out in large numbers), it will hasten the end of the current regime.  Why does this matter to us?  Iran is well into the process of becoming a nuclear power.  The only nation in the world that may be willing to do anything to stop this process is Israel.  The only thing that will actually stop Iran from becoming nuclear (other than a military attack, which may or may not be effective) will be a change of leadership.  Right now a large segment of the population is under the age of thirty.  (This is the result of the prolonged war that Iran fought with Iraq--that war killed (by some estimates) one million people).  These young people are very pro-Western.  They are at an age where they are not weighed down with family responsibilities, etc.  They are also at an age where they have the passion of youth.  In five years, there may be a very different demographic.

As we see more government intrusion into our everyday lives, Americans are beginning to pay more attention to what is going on in Washington.  The runaway spending of the past few years coupled with the special deals made to some states to secure healthcare reform votes has caused many of us to distrust the people running the country.  The rise of the alternative media has also allowed many of us to learn things about decisions made in Washington that have given us cause for concern.  There are difficulties in governing a country the physical size of America.  The communication between the voters and their representatives is limited simply by the number of people a Congressman is expected to represent.  There is a gap between what the voters want and what the Congressman may assume that the voters want. 

As we watch the recent growth of government--taking over banks, industries, the attempted takeover of healthcare, and the coming attempt at putting every industry in the country under government control by way of climate-change legislation, some Americans are wondering how to stop this runaway train.  Well, the Virginia legislature has made, at least, a beginning effort.

According to Fredericksburg.com, a House committee in Virginia passed a bill saying that the federal government should have no say in commerce involving goods made and sold within the State of Virginia. 

According to the article:

"This is basically another 'get Washington off our backs' bill," Cole, R-Spotsylvania, told the House Commerce and Labor committee. "It goes back to the original intent of the 10th Amendment and the Constitution, that Congress would regulate interstate commerce, but it would be up to the states to regulate commerce with-in their borders. I know this is a statement bill, but I think it's a statement that is timely and needs to be made."

The bill passed 16-3, and now will go to the full House for a vote.

There is opposition to the bill.  It is also expected that if the bill is passed, the federal government will mount a legal challenge to it.  Nevertheless, I think now is a really good time to remind people that there is a 10th Amendment.  We are meant to be a country made up of individual states, each existing with its own unique personality.  There are areas where uniformity is needed, but the states were intended to govern themselves.  The federal government was supposed to remain small.  We need to think about finding that model again and following it.

Today's Washington Times reported on the defeat of Presidential nominee Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board.   Scott Brown, the newly-elected Massachusetts Senator who was not supposed to be sworn in until tomorrow, voted against the nominee.  Two Democrats also voted against the nominee--the vote was 52-33.  The two Democrats who voted against the nominee were Senators Ben Nelson of Nebraska and  Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas.   Both Senators are in serious danger of losing their Senate seats in the upcoming elections, and we can expect both of them to turn sharply right in order to stay in office.  Nebraska is a right-to-work state, and Senator Nelson wisely realized that the confirmation of Craig Becker would not be welcomed by his constituents.

The fear on the part of the Senators who oppose Mr. Becker's nomination is that he will institute policies through the National Labor Relations Board that the Democrats were not able to pass by way ofthe legislative process.  His appointment would probably mean that card check (the end of the secret ballot in union elections) would be implemented through the Labor Relations Board, rather than having to be passed in Congress. 

The article points out:

"A review of decades of writings by Mr. Becker have revealed that he has advocated for the most radical theories of labor law," said Sen. Michael B. Enzi, Wyoming Republican and ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. "In addition to his writings, Mr. Becker has spent the majority of his career serving as counsel to the two largest labor organizations in America, which has raised questions about his ability to fairly adjudicate cases involving those unions."

One of the problems that the Obama Administration is having right now is that it is seen as anti-business.  This nomination was seen as anti-business.  This perception of the Obama Administration is also one of the factors that is slowing down any financial recovery that is beginning.  Until business owners feel that it is 'safe' to run a business and make a profit, they will not be taking any risks in growing their businesses and hiring people--no matter what tax incentives they are promised. 

The war in Afghanistan seems to be the focus of our military right now.  Historically, this is a war that generally seems to calm down a bit during the winter and start up again in the spring.  This is due at least in part to the unforgiving climate of that country. 

My best source of information on Afghanistan is Michael Yon.  As I have explained before, Michael is a former Green Beret, native of Winter Haven, Fl. who has been reporting from Iraq and Afghanistan since December 2004.  No other reporter has spent as much time with combat troops in these two wars.  Michael's dispatches from the frontlines have earned him the reputation as the premier independent combat journalist of his generation.  His work has been featured on "Good Morning America," The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, CNN, ABC, FOX, as well as hundreds of other major media outlets all around the world. 

