April 2010 Archives

That is an amazing statement to have been made by someone who works at a job that pays $400,000 a year and somehow he and his wife made $5.5 million in the first year of his presidency.

These facts are noted in an editorial piece posted at Investors.com yesterday. 

The article wisely concludes:

"If the president is eager to regulate salaries, he might begin -- and end -- with the federal work force. Commerce Department data show that average federal worker compensation of $119,982 in 2008 was twice that of average private-sector pay ($59,909).

"If he can't bring himself to spread federal workers' wealth around, he and the rest of Washington need to stay away from everyone else's income."

When did we elect a President to tell us how much any of us should earn?  What does the President see as his 'enough' amount?

Hot Air reported yesterday that the United Nations has elected Iran to its Commission on the Status of Women.  Right.  According to its website, the Commission on the Status of Women is "dedicated exclusively to gender equality and advancement of women,"   The article also points out that the United Nations Commission on Human Rights includes such freedom-loving nations as China and Saudi Arabia. 

At the bottom of the article is a question asked by Jennifer Rubin:

"The U.S. couldn't muster a word of opposition -- not even call for a vote. That would be because . . . why? Because our policy is not to confront and challenge the brutal regime for which rape and discrimination are institutionalized policies. No, rather, we are in the business of trying to ingratiate ourselves, and making the U.S. as inoffensive as possible to the world's thugocracies."

I really wonder if both the United Nations and the United States have forgotten the call and the responsibilities of freedom.

In 1975 on April 29, the United States began a helicopter evacuation of U. S. Citizens, South Vietnamese allies, and others out of Saigon.  On April 30, the city surrendered, and more than three million people died in the political chaos that followed.

Unfortunately, America caused the deaths of these people.  A new book, AN AMERICAN AMNESIA, written by Bruce Herschensohn, details the sequence of events that caused the massacre that followed.  The book is reviewed at DisruptThe Narrative at Word Press.  What the book tells us about our government and the media during the 1970's is frightening and sobering in view of current events.

According to the website:

"Between the 94th Congress defunding the aid that was promised to South Viet Nam, crafting and passing the unconstitutional War Powers act, and the resignation of Nixon later that year,  the North realized that they had a new opportunity and eventually caused the collapse of South Viet Nam, Cambodia and Laos within a couple of years."

This is the reply of Cambodia's Prince Sirik Matak as U. S. officials fled Cambodia and asked the Prince if he would like to leave:

"I thank you very sincerely for your letter and your offer to transport me towards freedom.  I cannot, alas, leave in such a cowardly fashion.  As for you, and in particular for your great country, I never believed for a moment that you would have this sentiment of abandoning a people which has chosen liberty.  You have refused us your protection, and we can do nothing about it.  You leave, and my wish is that you and your country will find happiness under this sky.  But, mark it well, that if I shall die here on the spot and in my country that I love, it is no matter, because we are all born and must die.  I have only committed this mistake of believing in you."  (Quoted from THE AMERICAN PATRIOT'S ALMANAC by William J. Bennett and John T. E. Cribb)

Prince Matak was shot in the stomach when the Khmer Rouge seized Phnom Penh.  He was left unattended and took three days to die.  During the Khmer Rouge's reign of terror that followed, 15 million people died from execution, starvation and forced labor.

Two quotes from Democrats involved in the decision to end the funding:

"Chris Dodd:  The greatest gift our country can give to the Cambodian people is not guns, but peace, and the best way to accomplish that goal is by ending military aid now.

"George McGovern:  Cambodians would be better off if we stopped all aid to them and let them work things out in their own way."

History will repeat itself if we turn our backs on either Iraq or Afghanistan.  Unfortunately, we are the only nation in the world that would even consider preventing the slaughter of innocents that would follow an American abandoment of either country.  We can behave honorably or we can be responsible for another slaughter as we were in 1975.

On Saturday, MSNBC posted an article about the new immigration law just passed in Arizona.  The article states:

"It also requires local police officers to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegal immigrants; allows lawsuits against government agencies that hinder enforcement of immigration laws; and makes it illegal to hire illegal immigrants for day labor or knowingly transport them.

"The law sends "a clear message that Arizona is unfriendly to undocumented aliens," said Peter Spiro, a Temple University law professor and author of the book "Beyond Citizenship: American Identity After Globalization.""

This is ridiculous.  Why shouldn't Arizona be unfriendly to undocumented (illegal) aliens?  What part of illegal does Professor Spiro not understand?  Is illegal only illegal if he says so?

One of the arguments against the new bill is that it requires legal aliens (or recent citizens) to have their identification papers on them at all times.  Supposedly that is the beginning of a totalitarian state.  Well, wait a minute.  This is a link to A Guide for New Immigrants put out by the United States government.  On page 8 of this guide is the statement:

As a permanent resident, it is your responsibility to:

Carry proof of your permanent resident status at all times.

This is directly copied from the New Immigrants guide:

Permanent residents are issued a valid Permanent Resident

Card (Form I-551) as proof of their legal status in

the United States. Some people call this a "Green Card."

If you are a permanent resident who is 18 years or

older, you must carry proof of your immigration status.

You must show it to an immigration officer if asked for

it.Your card is valid for 10 years and must be renewed

before it expires.You should file Form I-90 to replace or

renew your Permanent Resident Card.You can get this

form at http://www.uscis.gov or by calling the USCIS

Forms Line. There is a fee to file Form I-90.

 

I think we need to enforce our own laws.

This is a picture from yesterday's Investors.com website.  The picture was included in an article about Congress shutting off the water to the Central Valley in California. 

The article states:

"Instead of pink blossoms and green shoots along Highway 5 in April, vast spans from Bakersfield to Fresno sit bone-dry. Brown grass, dead orchards and lifeless grapevine skeletons stretch for miles for lack of water. For every fallow field, there's a sign that farmers have placed alongside the highway: "No Water = No Food," "No Water = No Jobs," "Congress Created Dust Bowl."

"Locals say it's been like this for two years now, as Congress and bureaucrats cite "drought," "global warming" and "endangered species" to deny water to this $37 billion breadbasket through arbitrary "environmental" quotas."

The consequences of this man-made drought are unemployment rates of as much as 45 percent, an increase in mortgage foreclosures, California having to import vegetables rather than growing them locally, and increased food prices for the rest of us.

The really aggravating part of this water shut-off, however, is the politics involved.  The article points out:

"Take the three congressmen who represent the valley and how they were pressured to vote for President Obama's health care bill. It didn't go without notice by farmers like Jasper that the 5% water allocations announced in February for all three congressional districts were lifted to 25% for the two whose Democratic representatives, Jim Costa of Fresno and Dennis Cardoza of Modesto, switched their votes on health reform from "no" to "aye."

"Devin Nunes, a Republican from Tulare, wouldn't sell his vote, and parts of his district had to make do with the 5% allotment."

This is not regular 'hardball politics.'  This kind of political move hurts everyone.  I understand the Congressmen caving into that kind of pressure, but we need people in Congress who will stand up to the bullying that is going on from Washington.  Until we put men of integrity in office who will stand up for what is right, this kind of nonsense will continue.

"All great change in America begins at the dinner table."

Ronald Reagan

Yesterday Investors.com posted an article about the timing of the release of the report by the Medicare's Office of the Actuary which showed that the healthcare reform act would significantly increase the cost of healthcare. 

According to the article:

"Chief Actuary Richard Foster estimated that the program would add $311 billion over 10 years in costs beyond what would have been the case if the legislation hadn't become law.

"The Health and Human Services Department reportedly had the report more than a week before the vote but refused to review it until after the Senate bill passed the House on March 21."

The Senate leadership needed to have healthcare reform passed to provide a victory for President Obama; they chose not be bothered by the facts in studying the bill (that's assuming they studied the bill). 

The article further states:

""The reason we were given was that they did not want to influence the vote," said an unidentified HHS source in a Monday report in the Washington Prowler blog of the American Spectator. Pardon us, but wouldn't it have been better if this information had been made public or given to lawmakers before the House voted?"

I guess the loose translation of this is, "Don't confuse me with facts."

It is unfortunate that our "representatives" in Washington are more interested in gaining political victories than they are in representing the American people.  We need to vote all of them out in November.

George Will posted an editorial today at the Washington Post commenting on Arizona's new Immigration law.  Mr. Will points out that being in the country illegally is already a federal offense--Arizona simply made it also a state offense. 

The law states that police officers are required to try to make "a reasonable attempt" to determine the status of a person "where reasonable suspicion exists" that the person is here illegally.  The implication here is that the person in question has been detained by a policeman for a legitimate reason and that as part of the investigation process of the individual, his status as an American citizen will be confirmed.  I would have thought that would have been understood already.

Mr. Will points out:

"Arizona's law might give the nation information about whether judicious enforcement discourages illegality. If so, it is a worthwhile experiment in federalism."

After learning some of the problems caused in Arizona due to illegal immigration, I applaud their efforts to enforce the law that being in the country illegally is a crime.  The principle job of a government is to protect its citizens.  Arizona is in danger of becoming the kidnapping capital of the world due to the illegals entering the state.  We need to remember that included in the illegals entering the state are drug smugglers and people who have no interest at all in contributing to the growth and well-being of America.

That being said, I would like to see our immigration process streamlined so that people who want to come here and work do not have to wait years to have their applications approved.  The way things stand right now, we are allowing a group of people to ignore our laws while taking advantage of our medical and social programs.  This is not a good situation.

Meanwhile, let's take a look at Mexico's immigration laws:

• Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society
• Foreigners are admitted into Mexico "according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress." (Article 32)
  
• Immigration officials must "ensure" that "immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents. (Article 34)
• Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)
• A National Population Registry keeps track of "every single individual who comprises the population of the country," and verifies each individual's identity. (Articles 85 and 86)
• Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned
  
• Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)
• Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico -- such as working with out a permit -- can also be imprisoned

It's time for some basic reciprocity.

Green energy will be coming to Massachusetts.  According to Breitbart.com today, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar will approve the nation's first offshore wind farm to be built in the Nantucket Sound off Cape Cod.  The wind farm will have 130 turbines. 

According to the article:

"Cape Wind says it can generate power by 2012 and aims to eventually supply three-quarters of the power on Cape Cod, which has about 225,000 residents. Cape Wind officials say it will provide green jobs and a reliable domestic energy source, while offshore wind advocates are hoping it can jump-start the U.S. industry."

Theoretically this is a great idea.  The question becomes how it will work in actual practice. 

One of the issues in the debate on this project was how it would affect the ocean view from Cape Cod.  According to the article:

"The project is about five miles off Cape Cod at its closest proximity to land and 14 miles off Nantucket at the greatest distance. According to visual simulations done for Cape Wind, on a clear day the turbines would be about a half-inch tall on the horizon at the nearest point and appear as specks from Nantucket."

Two Wampanoag Indian tribes protested the construction of the wind farm because one of their sacred rituals requires an unblocked view of the sunrise over Nantucket Sound.  The article also stated that the wind farm would be built on long-submerged tribal burial grounds.  

Meanwhile, the Boston Herald reported today that Paul Kirk (the man who was the replacement Senator for Ted Kennedy for a short time) stated that Senator Kennedy would be saddened by the approval of the wind farm.

The Boston Herald also reported today:

"Without providing specific details, Salazar said project developers will be required to undergo more marine and archaeological reviews and take steps to reduce the turbines' visibility from the shore. He also said the project would be reduced in size from 170 to 130 wind turbines - a "change" that surprised many because the size of the project had been reduced long ago. Salazar said the conditions are "stringent," but the project's nine-year review has been thorough."