The current entry at Michael's blog is entitled Special Delivery.  It is the story of the role of the United States Air Force in supplying the American troops spread across Afghanistan.  Please follow the link to the article--the pictures of the airplanes and the Americans involved in the mission are fantastic. 

Michael embeds with the troops and travels with them whenever possible.  This is an example of his adventures:

"The small pieces of glass in front of each pilot are called "HUDs", or Heads Up Displays.  Pilots say the HUDs are great because they can keep their eyes out the windows while still seeing critical information without looking down at the instrument panel.  Notice through the left HUD, a fighter jet is roaring down the runway.  (Just after the dogs left.)  My quarters on KAF are straight ahead past the far side of the runway, so it's pretty loud here day and night.  Helicopters, C-130s, jets of all sorts.  The enemy has been firing more rockets onto the base, causing some casualties, but to my knowledge have destroyed no aircraft.  Years ago, the Mujahidin more or less ran the Soviet Air Force out of Kandahar with their rocket attacks.  The "Muj" once shot down a Soviet general, captured him, but killed him before they realized they had a general.  Today, the enemy shoots at lot with SAFIRE (Surface to Air Fire) at aircraft and sometimes sparkle the pilots with lasers.  If there is a surface to air missile threat, it's not presented itself."

Thank you, Mr. Yon, for your insight into what is going on in that part of the world.

John McCormack at the Weekly Standard posted a commentary today about dissent.  Mr. McCormack points out:

"John Brennan took to the USA Today to state that "Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda.""

The article lists the times the members of the current administration charged the Bush Administration with doing exactly this (and there are no actual incidents of that happening).

"..."If any Member of this Senate--Democrat or Republican--takes to the floor, questions this White House policy, raises any questions about the gathering of intelligence information, or the use of it, be prepared for the worst.  This White House is going to turn on you and attack you.  They are going to question your patriotism." - Senator Durbin, 149 Cong. Rec. S9668, July 22, 2003."

There are other examples of similar statements listed in the article.  Please read them.  In light of Mr. Brennan's comments, they are quite entertaining.

The article concludes:

"Honest question: We've heard much about how the Bush administration supposedly questioned the patriotism of Democrats, but what are the specific examples? Anything on par with Brennan's accusation that critics are serving "the goals of al Qaeda"? I honestly can't recall an example of a Bush national security official questioning the patriotism of Democrats, but if someone can prove otherwise, I'd be happy to set the record straight."

I really think that the basic problem of the Obama Adminstration is that President Obama is a product of the Chicago politics that put him in the White House.  He is not used to being challenged in the arena of ideas.  The concept that he might have wrongly handled a situation is a foreign concept.  According to the 'Chicago Way', the power of the office and the people he is connected with should be able to make dissent nonexistent.  I think the fact that he is having trouble grasping this concept may have a lot to do with his sagging approval ratings.

Yesterday Investor's Business Daily posted an article with a graph showing public opinion on the President's healthcare bill.  Generally speaking, most of us just want the bill to die a peaceful death so that we can start from scratch. 

The article comments on the President's desire to make the bill bi-partisan by meeting with the Republicans (whom he has labeled as "The Party of No").  Well, wait a minute.  Up until last week the Democrat party had a sizable majority in the House of Representatives and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.  The Republicans simply did not have the numbers to stop anything the Democrats chose to do.  The only way a bi-partisan meeting on healthcare reform makes sense is if it starts from scratch.  Otherwise, it is a photo-op for the purpose of slamming Republicans and should be avoided.

The article states:

"The loyal opposition has to offer ideas that work, that put the patient in control. These include health savings accounts, fair tax treatment of individual insurance policies, interstate sales of individual policies, legal reform that will cut doctors' malpractice insurance costs and encourage reductions in overtreatment, and an end to coverage mandates so more people can afford insurance.

"If the Democratic majority rejects such ideas that promote better care and lower costs, then it -- not minority Republicans -- should be labeled "the party of no.""

The first step in dealing with healthcare reform is be honest as to why the current healthcare reform bill has not passed--the American people do not like the current proposal or the arm twisting and bribery that went into getting it past the initial vote in the Senate.  When the Obama Administration admits that fact, healthcare reform may be possible.