Regardless of how you feel about this project, it will tell us a lot of things about the feasibility of future wind power.  New England (and its coast) have a lot of wind.  If wind power can be an alternative to our current energy sources, New England is where it will be successful.  Putting up the Cape Cod wind farm is similar to the Wright Brothers testing their airplane at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina.  Kitty Hawk is always windy--if the airplane was going to fly at all, it would fly there!  If wind power is going to work at all, it will work off Cape Cod!

Front Page Magazine posted an article about a Solidarity with Israel Rally that took place in front of the Israeli Consulate in New York City on Sunday afternoon.  The rallying cry of the day was "Obama - Stop Pressuring Israel".  There were more than 2000 people in attendance.

Please follow the above link to the article.  Fern Sidman, who wrote the article, explains a lot of the contradictions between Jewish groups who are supporting President Obama and don't want to lose their influence with his administration and those Jewish groups who see the danger to Israel in making too many concessions in the name of peace.

The article reminds us:

"Rabbi Yaakov Spivak of Monsey, NY, a longtime Jewish activist, radio talk show host and a Daily News columnist intoned, "President Obama, we're here today to tell you something. In Warsaw, they told Jews where we could build, in Lodz they told Jews where we could build, in Paris they told Jews where we could build. You will never tell us where to build in Jerusalem. We are home and Israel is our country. You are not our landlord and we are neither a vassal state nor a banana republic. Our mandate to be here today is none other than our holy Tanach, our bible which says, 'For the sake of Zion I will not be silent and for the sake of Jerusalem I will not be quiet.""

We are in danger of taking the side of countries that want to see Israel destroyed--there has been no evidence since the Palestinians have been given the Gaza strip that they want to spend money on infrastructure or on helping their people.  Any money they have received has gone toward weapons aimed at Israel.  Until that changes and they begin to build a viable state, I see no reason why we should force Israel to make concessions to them.

The article also points out:

"A formidable contingent of Hindu and Sikh supporters of Israel was also present at the rally. "We understand all too well that a policy of appeasement towards Islamic radicalism will never bring peace to Israel or the civilized world," declared Satya Dosapati of the Hindu Human Rights Watch." As Hindus, we have been massacred by Muslims for thousands of years. If President Obama really believes that isolating and demonizing Israel and publicly humiliating Israel's Prime Minister is not emboldening our Islamic enemies, then something is really wrong. Israel is a peace seeking nation and we unequivocally support their right to their homeland. The world must realize that if Israel falls then the entire world will come under the domination of a blood thirsty Islamic caliphate," he continued."

Israel and America are not the only countries in the crosshairs of the radical element of Islam.  The War on Terrorism should be a worldwide effort, and Mr. Dosapati realizes that.  Hopefully the rest of the world will realize it before it is too late.

The UK Sun is reporting today that Noah's Ark has been found in Turkey.  Now please understand, I don't have a problem with the story of Noah's Ark, I just have a problem with it being found in Turkey.  It may actually be there, but I remain skeptical.

Anyway.  The remains of Noah's Ark are reported to have been found by a group of Chinese and Turkish evangelical explorers 13,000 feet up on Mount Ararat.  They claim that carbon dating places the wreckage at about 4,800 years old--about the time the ark was supposed to exist.

The Turkist government is applying for Ankara to apply for UNESCO World Heritage status in order to protect the site while a major archaeological dig will be undertaken to determine exactly what the site is. 

As I said, I have no problem believing the story of Noah's Ark--I figure God can do pretty much anything he chooses to do--I just really have a hard time believing the wooden structure that was the ark survived almost 5,000 years.  Stay tuned.

Today at the Corner at National Review Online, Mark Steyn speaks out on the recent South Park controversy involving their portrayal of Muhammad.  In response to the censorship, Sarah Norris, a cartoonist, started "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day".  On Friday Sarah told a Seattle talk show host that "as a cartoonist, I just felt so much passion about what had happened..." noting that "it's a cartoonist's job to be non-PC."

Today according to Mark Steyn:

"Her stark website today reads: ""I am NOT involved in "Everybody Draw Mohammd [sic] Day!""

What is going on here?  As the western world bows to the demands of Islam, we are more and more finding out that practicing tolerance is a one-way street.  Mr. Steyn reports of an incident in a school:

"Around 2002 she (a London Times writer) began to encounter explicitly anti-Semitic speech from Muslim students: "Does someone smell a Jew? It stinks here." "You are not human, you are a Jew." Had Anglo-Saxon skinheads essayed such jests, Oliver Kamm's warriors of secular pluralism would have crushed them like bugs. But when the teacher went to the principal, and the school board, and the local "hate-crimes unit," they all looked the other way and advised her that it would be easier if she retired. Sixty out of 75 French teachers at the school opted to leave: A couple were Jewish, a few more practicing Catholics, and most of the rest were the liberal secularists on whom Oliver Kamm's defense of the West rests. The francophone children withdrew, too. And now the principal and most of the students and faculty are Muslim."

There are more ways to take over a country than guns.  We need to make sure as a nation that when we are tolerant of other cultures in our midst that those cultures respect America and its culture.

When I saw Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska vote against the financial reform bill yesterday, I assumed that it was because he is in political trouble in his state after reversing his vote on healthcare reform.  I was wrong.

Today's Washington Examiner reports the following:

"On the financial bill, at the request of Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway, Nelson had added a provision to the financial reform bill that would exempt existing derivatives contracts from new collateral requirements. The provision would have saved Berkshire Hathaway the trouble of setting aside $8 billion in collateral.

"But Senate Democrats killed that provision before yesterday's failed vote."

The provision that the Democrats killed will cost Berkshire Hathaway up to $8 billion in money they will have to set aside to meet the requirements of the new reform.  The company holds $63 billion in derivatives contracts with very little collateral.  Holding that much of any financial product without collateral is risky, but frankly I would be more inclined to trust Warren Buffet with my money than the government.

On March 20th, Representative Andre Carson claimed that when he left the Canon office building, he was greated by health care protestors shouting the "N word".  He stated that the scene was so hostile, he expected rocks to follow.  Andrew Breitbart offered $100,000 for proof of the racial slurs.

Yesterday Big Government posted an article detailing the results of offering that $100,000.  Andrew Breitbart still has his money. 

According to the article:

"It's not just that Congressmen Carson's accusation of an extraordinary racist verbal assault by the tea party participants on March 20 doesn't appear to have occurred, it's that the accusers have now gone into the bunker and, having raised the incendiary subject, are doing everything they can to avoid the discussion."

In replying to a statement that Andrew Breitbart 'won' because no one could actually provie the charge, the article further states:

"But how does that "win" manifest itself? On April 15, the day of the Tax Day Tea Party in front of the White House, and being interviewed by ABC's Terry Moran for Nightline set to air Tuesday night, I passionately defended the movement against the powerful racism charge that has been greatly pushed by the Congressional Black Caucus's accusation of a 1960 Selma-like incident near the Capitol.

"At least twice during the spirited questioning by Moran, bystanders screamed "racist" at me.

"The power of the propaganda. The power of the repeated accusations. The power of the relentless race-based line of questioning. They are all adding up to the liars and slanderers getting exactly what they wanted. The Tea Party is marred by racism charges while Congressman Carson, at the least, should be facing an ethics investigation, and a civil rights legend should be asking for forgiveness for allowing for the hateful lie to stand."

It's time for the media to stop calling people names and be willing to talk about the solutions to the economic and terrorist threats this country faces.

I am not a scientist, so if anyone reading this has scientific information, please comment.  I truly do not know what to make of this story.

This is a satellite picture that was posted at the UK Daily Mail website today included in a article stating that the volcanie ash cloud over Britain after the eruption of the Iceland volcano was non-existent.

According to the article:

"Jim McKenna, the Civil Aviation Authority's head of airworthiness, strategy and policy, admitted: 'It's obvious that at the start of this crisis there was a lack of definitive data.

"'It's also true that for some of the time, the density of ash above the UK was close to undetectable.'

"The satellite images will be used by airlines in their battle to win tens of millions of pounds in compensation from governments for their losses."

Wow.  Just wow. 

Byron York posted an article at the Washington Examiner yesterday about the Democrats in Congress deciding to go forward with an Immigration Reform Bill rather than a Cap and Trade Bill.  I suspect this move will result in neither bill passing Congress.  The failure to pass these two bills may be the only hope the Democrats have of maintaining control of Congress after the November elections.

Lindsey Graham had crafted an energy bill with John Kerry and Joe Lieberman.  The bill was supposed to be unvieled today.  But things changed.  After the unveiling of the Arizona legislation, the Democrats felt they could use the 'crisis' (remember "never let a crisis go to waste") for political advantage and pass immigration reform.  That would be an amazing reach--the last effort at immigration reform (2006 and 2007) took many hours of bi-partisan work and eventually failed.  To put together a workable immigration bill before the November elections (the theory is that new Hispanic citizens will vote Democrat) and pass it (assuming someone will have time to read it) would be an amazing feat.  Also, keep in mind that with so many Congressional incumbents being seriously challenged in the November election, Congress is going to want to get out of Washington and seriously campaign before too long.

The American people have said for a number of years that the first priority of an immigration bill should be to secure the boarders.  Until we do that, anything else is meaningless.  Serial amnesty is not a workable policy for the longterm security of our country.  I support what Arizona is doing and definitely understand their reasons for taking action to reduce the number of crimes being committed in that state by illegal aliens.

No, this isn't an article about some dangerous right-wing extremist or even some dangerous left-wing extremist--it's about giving Congress the information they are looking for regarding the shooting at Fort Hood.

Today's Washington Post posted an editorial about the difficulties the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has had getting access to documents and witnesses in the Fort Hood shooting investigation. 

According to the article:

"The committee's chairman and ranking Republican, respectively Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (Maine), have taken the dramatic step of subpoenaing the Defense and Justice departments. The committee is looking into what advance warning the Army or others had about the risks posed by the accused Fort Hood shooter, Maj. Nidal M. Hasan."

The Washington Post points out that the Congressional investigation could easily proceed without interfering with the criminal charges.  The goal of the Congressional investigation is different from the goal of the criminal investigation.  The Congressional investigation is looking into the incident in order to find ways of preventing future incidents--they are not involved in criminal prosecution.

I have only one idea on how to prevent future incidents--common sense.  The information that has come out about Major Hasan since the shooting shows a number of incidents that should have set off alarms.  Evidently, those alarms were ignored our of fear of being labeled anti-Muslim. 

According to the UK Telegraph on November 8th of last year:

"He (Major Hasan) also told colleagues at America's top military hospital that non-Muslims were infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire. The outburst came during an hour-long talk Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, gave on the Koran in front of dozens of other doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Centre in Washington DC, where he worked for six years before arriving at Fort Hood in July."

He is entitled to his belief that infidels are condemned to hell.  The problem is that he made it clear that he put no value on their lives.  The shooting at Fort Hood had nothing to do with a lack of laws--it had to do with an unwillingness on the part of the military to see what was right in front of them.

I missed this when it was posted.  I'm posting it now because I think it is extremely important.  This article is based on two sources, a Wall Street Journal article on April 14th and a Big Government article by John Loudon.

According to the Wall Street Journal, a federal rule went into effect April 13th that would "require "project labor agreements" for all construction projects larger than $25 million. This means that only contractors that agree to union representation are eligible for work financed by the U.S. taxpayer."   This is the result of an executive order signed by President Obama early in his presidency. 

The Big Government article points out:

"The cronyism that the Wall Street Journal discusses is the cynical modification to these policies that began creeping into contracts about 20 years ago.  It stipulates that no matter what the jurisdictional issues are, all of the workers will be supporting the union pension fund."