I realize that this article is going to be controversial, but it's a concept that needs to be understood.  When America was founded, her laws were based on a Judeo-Christian concept of law found in the Ten Commandments.  One of the underlying ideas was that every man was equal under the law.  The only really big mistake the founders made in that area was not to deal with the problem of slavery.  Unfortunately, though, had they tried to include solutions to that problem, the Union might never have been formed.  Anyway, generally speaking, we live in a culture that values each member, has a concept of law, respects women as citizens, and respects the rights of others.  Sometimes we mess up, but mostly we get it right.

On Saturday, Power Line reported on a story out of Turkey.  A sixteen-year-old girl was buried alive by her father and grandfather for talking to boys. 

The article points out:

"It also emerged that Medine had repeatedly tried to report to police that she had been beaten by her father and grandfather days before she was killed. "She tried to take refuge at the police station three times, and she was sent home three times," her mother, Immihan, said after the body was discovered in December. Medine's father is reported as saying at the time: "She has male friends. We are uneasy about that.""

"...There are around 200 "honor" killings annually in Turkey. Amazingly enough, they account for around half of all homicides."

I have no problem with letting any person who comes to America practice his/her religion freely.  I do, however, want to make it clear that there are some customs tied to certain religions that should not be allowed to make their way to this country.

No, this is not an article about the Super Bowl (I was, however, rooting for New Orleans).  There was an election for Mayor of New Orleans on Saturday.  Mitch Landrieu won in a landslide.  Mr. Landrieu is a conservative Democrat whose first priority is to make the city streets safe.  He is the brother of Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu. 

The New Orleans Times-Picayune states:

"Landrieu also said he will ask several cabinet secretaries and Gov. Bobby Jindal to embed representatives in his transition team to make sure all recovery efforts are coordinated from the start."

New Orleans is a very special city.  It needs good leadership to finally get past the incredible damage done to it by Hurricane Katrina.  One of my children and her family lived there during Hurricane Katrina and still own a house there.  In the times that I have been there since Katrina, I have seen evidence of recovery in some places and evidence of hopelessness in other places.  Good leadership from the new Mayor could make a big difference, and I wish him much success.  New Orleans is a beautiful city, and it would be wonderful to see it totally recover from Hurricane Katrina.

During the 1990's, when terrorism was mostly an overseas phenomenon, it was generallly government policy to treat terrorists as common criminals.  When the World Trade Center was initially bombed in 1993, Andrew McCarthy handled the prosecution of the bombers, and it was handled as a criminal case.  We simply weren't prepared for the plans the radical Islamists had for us, and we reacted according to what we knew.  Well, that was then; this is now.

Yesterday Ed Morrissey at Hot Air wrote an article refuting John Brennan's claim that the Republican leadership knew about the plan to Mirandize the Christmas Day bomber.  Mr. Brennan stated that Senator Kit Bond and Representative Pete Hoekstra were briefed on the Administration's intent to handle the case through the criminal justice system.  However, both Congressmen have denied that they were told of the intention to Mirandize Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

Mr. Morrissey concludes:

"It seems ridiculous to claim that Bond and Hoekstra got fully briefed on the strategy for handling Abdulmutallab when DNI Dennis Blair, FBI Director Robert Mueller, and others in the counterterrorist chain of command have already testified that they didn't get briefed on that decision until it was made. If the White House didn't consult Mueller or Blair, why would they have picked up the phone and called Bond and Hoekstra? Brennan's claim that a call giving the two the outline of the attack somehow amounts to acquiescence of the point of Mirandizing a terrorist before fully interrogating him is ludicrous, and obviously self-serving. It's almost as bad as Janet Napolitano's "the system worked" spin on the Sunday after Christmas."

It seems to me that at some point, the administration needs to admit the whole episode of the Christmas Day bomber was a fiasco.  The fact that the man was allowed on the plane was the first mistake, and it went downhill from there.  Rather than try to deny their mistakes, they need to simply learn from them. 

On January 31, I posted an article about the sale of arms to Taiwan ( at rightwinggranny.com).  A friend of mine who grew up in Taiwan and served in their military as a young man was kind enough to offer his perspective on the sale.  These are his comments:

1.  The sale was negotiated and decided during the Bush Administration back in 2008, only now the Obama Administration "announced" it,
 
2.  $6B ?? How much of that is really for defending Taiwan? How much really is for our recession recovery money? Taiwan asked for the advanced F-16 C/D jets and submarines, which are what they really need, but President Obama didn't give them the real defensive weapons.
 
3.  As you know, there is an increasing concern within the Congress that China has become the World superpower. The right wing Eagle Republicans, like Dick Chenney and others, have always been against any legislation in favor of China. Remember the recent G8 (or G10 now?) and APEC meetings between Obama and the Chinese Leader? Clinton said Obama is too young and inexperienced - I think he is right. I believe this is just a "balancing act" from President Obama.