There are a few problems with this law.  Only 15% of construction workers are unionized.  To demand that all government construction work be unionized seriously hampers the competitive bidding process--non-union contractors cannot submit bids. 

A White House economist stated that this would cut costs, but according to the Wall Street Journal, that is simply not true:

"Mr. Bernstein could check all this with the Department of Veterans Affairs, which last year commissioned an independent study showing the Obama project labor agreements would likely raise the VA's construction costs for hospitals by as much as 9% in three of five markets--Denver, New Orleans and Orlando. In two others, New York and San Francisco, the study predicted a mixture of small cost increases and small cost savings."

According to Big Government, pensions are the root of the problem:

"The worst part of the Obama executive order is the real reason for it.  According to a September, 2009 report by Moody's Investor Services, construction union pensions in 2008 were just 54% funded.  Just like Social Security, the promised union pensions were too fat.  They were built on the similar demographic flaw of social security.  The system would pay full benefits to the earliest retirees, but would only be able to continue to do that if the ratio of workers to retirees is sustainable.  So what does it mean when the ratio fails?  How do you restore the footing on a plan so underfunded when the ration of worker to retiree continues to get worse?"

The question is, "What is the solution to the problem of favoritism in government?"  The answer actually is fairly simple.  Big Government concludes:

"As broad as the problem is, there are many ways to fight it.  If you are a contractor, join your local merit shop contractor association.   Let your Congressional delegation know that you are 100% against private pension fund bailouts.  Meanwhile, pay attention to all elections, not just those for partisan offices.  At least take note whether your public boards are working for you.  Finally, consider becoming a candidate yourself.  There may not be as much glamor in a City council seat, but there just may be an ABC chapter that is hungry for a candidate, willing to donate some seed money.  Help them help you."

Paying attention to politics at all levels has always been a good idea, but I don't think it has ever been as necessary as it is now.  If Americans do not begin to vote against the kind of favoritism that this administration is showing toward unions (violating backruptcy law in government takeovers, limiting the bidding process on construction projects, etc.), we are going to find ourselves living in a country where freedom is a distant memory.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air reported Friday on the announcement that GM had paid off its government loans.  Well, things are not always what they appear to be.  I am not a financial analyst, and I don't claim to understand everything I am about to relate, but I will do my best.

According to the article:

"During an April 20 hearing on Capital Hill, Sen. Tom Carper, (D-Del.) asked some pointed questions of Neil Barofsky, the "special watch dog" on the Wall Street Bailout, aka, TARP.

""It's good news in that they're reducing their debt," Barofsky said of the accelerated GM payments, "but they're doing it by taking other available TARP money."..."

Wow.  Does that mean if I pay my VISA with my MasterCard, I can consider myself out of debt?  This is my kind of accounting! 

Mr. Morrissey further reports:

"Instead, GM seems to be using TARP funds from an escrow account at Treasury to make the debt repayments. The most recent quarterly report from the Office of the Special Inspector General for TARP says "The source of funds for these quarterly [debt] payments will be other TARP funds currently held in an escrow account." See, Office of the Special Inspector General for TARP, Quarterly Report to Congress dated April 20, 2010, page 115."

Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) has written a letter to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner asking the following questions:

"Mr. Girsky then said that GM originally planned to pay the loan over the next five years. So the question is why--other than a desire to justify excluding GM from the administration's TARP tax proposal--would Treasury and GM reduce GM's TARP debt with TARP equity and then mischaracterize it as a repayment from earnings? Accordingly, please explain:

1) Your department's justification for allowing GM to use funds from the TARP escrow account to repay TARP loans,

2) The amount of funds remaining in the TARP escrow account at Treasury that may be released to GM, and

3) The date that you anticipate that the remaining funds in escrow will be released to GM.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Please provide the requested information by April 30, 2010. ..."

I, for one, would like to read the answer to that letter.

 

This a picture of some of our soldiers in Afghanistan.  The picture is part of an article by Michael Yon about the battle for Kandahar.  The article can be found at MichaelYon-online.com.  It is a rather long article, but I strongly suggest reading it.  Michael gives some insight into the history of the war in Afghanistan and what is involved in fighting it.

Please pray for our servicemen and women.

Howie Carr posted an article at the Boston Herald today about the fact that property taxes in Massachusetts are about to go up.  Property taxes are supposed to be limited by Proposition 2 1/2.  Proposition 2 1/2 was approved by Massachusetts voters in 1980 and put into effect in fiscal year 1982.  The Proposition limits the amount of money a city or town may raise from property taxes each year to fund municipal operations.  Well, the Massachusetts state legislature is working on finding a way to get around Proposition 2 1/2. 

According to Howie Carr:

"This time, as you know, the hacks want to sock it to homeowners, allowing the taxaholic towns to raise property taxes beyond the 2.5 percent limit imposed by Proposition 2 ½.

"The harebrained scheme is being pushed by a genius named Charlie Murphy, who is the chairman of Ways and Means. First he said this "adjustment" in Prop 2 ½, involving something called an overlay fund, was not a tax increase. But the Lowell Sun reports he then "conceded the fact that most communities would likely raise property taxes more than 2.5 percent." Without putting it to a vote."

Mr. Carr points out that the plan to raise property taxes is being kept rather quiet until after the filing deadline for candidates in the November election.  This year Massachusetts has many Republicans running for state and national office, and hopefully we can someday become a two-party state.  Meanwhile we need to vote out of office anyone who votes for this game to override Proposition 2 1/2.

Bloomberg.com reported yesterday that President Obama has called for an overhaul of America's immigration laws.  The President stated that a failure to do so would result in more 'misguided' attempts by the states (such as Arizona) to fix those laws.

Just for the record, I don't believe this is by accident.  I think the Obama Administration has been looking for an excuse to go after immigration reform, and Arizona provided it.

Well, hold on a minute.  It seems as if Arizona has a much better picture of the immigration issues than Washington, D. C., would have.  Arizona has been dealing with major crime problems caused by Washington's lack of enforcement of immigration laws for years.  Last month according to Fox News, a rancher was killed (allegedly by illegal aliens) while working on his ranch.  Last year according to the Washington Times, a rancher was sued by illegals for turning them over to the Border Patrol.  When I grew up, that was called good citizenship.

I am not opposed to legal immigration.  I agree that the legal immigration system needs to be streamlined and reformed.  I do, however, object to the idea of instantly making illegal aliens citizens.  We have people who have been on waiting lists for years wanting to come to this country.  It seems to me that they should be at the head of the line--not the illegals.

My concern with Congress putting together an immigration bill is that it will be used as the basis for registering millions of new Democrats in time for the November elections.  I simply do not trust the current Congress to act in the best interests of the country they are supposed to represent.  I am also concerned that because there are only seven months until the election, something will be rushed through without anyone knowing what is actually in it (sound familiar?).  It's time to step back and see what the impact of the new law in Arizona will be.  We can watch that for a year or so and then proceed.

According to the Associate Press yesterday, posted at the Washington Examiner, the Supreme Court has refused to hear a request for overturning the ban on federal funding to ACORN. 

"The high court on Friday refused to throw out a decision by the federal appellate court in New York City. That court had decided to freeze a judge's determination that Congress acted unconstitutionally in yanking the group's funding."

Aside from the money-saving aspect of this, I think ACORN should be denied funding.  The federal government has been extremely lax in its oversight of the money it gives out to all organizations, and it is time to reevaluate all of this kind of spending.  If money given to an organization results in a positive impact on the community, that is one thing.  If money given to an organization results in highly paid staff accomplishing very little, that needs to stop.

Yesterday Grace-Marie Turner at National Review Online posted an article about the report from Medicare's chief actuary, Richard Foster.  The report lists nine problems with the healthcare reform bill:

• Employer coverage will decrease--it will be cheaper for employers to pay fines than to insure employees--forcing people to enroll in Medicaid.  This will overburden Medicaid.  Seniors will lose Medicare Advantage coverage.
• Businesses will be faced with hugh penalties because they will not be able to afford the policies the government requires.
• The increased costs to businesses will be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices for drugs, medical devices, and premiums.
• The "CLASS Act" long-term-care insurance is probably unsustainable.
• National health spending will increase by $311 billion over the next ten years, increasing federal spending rather than decreasing it.
• In 2019, there will still be approximately 23 million people uninsured--5 million illegal aliens and 18 million who pay the fine instead of the cost of insurance.
• Spending reductions "may not be fully achievable".  Sounds like a normal government program.
• There will be fewer places that senior citizens will be able to go for treatment.  Access to care for senior citizens will quickly become an issue.
• The increased demands on Medicaid will make it difficut to find care.

I got a letter from my Congressional Representative yesterday explaining how great the healthcare reform bill was.  I wrote him back that I would be actively campaigning for his opponent in November.  Please join me--if your Congressman (or Congresswoman) voted for the healthcare reform bill, please donate or campaign for their opponent in November.  We need to repeal this awful bill before it has time to do any serious damage to our country.

Investors.com posted an article yesterday by Michael Barone on what is happening in the financial sector of our economy under the Obama Administration.  He reminds us of the Chrysler bailout where bankruptcy law was violated and bondholders forced to accept 33 cents on the dollar on secured debts while United Auto Worker retirees were given 50 cents on the dollar on unsecured debts.  Unfortunately, the saga continues.

Last Friday, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint against Goldman Sachs charging it violated the law in the sale of one of its financial products.  There are a few fishy things in this charge.  Fishy thing number one--the charges have to do with the fact that the company did not disclose that the product was put together by John Paulson--at that point, he was not well known, and disclosing his involvement would not have mattered.  Fishy thing number two--the Securities and Exchange Commission usually moves on a complaint only when they have a unanimous vote--in this case the vote was not unanimous and strictly along party lines.  Fishy thing number three--Democrats immediately cited the complaint as a reason to pass Chris Dodd's financial reform package.

One of the provisions in the financial reform package:

"Politically connected creditors would have every reason to assume they'd get favorable treatment. The Dodd bill specifically authorizes the FDIC to treat "creditors similarly situated" differently."

This is not a recipe for good financial governance.  There are a few other problems with the bill:

"...Dodd bill gives the Treasury and the FDIC authority to grant an unlimited number of loan guarantees to "too big to fail" firms. CEOs might want to have receipts for their contributions to Sen. Charles Schumer and the Obama campaign in hand when they apply."

"Labor gets 'proxy access' to bring its agenda items before shareholders as well as annual 'say on pay' for executives. Consumer activists get a brand new agency funded directly out of the seniorage the Fed earns. No oversight by the Federal Reserve Board or by Congress on how the money is spent."

The problem with the bill is that it encourages political favoritism.  We have that to some degree already--we don't need to institutionalize it.

 

Fox News reported yesterday that the Pentagon has withdrawn its invitation to Franklin Graham to speak at its National Day of Prayer Services on May 6.  The invitation was withdrawn because of statements Mr. Graham made after September 11th concerning the nature of the Muslim religion.  It is no secret to any student of history that the goal of Islam is world domination.  The Koran makes that perfectly clear.  There are millions of peace-loving Muslims who practice Islam while ignoring that aspect of the religion, but unfortunately there are also a small minority who see world domination as a valid goal of their religion.  We ignore that fact at our own peril.  It seems to me that the Pentagon would be more aware of the existence of radical Islam than the rest of us.  The shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, recently should be a reminder of the fact that there are some aspects of Islam that are not peace-loving.  It should be noted that the group that originally protested Mr. Graham's speaking was the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).  CAIR has had some very questionable associations involving terrorist groups and is very adept at using the American legal system against Americans.  It is unfortunate that they were able to prevent Mr. Graham from speaking to the Pentagon on the National Day of Prayer. 