Further comments are welcome.

Today's Washington Examiner posted an article about the difficulties of bringing electricity to the City of Kandahar, Afghanistan.   Last spring, through the use of a power line from Uzbekistan, electricity came to Kabul.  It has not only changed life in the city, it has changed the way the people living there feel about the city.  Kabul is a city 'on the way up.'

Part of the problem with bringing power to Kandahar is that the electric lines supplying the city have been cut numerous times.  It is unclear whether this is done on purpose or is simply a side effect of the fighting.  One of the other difficulties in bringing power to Kandahar is that the Kajaki Dam is in need of repair and the six-year plan to repair it is constantly delayed due to fighting and the difficulty of getting the supplies needed to repair it into the area. 

Electric power is an important part of winning the war because it provides employment opportunities for young men who might otherwise become Taliban fighters or suicide bombers.  People who go to work every day tend to look forward to the future.  Electricity also provides a way for people to access news and become better informed.

The people working on the electricity problem are considering their options.  Green energy may come to Afghanistan.  At any rate, I think the article points out the need to see Afghanistan as a complete picture.  Unless you can sets up some sort of viable economic model (other than the traditional drug trade), the effort in Afghanistan will not be successful. 

Just as a side note, in my opinion, the best source of information on Afghanistan is Michael Yon.  His web address is Michael Yon Online.    Michael  is a former Green Beret, native of Winter Haven, Fl. who has been reporting from Iraq and Afghanistan since December 2004.  No other reporter has spent as much time with combat troops in these two wars.  Michael's dispatches from the frontlines have earned him the reputation as the premier independent combat journalist of his generation.  His work has been featured on "Good Morning America," The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, CNN, ABC, FOX, as well as hundreds of other major media outlets all around the world. 

When I want to know what is really going on, I check his website.
 

Thursday's Washington Times reported that the Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine has told Representative Frank R. Wolf of Virginia that he was unable to investigate the dismissal of the voter intimidation charges against the Black Panthers because Congress had stripped him of that authority. 

According to the article, Mr. Fine stated in a letter to Representative Wolf:

""Unfortunately, unlike all other OIGs which have unlimited jurisdiction to investigate all allegations of waste, fraud or abuse within their agencies, the Department of Justice OIG does not," he wrote. "For several years, I have expressed my position that Congress should change this jurisdiction.

""I have raised various arguments for this change including ... the independence issues that arise because OPR reports to the attorney general," he said."

The article further states:

"In requesting that Mr. Fine's office investigate the handling of the New Black Panther Party case, Mr. Wolf had challenged the independence of the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), which has been reviewing the dismissal for the past seven months."

Unfortunately, I suspect this incident will never be properly investigated.  My only hope is that enough people will get angry enough to make sure if anything like this occurs again, those guilty of voter intimidation will be treated according to the law.

To anyone who might not be aware of it, this is a picture of a Guinness ale pint glass.  It has recently been reinvented.  According to the Houston Press, a new shatterproof pint glass is being introduced in the British Pubs. 

The article states:

"According to British Home Secretary Alan Johnson, there are about 87,000 of these (glass) attacks every year, some very serious. We even read a story about a bloodbath in a London bar in which 50 pint glasses were smashed in a minute and one person's eye popped out. Sounds more like a horror movie than a night out at the pub."

I must admit I live in a very sheltered world--I wasn't even aware of the problem.  I am glad they have come up with a solution to 'glass attacks' at the pub, but it occurs to me that you could still knock a person out with a well-placed hit on the head even if the glass didn't break.  I'm not sure what the solution to that would be.

The article also points out that the new glass will keep the beer (or ale) cold longer.  Since the British drink their beer at room termperature, I suspect that would be more of an American selling point.  Oh well, I'm glad that some inventor has solved one of life's problems.  Let me know when someone comes up with an idea of how to prevent the fights in the first place. 

Insensitive, maybe.  Racist, I don't think so.  Where is our sense of humor?  Is corned beef and cabbage on St. Patrick's Day now racist?

The Los Angeles Times posted an article today about The Wakefield Study, the study of the relationship between children's MMR vaccines and autism, published in the Lancet Medical Journal in 1998.  The Lancet Medical Journal has retracted the study.

"The Wakefield study seems to have had worse consequences in Britain, where vaccinations declined dramatically after its publication, than in this country. Even so, the anti-vaccination movement it unleashed -- one that has been amplified by the Internet and a culture of skepticism toward mainstream medicine -- certainly influenced decisions by parents in the U.S. not to have their children vaccinated. It's hard to believe, for example, that anti-vaccine propaganda played no part in recent increases in measles cases or in the number of parents seeking "personal belief" exemptions from vaccinating their children."