Franklin Graham through his organization Samaritan's Purse has done a lot of work globally to help people in Muslim countries.  He has spent more time visiting countries under Muslim rule than most people.  This is what the article says about his attitude toward Islam:

"Franklin, the son of famed evangelist Billy Graham, told Fox News that he loves Muslim people and wants them to know that God loves them, even if they can be saved only through Jesus Christ.

"I want them to know that they don't have to die in a car bomb, don't have to die in some kind of holy war to be accepted by God. But it's through faith in Jesus Christ and Christ alone," Graham said. 

Graham said said he loves the Muslim people, just not their religion -- which he called "horrid" for its restrictions on women."

It is very unfortunate that Franklin Graham will not be speaking at the Pentagon observance of the National Day of Prayer.  Aside from the fact that he has a son currently serving in Afghanistan, he has a lot to say.

According to the Republican Committee On Oversight And Government Reform website yesterday,  the U.S. Court of Appeals Second Circuit decided to stay the December 2009 injunction by Clinton-appointed Judge Nina Gershon that the Congressional funding ban on the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN) was unconstitutional.  Until the U. S. Court of Appeals further reviews the case, the ban will be in effect, and ACORN will not receive taxpayer dollars.

U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), Ranking Member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and Judiciary Committee, released a statement yesterday that applauded the action that restored the ban on funding for ACORN.  The funding was denied due to criminal conduct and wasteful spending on the part of the organization.  Representative Issa pointed out that Congress does have the right to deny federal funds to an organization.

It will be interesting to see how all of this shakes out.

Today's Auburn Citizen posted an article about the eminent domain discussion surrounding Hilton Hotel's plan to build a hotel and conference center in downtown Auburn, New York.

According to the article:

"A reporting crew from Fox News Channel was in Auburn all day Wednesday to cover a proposal for a hotel and conference center for a series on private property issues.

"The proposal has become the center of a local debate in recent weeks because the developer is asking a city development organization to use eminent domain if the property owners at the site won't sell."

When did developers obtain the right to ask a city development organization to use eminent domain to force property owners to give up their property? 

Also reported:

"Auburn Mayor Michael Quill also appeared in at least one segment, and was quoted saying that the city doesn't "want to hurt" business owners, but also has to look at the "long range for the entire community.""

This is very simple.  Individual property rights are one of the tenets of the U. S. Constitution.  The 2005 decision on the Connecticut case by the Supreme Court was wrong.  It's time to undo it.  The only reason the local politicians are supporting kicking out the current businesses is that they feel the Hilton Hotel, etc., will give them more money to spend.  This is wrong and needs to be stopped.  Just because my house or business is in a desirable location, I should not have to be in fear of my town government in cohoots with a developer taking my property from me and giving to another private owner.  This is not what eminent domain was intended to cover.  To take property for a road or a public purpose is one thing.  To transfer private property from one private owner to another private owner without the first owner's consent is simply wrong.

Yesterday the New York Daily News reported that an Islamic group in Queens, New York, posted on their website, RevolutionMuslim.com, that the creators of South Park 'would probably end up like Theo Van Gogh.'  (Theo Van Gogh was a Dutch filmmaker who was murdered in 2004 because of a documentary he made about violence against Muslim women.)   A spokesman for the group says that the statement was not a threat, it was just a statement of fact. 

According to the article:

"Despite claims that they did not seek to invite violence against Stone and Parker, the site also reportedly revealed where the "South Park" creators work, and included a sermon calling for punishments for blasphemy against the Muslim religion."

It has been years since I have watched South Park.  The show is not for anyone who is offended by coarse language or irreverence.  However, the show has probably mocked every aspect of our society and most celebrities during the time it has been on the air.  The show has been threatened with lawsuits on a regular basis and has enraged someone or other pretty much every week.  However, all that said, threatening death for comic satire is something new to America.  I really think we need to examine this closely and see how we should deal with this.  It seems as if the website could reasonably be charged with making threats.  It also seems that there is a radical element within the Muslim faith that bears more of a resemblance to the Mafia than to a religion.

Dennis Prager posted an opinion piece in the Washington Examiner today about the relationship between America and Israel under the Obama Administration.  Mr. Prager points out that only 9 percent of Jewish Israelis believe that the Obama Administration is more pro-Israel than pro-Palestinian. 

There are a few things we need to remember about Israel.  Israel votes with us at the United Nations more often than any other nation.  Israel also provides us with new technology and and intelligence.  Israel shares the ideals of the founders of America.  A rift between America and Israel does not further the cause of peace in the Middle East--it simply emboldens the enemies of freedom to act against Israel because they do not fear American retaliation.  As Iran has become a major threat to Middle East peace, the weakening of Israel (and the weakening of the Israel-American alliance) simply will embolden Iran.  Lastly, there are many conservative Christians in America who believe the Book of Genesis in the Bible when it says, "I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you."

If you look at modern history, you can see examples of this Biblical truth.  England lost its empire after it reneged on the Balfour Declaration of 1917 (which was supposed to establish the State of Israel and the State of Palestine (in Trans-Jordan).  Germany was divided and economically cripped for a generation or more after Kristallnacht.  The parts of the Arab world that today are focused on hating Israel today are, for the most part, living centuries behind the rest of the world.  With the vast natural resources they have (oil, etc.), what is hindering their progress?

I for one do not want to see America abandon its alliance with Israel.  Whether or not you believe the Bible, I see nothing to be gained by testing this particular verse.  Ignoring the Biblical advice, we need to be friends with Israel just as a practical matter.  They have been good friends for a long time; we don't need to desert them as their enemies grow stronger.

No, I don't mean the SALT treaty--I mean salt--the stuff you have in a shaker on your dinner table.  Haven't they got better things to do?  Like deal with the Iranian nuclear threat?

Anyway, according to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air yesterday, the government is moving toward creating the crisis that will allow it to regulate the amount of salt used in processed foods.  OK, there is too much salt in some canned soup, but those of us who read labels can avoid buying soup with too much salt, and eventually the companies who manufacture it will make more of the lower salt variety.  That is how the free market works.  However, the free market seems to be temporarily sent out to lunch.

According to the article:

"Officials have not determined the salt limits. In a complicated undertaking, the FDA would analyze the salt in spaghetti sauces, breads and thousands of other products that make up the $600 billion food and beverage market, sources said. Working with food manufacturers, the government would set limits for salt in these categories, designed to gradually ratchet down sodium consumption. The changes would be calibrated so that consumers barely notice the modification."

The article further points out:

"High-salt diets may not increase the risk of death, contrary to long-held medical beliefs, according to investigators from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University.

"They reached their conclusion after examining dietary intake among a nationally representative sample of adults in the U.S. The Einstein researchers actually observed a significantly increased risk of death from cardiovascular disease (CVD) associated with lower sodium diets."

So why in the world is the government doing this?  It seems to me that the government is interfering in an awful lot of different areas of our lives for no apparent reason.  Again, the consumer will naturally buy the products that they feel are healthier, the government does not need to intervene.  If the problem is an uneducated consumer, the answer is to educate the consumer--not more government regulation.

According to Associated Press posted at Yahoo.com yesterday, there is fear that another volcano is ready to erupt in Iceland.  The volcano, Katla, is under the Myrdalsjokull glacier, one of Iceland's largest glaciers.  Because it would have to go through roughly twice the amount of ice that the current eruption had to go through, it would be a much larger eruption (and create more problems with the melting glacier as well as the ash cloud).  The new volcano is about twelve miles from the current eruption of the Eyjafjallajokull volcano.

Above is a map of Iceland I copied from LonelyPlanet.  The current eruption and the anticipated eruption are in the bottom center of the map.  The picture in my previous article about the recent volcanic activity in Iceland was taken west of Grindavik, which is in the lower left hand part of the map.  Iceland sits where two tectonic plates meet and is an island powered by the 'green' energy of the volcanic activity where the plates meet and underneath the entire island.  Other than the fact that another eruption will negatively impact air travel around the world, we need to consider also the impact it will have on the people living in the area.

This is a link to a video I found on facebook (posted by Operation Snakebite), Lost In Translation.  The video deals with the problems our American soldiers are having in Helmand Province in Afghanistan due to the language barrier.  The language and cultural battles are difficult.  There are three major languages in Afghanistan and it is difficult to find translators.  It is amazing to see the poverty of the Afghanistan people and their reluctance to ask for the help they need without the approval of the village leader.

The news is full of the Securities and Exchange filing fraud charges against Goldman Sachs.  The timing, however, is interesting. 

According to the article:

"Internet surfers who entered "Goldman Sachs SEC" into Google were directed to the president's campaign Web site via a sponsored link titled "Help Change Wall Street."

"The White House's political arm paid for the keywords -- but would not say how much."

Meanwhile, the White House is claiming they had no advance knowledge of the lawsuit.  The Obama Administration is using the lawsuit as a prop to push its financial regulation legislation.

The idea of financial regulation is a good one, but there are some problems with this bill.  The bill includes a $50 billion bailout slush fund to help any business that is "too big to fail."  The money is administered by the Treasury Department--not by Congress.  That is unconstitutional (if anyone is paying attention to the Constitution these days).  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not included in the financial reform bill--they are not being reformed, despite their role in the mortgage meltdown crisis that began our downward economic spiral. 

The current bill is approximately 1,500 pages long.  Is Congress capable of writing and passing a law that anyone can read and understand?  If not, we need a new Congress.

Yesterday, Investors.com posted a story on what is happening in the health insurance industry in Massachusetts.  The story was posted to shed light on some of the possible consequences of the national healthcare reform bill that was recently passed.

One of the arguments used in supporting the healthcare reform bill was that it would provide affordable health insurance coverage for all Americans.  Under the recently passed bill, everyone must purchase health insurance of pay a fine.  In theory this is a good idea--it provides a larger pool of covered people and spreads the cost around.  However, there will always be people who take pride in gaming the system.  That is what has happened in Massachusetts.

In Massachusetts the fine for not having health insurance covereage is about $900 a year.  The cost of coverage is about $2000 to $3000 a year. 

According to the article:

"Last year, Charles Baker, former CEO of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, one of Massachusetts's largest health plans, noticed some health insurance brokers posting comments on his widely read blog. They were suspicious that people were applying for health coverage after a medical condition developed, got the care they needed, and then dropped the coverage."

Mr. Baker decided to look into this.  According to the article, this is what he found:

"From April 2008 to March 2009, 40% of the individuals who applied to Harvard Pilgrim stayed covered for less than five months. Yet claims were averaging about $2,400 a month, about six times what one would expect."

Needless to say, this greatly impacts the actuary tables the insurance companies use to calculate rates.  This has created a nightmare in terms of the insurance companies asking to raise their rates (the law of unintended consequences) when the legislation was supposed to bring down the cost of health insurance.  We can expect more of the same in the national healthcare reform if it is not repealed and replaced.

As an art project in a California school, the first grade students were asked to draw a magic carpet and say what they would do with it.  This is one child's project.

This is the link to constitutingamerica.org, a website started by Janine Turner (formerly of the CBS series NORTHERN EXPOSURE).  The mission of the site is to reach, educate and inform America's youth and her citizens about the importance of the U.S. Constitution and the foundation it sets forth regarding our freedoms and rights.  The site includes educational information on the U. S. Constitution and the Federalist Papers, scholarship opportunities for students, and all sorts of resources to learn more about the documents that laid the foundation for America.

Check out the site--it's easy to get around and fun to explore!