One of the comments I came across in researching this article was a comment by a doctor who observed that the initial symptoms of autism usually show up at about the same age that children are getting these vaccines, so it might appear in some cases that there is a relationship between the two.  I can understand how parents looking for a solution to a very difficult problem would draw the connection, but a scientist should be more careful.

Hopefully, now that this study has been proven false, more children will get these vaccines and avoid the diseases they prevent.

This blog was started in the late summer of 2008 because I was disgusted with the media coverage of the Presidential campaign.  I was not a big fan of John McCain (although I respect him as one of our country's war heroes), but I felt that Barack Obama would not be a good president for our country.  The news coverage of the campaign was very one sided, and I felt someone had to tell the truth (even if only ten people read it)!

Well, here we are again.  Scott Brown is the new darling of Massachusetts, and the mainstream media is trying to tear him to shreds.  I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but let's shed some truth on what has happened over the past few weeks.

Dana Milbank at the Washington Post yesterday posted an article about the arrival of Scott Brown in Washington.  As you remember, the Democrats keep calling for civility.  Well, this isn't it.

Mr. Milbank states:

"So, in one of his first major decisions since winning election, the Republican made his choice: He would cave in to his conservative critics. He requested -- no, demanded! -- that he be seated promptly -- no, immediately! -- so that he could start to do the important work of being a senator. Democratic Senate leaders complied with his demand (they even let him have Ted Kennedy's primo office suite), and Vice President Biden made time to swear in Brown on the Senate floor at 5 p.m. Thursday."

There are a few things she overlooks in this statement.  After Scott Brown was elected, Paul Kirk, Jr., continued voting in the Senate.  If that is not illegal, it should be.  Paul Kirk, Jr., was appointed Senator to fill the gap left when Ted Kennedy died.  The laws of Massachusetts had to be rewritten and the Massachusetts constitution violated to put Mr. Kirk in that seat.  Mr. Kirk was the President's insurance policy that he could get his healthcare reform bill through by the end of 2009.  (No one at that point expected that a Republican would eventually win the seat).  When Scott Brown was elected, he was the rightful person to represent Massachusetts in the Senate.  Ted Kennedy won that same Senate seat in 1962 and was sworn in within two day.  Scott Brown should have been sworn in by January 21st.  He was well within his rights to ask to be sworn in Febrary 4th. 

Mr. Milbank states:

"But they don't like the way he votes, so hours before Brown's arrival, Senate Democrats used their 60-vote majority one final time, breaking a Republican filibuster and confirming Patricia Smith to be solicitor in the Labor Department."

That may be a legal vote, but the people of Massachusetts were not fairly represented in it.

Mr. Milbank also referred to Senator Brown numerous times as "Senator Centerfold."  So much for civility.   

CNN posted an article by Fortune Magazine yesterday stating that this will be the first time in 25 years that Social Security pays out more money than it takes in. 

According to the article:

"No one has officially announced that Social Security will be cash-negative this year. But you can figure it out for yourself, as I did, by comparing two numbers in the recent federal budget update that the nonpartisan CBO issued last week.

"The first number is $120 billion, the interest that Social Security will earn on its trust fund in fiscal 2010 (see page 74 of the CBO report). The second is $92 billion, the overall Social Security surplus for fiscal 2010 (see page 116)."

This fiscal year ends on September 30th, at that point Social Security will have a balance of minus $28 billion.  The problem with Social Security is that when it has a cash surplus, Congress uses it to fund the budget (to hide the amount of red ink).  Now that well has run dry and there is a big hole that needs to be filled.

The article concludes:

"To be sure -- three of the most dangerous words in journalism -- the current Social Security cash deficits aren't all that big, given that Social Security is a $700 billion program this year, and that the government expects to borrow about $1.5 trillion in fiscal 2010 to cover its other obligations, about the same as it borrowed in fiscal 2009.

"But this year's Social Security cash shortfall is a watershed event. Until this year, Social Security was a problem for the future. Now it's a problem for the present." 

I wonder how long it will be before Congress actually addresses this issue.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air reports on an exhange between Senator Judd Gregg and OMB director Peter Orszag.   The video of the exchange is available at the Hot Air link above.  Senator Gregg points out that the budget submitted by President Obama is unsustainable.  The discussion also covered Mr. Orszag's request that the law be rewritten to allow TARP money to be used for purposes other than what the current law specifies. 