Today's Washington Times reports that President Obama and Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar will announce by April 30 whether or not backers of the Cape Wind Project off Cape Cod Massachusetts will be able to proceed with their project.

The project had been opposed by the late Senator Kennedy.  Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick supports the project, Senator Kerry has been publicly noncommittal, and newly-elected Senator Scott Brown says he generally supports wind power, but does not support Cape Wind. 

As a resident of Massachusetts who lives in an all-electric house, I have a few questions.  If this wind farm goes forward, how much of the electricity in Massachusetts will it provide?  How will it impact the cost of electricity for Masschusetts residents?  What impact will it have on fishing off the coast of Massachusetts?

This project was first announced in 2001.  It seems as if the answers to the above questions should be fairly easy to find, but when I did a 'google' search, I got a lot of entries and very little information.  One of the points I did find was that because the consumer would have to pay for the construction of the wind farm, electricity rates would actually go up.  I also learned that since only 3 percent of Massachusetts' electricity is oil-generated, the wind farm will have no impact on oil imports.  I also came across an article that explained that Denmark, a leader in wind energy, is moving away from wind and considering nuclear energy.  Although wind energy is 'green energy' it does have some risks--there are concerns about how wind farms affect the bird population of an area.

It will be interesting to see how this turns out.  I really don't think I have enough information to form an opinion at this point, and I suspect there are many other people who feel that way.

The Minnesota Star Tribune posted an article on Saturday about the three hikers who have been held prisoner in Iran since July 31.  Originally, Shane Bauer, 27, his girlfriend, Sarah Shourd, 31, and their friend Joshua Fattal, 27, were detained and put in jail for allegedly crossing an unmarked border.  Since then, the three have been accused of spying and placed in Tehran's Evin Prison.

According to the article:

"Iranian officials initially said the hikers were detained after allegedly crossing an unmarked border. In the months since, several reports, including a BBC story April 9, have surfaced saying that the Iranian government had "credible evidence" that the hikers had links to U.S. intelligence agencies."

Does anyone truly believe that?  Middle Eastern dictatorships have a track record of holding hostages for political purposes.  I suspect these young people are being held hostage as a result of Iran's continuing its nuclear program and the United States objecting to that continuation.  I also think that some of the problem here is a President whose actions have made him appear weak in the eyes of many of our enemies.  When America has a President who appears to be weak, the enemies of democracy and freedom engage in mischief.  We may have to wait until 2012 to get these hostages back--just as we had to wait for Jimmy Carter to leave office and Ronald Reagan to step in during the last Iranian hostage situation.

Today's Washington Examiner quotes Israeli President Shimon Peres as saying that Iran is a threat to the whole world--not just to Israel.  He made that statement while speaking at a memorial service for soldiers and civilians killed in Israel's wars and terror attacks.

The Washington Examiner reports:

"Peres added that a threat to "the peace of the Jewish people always carries the danger of turning into a threat to the civilized world as a whole."

David Aikman, former journalist for TIME magazine, is quoted as saying that Jewish communities everywhere in the world have often been known as the 'canary in the coal mine.'  The way a government behaves toward Jews is the first sign of how it intends to treat all the people under its control.  We need to keep this thought in mind as we watch the nations of the world deal with the threat of Iran going nuclear.  Israel is not the only nation at risk, and if we ignore the risk to the entire world, we do so at our own peril.

Meanwhile, the New York Times reported yesterday that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has warned that the United States does not have a policy in place for dealing with Iran's development of nuclear weapons.  This may be one of the reasons that Iran was not discussed in President Obama's recent nuclear summit--the Administration has no answer on how to deal with the problem.

The obvious answer to Iran becoming a nuclear power is to support the people who want to overthrow the current regime in Iran.  That would most likely end the country's progress toward nuclear weapons.  However, President Obama's unwillingness to at least verbally support the 'green revolution' in the past makes this solution unlikely.  The only economic sanction that would impact Iran would be shutting off its supply of refined gasoline.  Iran has a huge supply of oil, but no refineries to speak of.  The danger in this solution is that we might alienate the people involved in the 'green revolution' in the process and make things more difficult in the future.  There are also doubts that other countries would join us in this effort.

There are no easy answers here, but to do nothing is to accept the fact that Iran will join the ranks of nuclear nations.  Since Iran is the worlds greatest supporter of terrorism (Hamas, Hezbollah, and sometimes Al Qaeda), that is not a reasonable solution.

Yesterday's Washington Post reported that President Obama has extended hospital visitation rights to same-sex partners.  Although this may surprise some people reading this article, I don't have a problem with that--as long as he extends the same rights to heterosexual partners that are not married.  I don't support gay marriage--I feel there is a potential that if gay marriage is legal, we will trample the conscience rights of pastors who believe in the Bible.  I do think, however, that compassion requires visitation rights to people who have lived together and made a commitment to each other--gay or straight.

The problem with legalizing gay marriage is the question of what happens when a pastor who believes the Bible condemns homosexuality refuses to marry a same-sex couple.  Does he have a right of conscience to refuse to perform that marriage?  Does a photographer who believes the Biblical position on homosexuality have the right to refuse to take pictures?  Could we honor everyone's rights by allowing civil unions and not involving the church?  I don't claim to have the answers to these questions--I bring them up simply to make the point that this is a very complex issue, and we need to find a way to protect the rights of as many people as possible.

Boston.com is reporting today on the efforts of Massachusetts to bring down the cost of its mandated health insurance.  The companies that sell health insurance in the state are beginning to sell policies that prohibit the insured person from using the more expensive (and popular) hospitals such as Massachusetts General and Brigham and Women's for their care.  It saves money for employers buying insurance for their workers, and it saves money for the individual buying insurance, but is this really a good idea?

It would be nice to lower health insurance costs, but when the law required that insurance companies had to insure everyone who applied for insurance, costs were bound to go up.  The state interference in the healthcare insurance market has totally skewed the actuary tables.  Because people can buy insurance for a period when they know they will have major medical expenses and then drop the insurance, the previous actuary numbers no longer apply.  The insurance companies are trying to stay in business with a reasonable profit margin (yes, they are entitled to make a profit), and the state (which does not necessarily understand how health insurance works) is trying to control them.

It's time Massachusetts realized that its universal healthcare plan was not really a good idea.  Affordable insurance coverage for everyone could be achieved by easier means.  Let's begin with tort reform, high risk insurance pools, commerce across state lines, and tax deductions to buy health insurance.  Those things might actually work.

The March 2010 issue of Imprimis ( a publication of Hillsdale College in Hillsdale, Michigan) featured an article by Andrew McCarthy.  Mr. McCarthy was an Assistant U. S. Attorney in the South District of New York.  He led the terrorism prosecutiion agains Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (and others) in connection with the World Trade Center Bombing.  Because of his experience as Assistant U. S. Attorney and his involvement of the trials of the World Trade Center bombers, he understands terrorism very well.

The article deals with the concept of habeas corpus, and Mr. McCarthy explains it in terms that people like me who don't understand legal jargon can understand.  He points out that Article I, Section 9 of the U. S. Constitution states:

"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be usspended, unless whne in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

He points out that when our country is in danger, our Constitution adapts and imposes the laws and customs of war.  He also states that, "The Framers of the Constitution understood that the rights we cherish would be little more than parchment promises unless we could defend ourselves and defeat our enemies."  Unfortunately, in recent history we have lost this principle. 

Mr. McCarthy concludes:

"The Constitution of Justice Jackson--like the Constitution of Presidents Jackson, Lincoln, and Roosevelt--is that of a free, self-governing people. Such a people does not surrender control of the most fundamental political decisions--such as those concerning national defense--to officials who are not politically accountable. Nor should our elected officials voluntarily surrender control of those decisions. We must reject the idea of entrusting our security to judicial processes or we shall eventually find ourselves neither secure nor free."

Please follow the above link and read the entire article.  It is very enlightening.  This article was quoted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College. 

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article today about the Democrat's passage of the pay-go rules which require them to fund any new legislation they pass, rather than creating larger deficits.  Remember the celebrating in February when they passed the bill?  Well, since they passed it, they are 0-3 in complying with it.

Mr. Morrissey cites a Politico article in his post that states:

"The short-term unemployment benefits bill, which was headed toward final passage in the House on Thursday night, also includes the COBRA health program and a Medicare reimbursement adjustment known as the "doc fix." The bill bypassed pay-as-you-go rules because it was designated as a temporary "emergency" spending plan."

Mr. Morrissey points out that the Democrats will probably avoid the constraints of the pay-go rule in next year's budget by not passing a budget.  They will fund the government at this year's budget levels and then increase those levels after the 2010 elections either waiving pay-go or increasing taxes significantly.  Either way, the American people lose.  We need to remember as we plan for the coming year that the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of 2010.  The expiration of those tax cuts plus the tendency of the Democrat Congress to spend our money very freely does not bode well for the economic future of America.

I haven't yet written about President Obama's nuclear summit because I hadn't found an article that summed it up for me.  Well, the wait is over!  Charles Krauthammer posted an article at the Washington Post today that kind of summed up my reaction.

Mr. Krauthammer points out in his article that the two major threats to the world in the area of nuclear weaponry were ignored at the meeting.  Iran was not on the agenda; as the world's largest supporter of terrorism and racing toward a nuclear bomb, Iran should have at least receive a mention of some kind.  The other threat that Mr. Krauthammer points out is Pakistan, a country that is friendly to us, but is rapidly increasing its plutonium production, which is adding to the world's stockpile of fissile material every day.  The government of Pakistan is not noted for its stability, and their status as a growing nuclear power could easily constitute a future problem.

Mr. Krauthammer points out:

"So what was the major breakthrough announced by Obama at the end of the two-day conference? That Ukraine, Chile, Mexico and Canada will be getting rid of various amounts of enriched uranium.

"What a relief. I don't know about you, but I lie awake nights worrying about Canadian uranium. I know these people. I grew up there. You have no idea what they're capable of doing. If Sidney Crosby hadn't scored that goal to win the Olympic gold medal, there's no telling what might have ensued."

The Obama nuclear summit was another example of the charade this administration has become.  There was a lot of pomp and circumstance and very little substance.  Hopefully we can replace Congress and the President soon enough to prevent any permanent damage to our country or the world. 

On April 14, the Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee posted a chart of all the new taxes that have been enacted by the Obama Administration.  The chart is a pdf file that can be found at Republicans.WaysandMeansCommittee.  It details all the increased taxes passed by President Obama and Congress since he took office.  A look at the chart easily explains why the Tea Parties exist!  Many of these taxes will go unnoticed because they are placed on corporations.  Any tax placed on a corporation is generally passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices for the product.  As consumers, we notice that the price of some things goes up, but we don't necessarily understand that it is because of a federal tax.

Meanwhile, according to The Hill yesterday, the President joked at a fundraiser that the Tea Parties should be thanking him for his tax cuts.  There are an awful lot of people who just filed their tax returns yesterday who might not agree with that statement.

This is a crowd shot of the Worcester Massachusetts Tea Party.  There were approximately five thousand people there.  The number of people who are concerned with the growth of our government and the increases in the amount of taxes many Americans will be paying in the future is growing.

This is a picture from today's Worcester Tea Party.  The coffins were marched to the podium to the sound of a bagpipe playing "Amazing Grace."  The coffins represent the death of the American Dream, financial stability, the individual, the U. S. Constitution, free markets, and our children's future.  The message of the Tea Party was that everyone needs to be involved in our government and that the American people need to hold their elected officials accountable for their actions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is the face of the Worcester Tea Party 2010.  Her shirt says, "Born in Taxachusetts."  There were five thousand or more people in attendance.  Some of the candidates that are running in the Republican primary elections for Congress in the district that includes Worcester were there. 