Mr. Morrissey concludes:

"Gregg had good reason to add that codicil to the TARP bill. Normally skeptical members of Congress only supported TARP with the assurance that it wouldn't become an Oval Office slush fund and that receipts would go directly back to paying off debt. Congress had better recognize the danger of this path before they inadvertently fund a perpetual imperial Presidency."

To change the law as it is currently written is to ignore the purpose of the TARP law and the wishes of the American people.

Today's Washington Examiner is reporting that the Democrats in Washington have been scrambling to get certain votes through the Senate before Scott Brown is seated as the new Massachusetts Senator later today.  It is amazing to me that with the election certified today, anyone would consider letting Paul Kirk, Jr., vote on anything.

One of the Obama nominees that is being opposed by Republicans and various business organizations is Craig Becker, because he is seen as anti-business and strongly pro-union. 

The article points out:

"He (Scott Brown) will become the chamber's 41st Republican, which will give the party enough votes to block controversial nominees like Craig Becker, President Obama's pick to fill one of three vacancies on the National Labor Relations Board -- someone who businesses fear will be able to implement pro-union changes that Democrats couldn't achieve through legislation."

The danger here, regarless of who is nominated, is the concept of laws being made other than through legislation.  That is a true danger to our country and Constitution.

On Monday, Patricia Smith, another controversial nominee, cleared a key procedural hurdle in the Senate on Monday with exactly 60 Democratic votes.  Paul Kirk, Jr., was the 60th vote.

I (and probably much of the country) will breathe a sigh of relief when Scott Brown is sworn in.  At that point the Senate seat he will be filling will be returned to the people of Massachusetts.  It's about time.

I would like to point out here that I do not necessarily agree with Scott Brown on all issues, but I believe that he is a man who will pay attention to the voters and attempt to communicate with them.  That will be a refreshing change.

On Monday morning, Yahoo News published a story about the backdoor taxes that will hit the middle class in the proposed President Obama budget.  Shortly thereafter the story (at Yahoo News) was taken down and replaced with the following:

"The story Backdoor taxes to hit middle class has been withdrawn. A replacement story will run later in the week."

If you are, however, a curious person who would like to read the story that was taken down, you would have been able to find it at Yahoo News Canada, but it was taken down sometime between early this morning and 1:30 this afternoon.  The information below is from that story.  I believe it has been totally removed from the web at this point.  Evidently, someone has exerted pressure to have it removed from the US and Canadian websites.  Hmmm.

The original story lists the ways that the Obama Budget increases taxes for the middle class.  A few examples:

• When the Bush tax cuts expire, the top-tier personal income tax rate will rise to 39.6 percent from 35 percent. But lower-income families will pay more as well: the 25 percent tax bracket will revert back to 28 percent; the 28 percent bracket will increase to 31 percent; and the 33 percent bracket will increase to 36 percent. The special 10 percent bracket is eliminated.
• Tax on dividends jumps to 39.6 percent from 15 percent and the capital-gains tax increases to 20 percent from 15 percent.
• The AMT, initially designed to prevent the very rich from avoiding income taxes, was never indexed for inflation. Now the tax is affecting millions of middle-income households, but lawmakers have been reluctant to repeal it because it has become a key source of revenue.
• Taxpayers who itemize will lose the option to deduct state sales-tax payments instead of state and local income taxes.
• The $250 teacher tax credit for classroom supplies is gone.
• The tax deduction for up to $4,000 of college tuition and expenses is gone.
• Individuals who don't itemize will no longer be able to increase their standard deduction by up to $1,000 for property taxes paid.
• The first $2,400 of unemployment benefits are taxable, in 2009 that amount was tax-free.

It seems as if elections have consequences, and those elected don't necessarily want you to know what those consequences are!

NOTE:  This is what you get now when you follow the link to this story at Yahoo Canada:

"The Feb 1 story headlined "Backdoor taxes to hit middle class" is wrong and has been withdrawn. The story said lower-income families will pay more under tax provisions scheduled to expire Dec 31. The Obama administration's budget calls for the extension of those tax provisions for households earning less than $250,000. There will be no substitute story."

Amazing! 

Somehow I don't think this was what President Obama had in mind!  It seems that a few things have changed since the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts.  Although the President seems to be permanently deaf to the wishes of the American people, some of the Democrats running for re-election have suddenly developed an acute sense of hearing.

Hot Air reported yesterday that two Democrats have joined a group of Republicans in supporting a bill to withhold the funds the President requested for trying terrorists in civilian courts.  Eighteen senators, including two Democrats and one Independent introduced the bill.  The Democrats are Jim Webb and Blanche Lincoln, and the Independent is Joe Lieberman.  Blanche Lincoln is up for re-election and down in the polls. 