The crowd included people of all ages--parents, students, children, and grandparents.  One of the speakers was a college student whose family had immigrated to this country about ten years ago.  He expressed his parents' concern that America was moving toward the type of government they had fled in Russia.

 

The headline at the Newsweek website today is "Today Is The Best Tax Day Of Your LIfe."  The article is written by Robert Samuelson, who points out that because of growing deficits, increased healthcare spending and the baby boomer generation beginning to retire and collect Social Security, the amount we pay in taxes today may be the lowest amount we pay for a long time.  According to the Tax Policy Center of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, 47 per cent of American households do not pay any taxes.  Among the elderly, 55 percent pay no income tax.  Among households with children 54 percent don't pay taxes.  Among married couples filing jointly, only 38 percent don't pay taxes.  Until the tax burden is somehow spread evenly among the people, there will be no incentive to cut spending and reduce taxes.

The article points out:

"To which (increased federal spending and endless budget deficits) there's at least one obvious solution: raise taxes. By all estimates, the budget outlook is daunting. The latest projections of the Congressional Budget Office reckon the cumulative deficits under President Obama's policies to be $12.7 trillion from 2009 to 2020. In 2020 the estimated annual deficit will be $1.25 trillion, or 5.6 percent of the economy (gross domestic product), despite assumed "full employment" of 5 percent. And the deficits get larger with every succeeding year. Given unavoidable uncertainties, these precise projections are likely to prove wrong. But their basic message seems incontestable: there's a large and growing gap between the government's promises and the existing tax base."

 

Please read the entire article to see the full picture of where we are and where we are going.

Has it occurred to anyone that the answer to the problem may be to cut the size of government?  The biggest mistake America ever made was to air-condition Congress.  If it were not air conditioned, we could send them home when the weather got warm and they would be forced to live as ordinary Americans for the summer!

Yesterday's Boston Herald posted an article about the Tea Party Express (featuring Sarah Palin) visit to Boston yesterday.  Her basic message is simple--lower taxes so Americans can keep more of what they earn and "drill, baby, drill."  The Tea Party Express began its journey across America on March 27th at Searchlight, Nevada, and will conclude today in Washington, D, C.  Their basic goal is lower taxes for Americans.  As they tour, they highlight those Congressmen in Washington who have voted to increase taxes and government. 

The basic message on the Tea Party website, Tea Party Express, is "Just Vote Them Out."  That's not a bad place to start, but I think the real solution to the current American political morass is term limits.  Congressmen should be sent home after one of two terms and forced to live under the laws they pass.  They should not be exempt from any legislation they are responsible for.  The Founding Fathers envisioned a 'citizen legislature' that would serve the public for a short while and then return to their previous occupation.  Unfortunately, too many people in our government today have no previous occupation and do not understand how the laws they pass impact the average American.

On a personal note, through a series of unplanned events, I heard Sarah Palin speak in upstate New York last year.  My husband and I were there for a family wedding and just happened to stay in a hotel across the street from where she was speaking.  She is a charismatic speaker who draws a large crowd.  Sitting next to us was a group of college students who were totally impressed by what she said.  I feel that the media has attempted to do a hatchet job on her personally and that they have been somewhat successful.  I am not sure what impact that will have on any political plans she may have for the future.  She was a successful governor of the State of Alaska and a successful small-town mayor, and I feel that she has a contribution to make in American politics.  She stood up to oil industry special interests as governor of Alaska and seems to have a good understanding of how energy policy works.  I'm not sure she is a viable candidate, but if a Republican becomes President in the near future, he (or she) would be smart to include Sarah Palin in his Cabinet.

This is a picure taken in Reykjanes, Iceland.  What you are looking at is the place where the North American and Eurasian tectonic plates meet.  (If you look closely toward the middle of the bridge, you will see a white spot--that is my hat!  The picture was taken in February 2007.  Please note the gray quality of the ground--it is lava rock occasionally covered by moss.) These plates are drawing apart at the rate of approximately 2 centimeters a year.  Iceland is a breathtakingly beautiful island build over a volcanic hot-spot in the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and is used to an occasional volcanic eruption.  The latest eruption was Wednesday under the Eyjafjallajokull glacier.

Yesterday's Washington Post reported on the eruption.

According to the article:

"The Icelandic Civil Defense Authority ordered 700 people to evacuate their homes and said melting ice from the glacier had caused big floods that threatened to damage a highway and several bridges, an official told Reuters."

The danger to the population in the area of the eruption is flooding as the ice from the glacier melts.  The civil defense people in Iceland are digging holes to attempt to take the pressure of the flood waters away from the bridges in the area.

Iceland is an amazing country.  They have truly discovered 'green energy'.  Because they sit on a volcanic hot-spot, they use the heat of the volcanoes to produce energy.  When we stayed there, the hot water in the hotel came from the volcanoes and the cold water came from the glaciers.  The floor of the hotel was hot-water heated, so you never stepped out onto a cold floor in the morning.  However, you never knew when you stepped into the shower how strong the smell of sulfur would be!  We saw greenhouses everywhere--again the electricity to heat them was inexpensive and 'green'.   I am hopeful that the two recent volcanic eruptions are not an indication of things to come.  The people of Iceland are wonderful, and I wish them safety as they deal with this recent event.

Yesterday, Dick Morris posted an article at The Hill opposing the current financial reform bill in Congress.  If passed into law, the financial reform bill that passed the House last year would give the power to the President and the Treasury Secretary to take over any financial institute that they deemed "too big to fail."  There is no judicial review written into the process, and there is no level of evidence required to trigger a takeover.

After the government takes over a company, it has the right to fire the board of directors and the management, wipe out the stockholder equity, and sell off divisions of the company.  It seems to me that this is more than a little unconstitutional. 

Mr. Morris points out that the bill contains consumer protection provisions that he supports, but no one is paying attention to the federal power grab in the other parts of the bill. 

The problems that caused the financial crisis that led to the housing bust had more to do with federal intrusion than bankers' failures.  The pressure on banks to make sub-prime loans caused the banks to find a way to offload questionable assets.  Eventually the whole house of cards collapsed.  The way to avoid a repeat performance is to let the banks make wise business decisions rather than forcing them to make risky loans.  One of the banks in the area of Massachusetts where I live came through the mortgage meltdown beautifully.  They had very few foreclosures and were secure.  They then got a letter from the government criticizing the bank for not lending enough, slapping it with a "needs to improve" rating under the Community Reinvestment Act (see rightwinggranny.com article of March 20, 2009).  Business does better with less regulation--not more!

America is a nation of immigrants.  Many of our leaders in science, industry, and entrepreneurship have been new Americans or first generation Americans.  I believe in immigration.  I believe in legal immigration.  I also believe that our current immigration laws need to be looked at carefully and updated to reflect the world in which we currently live.

Today, The Hill reports that Harry Reid wants to tackle immigration reform this year.  The political pundits in Nevada point out that mobilizing Hispanic voters could mean an election victory for Reid in November.  I guess I'm just cynical, but I don't have enough confidence in the wisdom of Harry Reid to want to see another 2,000 page bill that no one has read passed this year.  The article at The Hill points out that conservative Democrats do not want to deal with this issue right now.

At some point we have to reevaluate our immigration rules.  The idea of immigration is that you want people to immigrate who will contribute something to the country.  Many of our ancestors were dirt poor when they arrived here, but they were willing to work, and in doing so contributed greatly to the country.  I am willing to let anyone come here who is willing to work and wants to be an American (learn the language, assimilate, etc.).

On a personal note, through a series of events a number of years ago, I found myself in a church service with a group of Russian worshipers.  Very few of them spoke English.  As we mingled after the service, through some of the bi-lingual people there, I learned that some of these people had been scientists, engineers and highly skilled workers in Russia.  Now they were doing factory or assembly jobs.  Because they had not (for whatever reason) learned English, they were not able to use their gifts fully in the American economy.  Forcing someone who is in America to learn English is not mean--it will open doors of opportunity for them that nothing else will.  We need an immigration policy that draws people who want to work and want to be part of this country.  Seeing a pro-immigration protester flying a Mexican flag does not encourage me.

According to the website Gene Expression, in 2002 the population replacement rate in the USA was 2.1.  Unless we want to be a nation of old people (not that there is anything wrong with old people), we need to consider how to change our immigration policy so that it meets both our needs and the needs of the people who want to come here.

On Monday, the Wall Street Journal posted an article about the coming shortage of doctors.  According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, at current graduation and training rates, the nation will face a shortage of as many as 150,000 doctors in the next fifteen years.  We are facing a shortage of Primary Care Physicians, doctors whose role will in patient care will grow under the new healthcare reform bill recently passed. 

According to the article:

"The U.S. has 352,908 primary-care doctors now, and the college association estimates that 45,000 more will be needed by 2020. But the number of medical-school students entering family medicine fell more than a quarter between 2002 and 2007."

Currently, there are efforts being made to solve this problem.  There are incentives in the healthcare reform act to encourage people to become doctors and there is a 10 percent Medicare pay boost for primary-care doctors.  There have also been some new medical schools opening around the country.  There is, however, a bottleneck in the planned growth in the number of doctors--there is a shortage of medical resident positions.

According to the article:

"There are about 110,000 resident positions in the U.S., according to the AAMC. Teaching hospitals rely heavily on Medicare funding to pay for these slots. In 1997, Congress imposed a cap on funding for medical residencies, which hospitals say has increasingly hurt their ability to expand the number of positions."

There is a map at the bottom of the article showing the number of doctors per patient in each state.  Please follow the link above to view the map. 

This problem is not totally the result of the new healthcare reform bill, but because of the number of people who will suddenly be insured and seeking primary care physicians, the healthcare reform bill will make the doctor shortage more obvious more quickly.

Today's Washington Times has an opinion piece by Wesley Pruden on the coming Supreme Court nomination by President Obama.  President Obama has stated "that in a democracy powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens."  (What does he think the SEIU does???)  Mr. Pruden points out that powerful interests should not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens, but that didn't used to be the concern of judges.  The job of a Supreme Court justice is to uphold the Constitution.  That is supposed to be the basis of his decisions. 

Mr. Pruden points out that because the Democrats have 59 votes, they will probably be able to confirm pretty much anyone.  However, the Republicans have 41 votes.  With their 41 votes and a spine, the Republicans could turn this nomination process into a teachable moment.  Now is the time to ask the questions that will let the American people see what is happening to our Republic.  If the Republicans ask valid questions that educate the American people, they could accomplish good things for themselves and for our country.

This is a chart that was posted at Fox News yesterday.  The title of the article was "Obama's Secret Power Grabs."  The chart shows how the Obama Administration has by-passed Congress when Congress was not going to vote the way President Obama wanted it to vote.  One of the interesting things to me is the recess appointment of Craig Becker, which will probably result in the loss of the secret ballot in union votes.  Recess appointments have been used before to place people who were not confirmed in specific positions, but I don't believe a recess appointment has been used before to push through a law that Congress would not pass.  If this trend continues, our democracy will be endangered.  There is a 'working model' of this chart at Americans For Prosperity which explains each section as you click on its box.  Please visit their website for further details.

Yesterday Hot Air posted a story about a slight oversight in the new healthcare reform bill.  Evidently there is something in the bill that forces Congress to leave the federal employees healthcare plan and be part of the insurance exchange programs that will begin in 2014.  Unfortunately, the way the law is understood, Congress will be required to leave its current healthcare plan immediately to take part in the exchange programs (that don't begin until 2014).  I realize that this is a silly little thing, but it is an example of what happens when a very large bill is passed without giving anyone the time to study its implications.

The article concludes:

"I'd call it comedy gold if not for the obvious point raised by the Times: "If they did not know exactly what they were doing to themselves, did lawmakers who wrote and passed the bill fully grasp the details of how it would influence the lives of other Americans?""

I think that's about right!

Star Parker has posted an article at Townhall.com today entitled, "Why I'm Running For Congress."  Ms. Parker has worked for urban renewal and to fight poverty for a number of years. 

In her article she states:

"All of this effort has been aimed to deliver one basic message. That the barrier between America's chronically poor and the American dream is the welfare state socialism which was supposed to be our answer to poverty."

She recalls being on welfare as a young woman and describes it as, "A dehumanized culture of dependence and irresponsibility that encourages behavior exactly the opposite of what a successful life demands."

She further points out that fifty years and more than a trillion dollars after President Lyndon Johnson began the War on Poverty, the rate of poverty in America is unchanged.

She states in her article:

"As I wrote a little over a year ago: "I thought we were on the road to moving socialism out of poor black communities and replacing it with wealth producing American capitalism. But, incredibly, we are going in the opposite direction. Instead of poor America on socialism becoming more like rich America on capitalism, rich America on capitalism is becoming like poor America on socialism." "

Please follow the above link to read the entire article.  She explains the issues that have caused her to decide to run for Congress in detail. 

We have fought the war on poverty for almost fifty years now; and we have obviously lost.  Our government has funded and subsidized behavior that leads to the continuation of poverty, not the end of poverty and the beginning of success.  When the government pays people who do not work and takes money from people who do, there will be fewer people who are interested in working.  The fact that almost half of all Americans now do not pay income tax further complicates the problem--they have no reason to care if people who work pay more taxes. 

I wish Ms. Parker well in her campaign.

 

Today's Washington Examiner posted an editorial on how we got to the subprime mortgage mess.  This subject is also explored in a YouTube video called "Burning Down The House", which I have linked to in previous posts.

The Washington Examiner points out that the mismanagement of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac combined with the obstruction of Congressional regulators played a major role in creating and bursting the housing bubble in the early 2000's. 

The article points out:

"Rather than offer a serious discussion of how to reform the two government-sanctioned enterprises (GSEs), however, President Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress are only offering legislation to punish bank CEOs and stiffen regulations for private sector banks."

The problem had more to do with the government interference with borrowing standards of the banks than it did with the banks.  When community organizers began showing up at meetings of bank stockholders to protest that not enough money was being lent to people who could not pay it back, the problems began. 

The article concludes:

"So now the question is whether the FCIC (Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission) will name names in its forthcoming report of those in Congress and the executive branch who protected and advanced Fannie and Freddie, at grievous expense to American taxpayers."

 

Every American was affected in some way by the misbehavior of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and its Congressional overseers.  It would be nice to see the truth come out!

Carol Platt Liebau posted a note at Townhall.com yesterday about some of the tactics planned to discredit theTea Parties that are happening around the country this week.  A website called CrashTheTeaParty.org has been set up for that purpose. The premise of the website is that they are a group of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents who plan to expose the fact that the people involved in the 'Tea Party' movement are "racists, homophobes, and moron."  Their stated goal is "to dismantle and demolish the Tea Party by any non-violent means necessary."  Why????

This is simply wrong.  I attended the Tea Party in Providence, Rhode Island, last year and plan to attend the one in Worcester, Massachusetts, this year.  I don't consider myself a racist, homophobe, or moron.  The people I saw in Providence last year were people concerned about job security, higher taxes, and increasing government interference in their lives.  There were people there from every generation--grandparents, parents, college students, teenagers, and young children.  Some of the signs were 'edgy' but I did not see anything racist or offensive to any minority.  I particularly enjoyed the people who took the time to attend dressed in the costumes of the Revolutionary War period.

It is sad that there are people in this country so threatened by free speech that they will try to undermine it.

When the government of the United States was formed, the idea was that people would go to Washington to lead us for a short period of time and then they would return home to live under the laws that they had passed.  Well, times have changed.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air reported yesterday on a move by the Obama Administration to make the use of unpaid interns in for-profit businesses illegal.  The Administration has stated that it feels the purpose of using interns is to avoid minimum-wage laws. 

Mr. Morrissey points out:

"It is amusing to see the Obama administration creating the image of poorly treated unpaid interns, when Mr. Obama's Organizing for America offered internships to help elect the president in during his presidential campaign and are still offering up unpaid internships today. The Summer organizing program also does not even offer food, transportation, or housing stipends."

Mr. Morrissey also notes that the unemployment rate among young adults is 26 per cent.  Internship programs in the past have provided young adults with work experience that has helped them in finding a job.  Ending internships makes finding employment more difficult for teenagers and new college graduates.

The rules ending internships only apply to for-profit organizations--the politically elite are exempt.

On Thursday, a San Antonio Newspaper posted a story about the reenlistment of Marine Cpl. Matthew Bradford into the Marines.  It wasn't your everyday reenlistment.  Cpl. Bradford is the first blind double amputee to re-enlist.  He was injured in Iraq while on patrol in Al Anbar province a few months into his first tour of duty there. 

The article states:

"Bradford said he wants to focus his energy on others, now that he's come so far in his own recovery.

"He said he hopes to help wounded Marines cope with anger, depression and other demons that can fester if there's not someone around to provide strong peer mentoring.

""I'm paving the road for the rest of them who want to stay in but think they can't," he said. "I'm ready to get back to work.""

What an amazing man.  Please follow the link and read the entire article.  The story of his accomplishments since his injuries is inspiring.

On Friday, Investors.com posted an article about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu deciding not to attend President Obama's nuclear security summit in Washington this week.  Some of the countries attending the summit (Egypt and Turkey) had planned to say that Israel must sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).  Israel has never admitted to having nuclear weapons and has never threatened to use them against another country.  Why, then, were Egypt and Turkey planning to make this an issue?

The article also reports:

"Just last week we learned from the Israeli daily Maariv that the U.S. has refused visas for technicians and scientists at Dimona to get further nuclear training in the U.S. This will estrange our Israeli ally and weaken America's security posture in the Mideast."

There are reports that the White House has denied this charge.  I am not sure exactly what the status of the visas is. 

We need to remember that Israel exists in a dangerous neighborhood.  Its neighbors have invaded it on numerous occasions.  One of the things that has kept Israel safe is the general conclusion that it has nuclear weapons and the fear that they would be used.  To take nuclear weapons away from Israel is to make the world a more dangerous place.

Worcester, MA - April 8, 2010 - The Worcester Tea Party, a local grassroots organization dedicated to fiscal conservatism and constitutional integrity, will hold the 2nd Annual Tax Day Tea Party on April 15, 2010, from 4-6pm, Lincoln Square, Worcester. This family friendly event is open to all patriotic citizens in order to share in our appreciation of American values.

Organizers plan political theater that Republicans, Democrats, and unenrolleds will enjoy. Local favorite, The Big Gunz Band has been confirmed as performing at this year's rally. A mix of ordinary citizens of all ages and experiences will speak in support of this year's theme, "Reclaim Liberty."

The Worcester Tea Party is a response to the usurpation and subversion of personal freedoms and free market capitalism by the federal government.  Tea Party participants support:
   
- The return to our founding Constitutional principles of personal  responsibility, integrity, honesty, liberty, and economic freedom 
- The re-assertion of our sovereignty as free men and women                                       
- The re-establishment of local control through the strengthening of the rights of individual states
- The holding accountable of our government through citizen activism

The group accomplishes these objectives through educating, recruiting, organizing, and mobilizing the citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 

In 2009, the Worcester Tea Party organized the Tax Day Tea Party, the summer Rally for Responsible Government in Elm Park, and the Worcester Tea Party Forum featuring Holy Cross Professor Nick Sanchez. The group also sent hundreds of Massachusetts residents to the 9/12 Rally in DC and its members volunteered to help the campaigns of a variety of fiscally conservative candidates. For more information, seehttp://www.worcesterteaparty.com 
  
Contact:
Ken Mandile
Worcester Tea Party
wtp@worcesterteaparty.com
http://www.worcesterteaparty.com

As a resident 'old person', sometimes the changes in our society alarm me.  They seem to come from all directions, and a lot of them are not necessarily good.  If you want to look at where some of our culture has gone consider that Annette Funicello was a mouseketeer in the late 1950's and Britney Spears was a mouseketeer in the 1990's.  The contrast between the two is obvious.

One of the other areas that has changed drastically is political civility.  Ronald Reagan used to spend time with Tip O'Neill routinely after hours, and the men reportedly got along very well despite their political differences.  Things, unfortunately, have changed.  New York's CBS 2 reported yesterday on a memo that went out from the leader of the Bergen County (NJ) Teacher's Union.  The memo was rather simple. 

In the memo, the writer stated:

"Dear lord,' this year you have taken away my favorite actor, Patrick Swayze, my favorite actress, Farrah Fawcett, my favorite singer, Michael Jackson, and my favorite salesman, Billy Mays. I just wanted to let you know that Chris Christie is my favorite governor."

The author of the memo, Joseph Coppola, did apologize for the memo.  He said that it was intended as a joke, but did admit that it was in very poor taste.  He also stated that it was definitely bad judgment to send it out. 

This isn't even a question of civility--it's a question of common sense and who people trust to be in leadership positions.  This is the sort of thing high school students occasionally say about their teachers (but only to each other), and they don't write them down or email them.  Mr. Coppola should be long past that level of maturity.  The union might want to consider who they elect as their leaders.

Scott Johnson at Power Line posted a story today about Mohammed al-Madadi, the diplomat from Qatar who set off a bomb scare by smoking his pipe in the bathroom on an airplane.  When confronted by the crew, he joked that he was trying to light his shoes and refused to give up his lighter to the crew.  At that point, he was apprehended by the Federal Air Marshalls on the flight.  The article points out:

"Madadi's mission is also worthy of note. Madadi was going to meet Ali Al-Marri, a citizen of Qatar who is serving eight years in prison after pleading guilty last year to conspiring to support terrorism. Fox News assures us that such diplomatic visits are routine."

Scott Johnson at this point asks some very relevant questions--"Al-Marri as an imprisoned al Qaeda agent. How many of these guys do we have incarcerated in the United States? What countries are they from? Are diplomats from these countries in fact routinely meeting with them?"

Using diplomatic immunity for purposes other than diplomacy is not a new game.  The Russians did it during the cold war, and I suspect we have done it on occasion ourselves.

The article further reports:

"The Fox News account states that no explosives were found on the flight and that officials were satisfied that Madadi was not trying to hurt anyone. But might he have been probing airline security in the aftermath of Umar Abdulmutallab's attempted bombing of the flight to Detroit this past Christmas? Abdulmutallab went to the bathroom just before he sought to ignite the explosives he was wearing."

Is anyone at Homeland Security paying attention?

These story is based on two articles posted on the internet yesterday--one from the New York Times and one from Fox News.  You really need to read both to get the full picture of what is going on.

Bart Stupak announced Friday that he would not seek another term in the House of Representatives.  The New York Times article cited the reason that he had achieved his goal of reforming healthcare and was ready to step down.  The New York Times reminds us that Representative Stupak, who portrayed himself as a pro-life Democrat, only supported the healthcare reform act after President Obama agreed to an Executive Order prohibiting the use of federal money to fund abortions.  The article failed to mention that an Executive Order does not overrule laws passed by Congress and signed by the President.