Personally, I am wondering about the chances of a Democrat Presidential Primary in 2012.  It would be unusual, but unless President Obama's approval ratings change and the economy improves (those factors are related), I think it could happen.  The challenge from the right would be Evan Byah and/or Hillary Clinton.  The challenge from the left would be someone like Howard Dean.  Because that would split the vote, I believe President Obama would win, but it would make for an interesting 2012. 

Meanwhile, it's nice to know that some members of Congress are learning how to listen!

UPDATE:  According to an update at the Boston Herald website:

"U.S. Sen.-elect Scott Brown has demanded his official swearing in ceremony be pushed up to tomorrow afternoon saying there are upcoming vital votes in Congress." 

This is one of the few times I am proud to be a Massachusetts voter!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jay Severin at 96.9 Boston Talks has been one of the people speaking out for the rights of the voters of Massachusetts.  On January 19th, we voted for a new Senator, Scott Brown.  The appointed Senator, Paul Kirk, Jr., is still voting in the Senate.  Meanwhile, important legislation is being passed, and the voters of Massachusetts are not being properly represented. 

When Scott Brown was asked how he felt as an opponent of nationalizing healthcare running for Ted Kennedy's seat, he replied, "Respectfully, this is not the Kennedy Seat. It is the People's Seat."  That was one of the best sound bites of the election campaign--a few words that spoke the truth.

Jay Severin rightly points out:

"The rationale, such as it is, goes like this: "Sure, sure - when a Democrat was elected in a special election, she was voting in 48 hours...and Yes, yes - an obvious, insidious double standard has been used to deprive us of our new voice - as the Kennedy stooge Kirk has been kept in this seat weeks after the election, so the losers (Obama, establishment politicians) can steal our vote on critical issues by having Kirk cast his against us...BUT it isn't a problem because...Scott Brown is fine with being seated later; Scott is fine with February 11.""

The question then becomes, according to Mr. Severin, "what are You fine with?"  Mr. Severin points out that Scott Brown is being a total gentleman about the whole thing, but that really isn't the point.  The seat does really belong to the people of Massachusetts.

He concludes:

"But we must never lose sight of the fact that this historic election, this Senate seat and everything connected to it is only fine if and when "We are fine with it", too."

Well spoken, sir.

Remember to say a prayer today for all our soldiers and their families.  Their wives and children also serve.

If you  read this site regularly, you know that I am very upset about the fact that our new Senator from Massachusetts, Scott Brown, has not been sworn in.  This delay has allowed the raising of the debt ceiling without the input of the voters of Massachusetts (the appointed Senator was the decisive vote), and I am sure there will be other things going through before Senator Brown is sworn in.

Boston.com reports that Senator Brown is hoping to be sworn in February 11th--more than three weeks after the election.  When Ted Kennedy won that seat in a special election, he was sworn in within two days.  My, how times change.  Anyway, The Hill is reporting that Obama nominee for Solicitor of Labor, Patricia Smith, may be confirmed before Senator Brown is seated.  The problem with this nominee is that she seems to have lied to the Senate about her involvement with the Wage and Hour Watch program.

Ms. Smith said that she had no intention to expand the program throughout the State of New York, but the Washington Examiner reports:

"But the e-mails obtained through New York's Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) suggest otherwise. Outside groups were being consulted as early as April 2008, and played a key role in developing the program. Smith herself was copied on e-mails discussing the program with these groups as early as November 2008. The program was announced publicly in January 2009, and Enzi's memo contends that the businesses affected weren't even allowed a meeting with Smith until March."

According to the Washington Examiner, the program "was an effort to deputize unions to detect illegal employment practices -- for example, by confronting and interviewing employees as they leave work, or even while they are on the job."  It would open the door for all kinds of intimidation tactics toward employers and employees.  The question is not only what the program would do, but why she felt it necessary to lie about the program.

The Hill reported Sunday that AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka stated during an appearance on CNN that card check legislation will pass this year in spite on the fact that the Democrats no longer have a filibuster-proof majority.  Card check is the legislation that takes the secret ballot out of the unionization vote.  Tumka also stated that healthcare reform would also pass this year.  I have two reactions to these statements--the first is that he reinforces the need for all of us to pay attention to what is going on in Washington every day.  Both of these bills seemed to have died, but evidently they have not.  The second reaction is to wonder if he has accurate information and what it is based on.

Congress seems to have a temporary hearing problem.  I guess we just have to elect more Senators who will listen to the people to correct the problem.

I thought the purpose of a budget was to help keep your spending under control.  The document that President Obama has submitted to Congress does nothing of the sort.  It might be called an unbudget or a spendget.

Articles and information on the proposed budget are all over the internet.  My sources are the Washington Examiner, an article at Power Line concerning about the energy policy built into the budget, an article at Power Line about the increasing debt, and an article at The Hill.

The spin on this budget is that it will end the 'tax cuts for the rich' put in place by the Bush Administration.  We need to consider that the majority of those 'rich' are small business owners who because of the way they file their taxes appear rich although they are not.  These are the people who hire workers.  To raise their taxes at this time is to increase unemployment until that burden is lifted.  The budget also includes a tax increase on those making less than $ 95,000 a year. 

According to The Hill:

"The $3.8 trillion budget request rolled out by the White House on Monday would renew the Making Work Pay tax credit for fiscal 2011, but then would have it sunset.   That's a switch from last year, when Obama's budget called for making the tax credit permanent.".

This is directly opposite of the promise of no tax increase for the middle class.  You can't spend the kind of money this administration is planning to spend and not raise taxes.

Power Line points out:

"[Obama's budget] contained $36.5 billion in new taxes over ten years on the oil and gas industries, while heaping new billions in taxpayer support for politically-favored energies."

Power Line asks the question:

"If they claim tax hikes on the oil and gas industries won't have any incentive effects on production or jobs, then how can they claim that "green investments" will create jobs in the solar and wind industries?"

This is all smoke and mirrors.  Power Line points out how much spending increases with this proposed budget:

"Today the Obama administration unveiled its budget for FY 2011. The budget ostensibly covers the next ten years, but its projections for future years are meaningless. The only year for which it has any significance is 2011, in which it anticipates $3.8 trillion in spending and an astonishing $1.6 trillion deficit. In 2006, the last year in which the Republicans controlled Congress, the deficit was $248 billion--one-seventh what Obama proposes for next year.""

I am in no way a budget expert, buy I know that when times are tough, you need to be careful what you spend.  I don't know if there is a way to stop this budget and cut it down, but for the good of the country that needs to happen!

The source of this article is CNN.com.  Iran is celebrating the anniversary of its Islamic revolution on February 11.  It has been thirty years since that revolution changed the face of the Middle East.  The leaders of the opposition to the current government are calling for protests against the government on that day.  Meanwhile, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is telling the world that Iran will deliver a harsh blow to "global arrogance" on that day.  It really doesn't sound like a happy anniversary.

According to the article:

"About 4,000 people have been arrested in the post-election crackdown. As of January 24, the government had confirmed the deaths of at least 37 people in the protests or in detention, seven of those deaths happening on the religious holiday of Ashura.

"On Thursday, authorities hanged Mohammed Reza Ali Zamani, 37, and Arash Rahmanipour, 20, who had been convicted of being enemies of God and plotting to topple the Islamic regime.

"The two were convicted in mass trials of opposition supporters in August, but Rahmanipour's lawyer said the young man was arrested two months before the election."

The fact that the President Ahmadinejad is murdering dissidents and making threats against the world is an indication that his regime is in trouble.  He may be attempting to provoke an attack against his nation by a foreign power that will unite his people against a common enemy.  Unfortunately there is no way to determine whether or not he is bluffing.  

Yesterday one of the blogs at the Wall Street Journal reported that the heathcare reform bill is not dead.  The Democrats say that they are one vote in the House of Representatives from passing the current healthcare bill.  The Republicans support the idea of healthcare reform, but oppose the current bill.  The Democrats are claiming that they are willing to listen to Republican input on the bill and that they are willing to compromise.  I'll believe that when I see the new Senator from Massachusetts sworn in and voting!

Healthcare reform could be done in a way that would cut costs and make insurance more available.  There are a few key things that would not drastically change what we have now, but simply adjust it.  The basic changes we need are tort reform, portability across state lines, coverage for pre-existing conditions, and a tax credit to help low-income people afford health insurance.  (Lower taxes in general probably wouldn't hurt either!)

We need to remember that the purpose of government is to defend its citizens--not run their lives.  The Tenth Amendment limits the power of the federal government and makes sure that the states can administer much of their own business.  We existed for our first one hundred years or so without an income tax.  I realize we can't go back to that, but we should be able to go back to a time when income tax freedom day (the day you begin working for yourself and not the government) came before April 13th (the day in 2009).  When you add the deficits into the equation, the date for 2009 becomes May 29.  These numbers are from TaxFoundation.org.  We pay a higher percentage of our wages in taxes than the Midieval serfs paid to their feudal lords.  That needs to change.