The New York Times article concludes:

"Still, some Democrats insisted that the whole health care discussion would play little role in this race in the end. "I've talked to members of Congress, and the numbers of calls are down," said Mark Brewer, chairman of the Michigan Democratic Party. "That issue is quickly fading." "

Fox News reports some other aspects of the story.  The Tea Party Express has been in Representative Stupak's district this week, calling for his defeat.  The non-partisan Cook Political Report has moved Representative Stupak's seat from "Solid Democratic" to "Toss Up."

I have no idea what the man's actual reason was for retiring, but I have an observation.  I don't believe that healthcare reform will fade as an issue--the way it was passed is an much of an issue as what was in it.  There is also the matter of many Democrats who voted for it admitting that they did not know exactly what was in it and had not read it.  But I also have another theory on why Democrats in the House are resigning.  I just don't think it's all that much fun to be in the majority in Congress right now.  The programs that President Obama is attempting to push through are not popular with most of the American people, and thuggish tactics are being used to push them through.  I suspect many Representatives in the House feel that they have somehow begun working for Nancy Pelosi rather than working for the American people.  I also suspect that when you disagree with her, Nancy Pelosi is not a joy to work for.  I believe a political line was crossed in the way that healthcare reform was passed, and I suspect that the people who crossed that line may pay a high political price for doing so.

The UK Telegraph posted an article yesterday reporting that grazing cows and sheep may not contribute to global warming.  A recent study in China showed that cows grazing in China actually reduced nitrous oxide, another greenhouse gas.  The Authors of the study said that this does not mean that producing livestock to eat is good for the environment in all countries, but that in certain circumstances, letting cattle graze can be good for the environment.  Most of the article attempts to explain why these studies do not mean that it's ok to eat red meat.  I posted this to make one point--we really don't know as much as we think we do about global warming and what causes it.  Meanwhile, we really don't understand how much of climate change is natural cycles in the life of the planet.  I will continue to eat steak.

Hugh Hewitt at Townhall.com reported yesterday on a Congressionally mandated bulletin board that will be set up by the Consumer Products Safety Commission next spring to track safety issues and recalls relating to American products.  It sounds like a really good idea, until you look at it a little more closely.  The problem is that there is no filter on the bulletin board.  A disgruntled employee, an angry ex-spouse, a competitive company (all posts are anonymous) can post something about a problem, a predicted problem, or an imaginary problem.  There is no way a reader of the bulletin board can evaluate a post, because they have no way of knowing who posted it.  The opportunity for abuse is immense.

The article points out:

"A few lawyers specializing in CPSC law have begun to warn their clients of the perils ahead, especially when the plaintiffs' bar begins to both hunt for clients among the postings and to use the "reports" found there in courtrooms far and wide as evidence of a pattern or practice of corporate indifference to injury."

Hugh Hewitt is a practicing lawyer who is familiar with how our legal system works (both the good and the bad).  He points out the dangers to American companies if this bulletin board goes up in its present form.  The amount of money an American company will have to spend tracking and responding to charges posted on this bulletin board (true or false) will significantly increase their expenses--not to mention to possible damage that could be done by someone who slanders a company or product for their own reasons.  This is another attack on American business.

 

Today the Wall Street Journal and the American Thinker both reported on the healthcare crisis that is going on in Massachusetts as a result of the state taking over the healthcare industry in 2006.  It has taken four years for the chickens to come home to roost, but they are here.  (Just a note--the link to the Wall Street Journal will only get you part of the article--it's a subscribers only article).

One of the problems in Massachusetts is that no one can be denied insurance and pre-existing conditions are covered fully.  What is happening is that people who have major medical issues wait until they know they are going to need expensive treatment, sign up for health insurance, and drop the insurance after the treatment.  Harvard Pilgrim and Blue Cross (major insurance providers in the state) report that short term customers ran up costs well outside their normal expenditures, then dropped their insurance.  This makes the cost of insuring everyone go up.  When the companies asked for rate increases in their premiums, the governor denied 235 of 274 of the requests for premium increases.

According to the article at American Thinker:

"Massachusetts' "insurance regulators have concluded the reason [that state's] premiums are the highest in the nation is the underlying cost of health care, not the supposed industry abuses" imagined by President Obama and Governor Patrick."

That should have been obvious before they passed the law.  As a result of the refusal of their premium increases, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Harvard Pilgrim, and Tufts Heath Plan (the major plans in Massachusetts) have stopped selling policies in the state.  I'm not sure how this will end, but right now the state-run healthcare program that was supposed to be the example for Obamacare is in trouble.  It will be interesting to see what the eventual solution will be.

Yesterday, Paul Mirengoff at Power Line reported that Senator Leahy, head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has announced that the hearings on the appointment of Goodwin Liu to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will proceed on schedule. 

Mr. Liu has just provided the committee with 117 previously withheld items that were requested.  According to this article, the material deals with his ideas on controversial items such as affirmative action, judicial activism, immigration, and "constitutional welfare rights."

Mr. Mirengoff concludes:

"Under these circumstances, I wonder whether Leahy is making a mistake by rushing ahead. At the end of the day, the Dems will need some Republican votes to confirm Liu in the face of a filibuster. Even if they can stomach Liu's radical positions on issues like reparations to African-Americans, the likes of Susan Collins, Lindsey Graham, and Scott Brown aren't likely to be happy about efforts to limit the ability of Republicans fully to explore Liu's key writings and the reasons why he withheld many of them from the Senate."

I understand that the President has the power to appoint judges, and generally speaking, I think he should be allowed his choices, but do we really need to appoint a judge who believes in reparations and "constitutional welfare rights?"  It seems as if the Democrats in the majority have forgotten how even to be reasonable when they are in power.

Today, Daniel Mitchell, a Cato Institute senior fellow, posted an article at the New York Post about Paul Volker's comments recently on the possibility of instituting a VAT (Value Added Tax).   Mr. Mitchell points out that a VAT will turn America into a slow-growth, European-style economy, rather than the dynamic economy we are accustomed to.  He points out that the proper way to grow the economy would be to reverse the explosion of government spending. 

A VAT tax is rather simple to institute--a tax is added to an item at every stage of the manufacturing process.  Mr. Mitchell uses the manufacture of furniture as an example.  A VAT would be imposed when the raw timber is sold; again when the sawmill produces lumber; again when the manufacturer builds the chair; a tax at the wholesale level, and a tax when the chair is sold to the consumer.  To avoid duplicate tax paying, each level of taxpayer is given credit for the previous payment, thus theoretically charging the consumer only the basic sales tax.  However, a tax was paid at every level of 'value added'.  Doesn't it follow that the businesses who pay that tax at every level will pass those costs on to the eventual consumer--thus increasing the price of every product you buy?  You won't see a VAT tax--you will just notice that the price of everything went up abruptly.

The advantage of the VAT would be that if you used it to replace the income tax, it would save all of us a whole lot of paperwork and aggravation!   Unfortunately, Congress is looking at the VAT tax as something to add in addition to the income tax. 

Mr. Mitchell concludes:

"Today's income-tax system is a nightmarish combination of class warfare and corrupt loopholes. But adding a VAT solves none of those problems, it merely gives politicians more money to spend and a chance to auction off a new set of tax breaks to interest groups. That's good for Washington, but bad for America."

 

What we need in Washington is not another tax to pay for the increased spending.  We need more of our money and less spending.  Please remember that in November.

Yahoo News yesterday posted an Associated Press story reporting that about 47 percent of United States households do not pay income tax.  Because of the tax credits for low and middle-income families, a family of four, with two children under the age of 17, with an income of as much as $50,000 will owe no federal income tax for 2009.  Tax cuts for low and middle-income families were expanded when President Obama signed the economic recovery package last year.  The top 10 percent of earners pay about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the government.  When you consider that these are the people who hire people and buy things, it is no wonder that the economy is not doing well--a major part of the disposable income that could grow the economy is going to the government! 

In 2007, 38 percent of households paid no income tax; in 2008, 49 percent.  This is dangerous for a democracy.  This means that nearly half the people in the country have no reason to care if taxes are raised.  It is also going to be interesting to see how this plays out as a VAT (Value Added Tax) is discussed to pay for the Obama Agenda.  A VAT affects everyone--regardless of how much money they make.  A VAT tax is an unseen tax--most of it is applied during the manufacturing process--that can increase the cost of any item as much as 20 percent.  As consumers, we may not be aware of the tax itself, but suddenly our spending power will decrease significantly.

I will be attending a Tea Party in Worcester, Massachusetts, on April 15th.  I hope everyone reading this will at least stop by their local Tea Party on that day to compare what they see with what they hear on the news!

These are hard times for small business owners and small businesses.  There is no way they can be sure what their future federal tax burden will be, and at the same time, towns and states have raised some of their taxes and fees in order to raise revenue.  Of course, these taxes will be passed on to the consumer, making some consumers cut back on their consuming.

One of our local landmarks in Plainville is Don's Diner on Route 1A near the center of town.  If you are on facebook, you can do a search and find them.  Every Wednesday, my husband and I take two of our grandchildren to lunch at Don's Diner.  It is a great place, and the chef makes a great BLT!   But business in the world of diners is down, and Don's Diner needs our support.  They are open from 6:30 am to 2:30 pm Tuesday through Friday and 7 am to 1 pm Saturday and Sunday.  Stop in and say hello.  It's a friendly place with great food!!!  (The 'hand-cut' french fries are great!)

 

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article today about President Obama's new policy of removing the words "Islamic Extremism" from the central document outlining American national security strategy.  The National Security Strategy is a document which outlined the Bush doctrine of preventative war and describes the struggle against militant Islamic radicalism as the great  ideological conflict of the early 21st century.  The changes to the National Security Strategy represent an effort by the Obama Administration to "change not just how the United States talks to Muslim nations, but also what it talks to them about, from health care and science to business startups and education."

I really am beginning to wonder what planet this President lives on.  I can't imagine Iran or Osama Bin Laden doing anything but laugh hysterically when they hear about this one.

 

Yesterday, Investors.com posted a peace about the changes President Obama has made in America's nuclear policy.  To me, the 'money line' in the article is the quote:

"In his Prague speech last year, Obama spoke of "America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons," ignoring the fact that before 1945 we lived in such a world and it was neither peaceful nor secure."

I love the idea of a world without nuclear weapons, a world without war, a world without bullies, a world without tyrants, and a world without dictators who put people who disagree with them in jail (or worse).  I also realize that we won't ever have any of the above.  Unfortunately, people are human, and unless there are checks and balances on individual power, things very quickly can get out of balance.

President Obama will sign a treaty with Russia in Prague this Thursday.  This treaty promises we will reduce the number of deployed long-range warheads and reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy.  Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, points out that as we are doing this, Moscow is upgrading 80% of its strategic forces and conducting underground, hydrodynamic tests (illegal under the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty that we observe).  President Reagan used to say, "Trust, but verify."  I think we need to get back to that idea before it is too late.

 

Today at the Washington Examiner, David Freddoso reported on five things that we learned about Obamacare after it had passed Congress.  As Nancy Pelosi famously said, "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."

According to Mr. Freddoso, these are the five things:

• Despite what we were told, the bill does not cover children with pre-existing conditions--that will happen later.  Congress and the White House are moving to change that.
• States will find their budgets stretched to the limit by the requirements that states must provide medical care for the poor under Medicaid.
• Niney percent of Medicaid's new expenses (created by insuring everyone) will be paid by the federal taxpayer--not the states.  This will increase the federal budget.
• If you are not insured and have not paid the penalty, the IRS will take it out of any tax refund you receive when you file your income tax.  (This might explain why the bill includes the hiring of 17,000 new IRS agents.)
• Ski resorts are now required to provide healthcare insurance for every employee who works 120 days.  The original bill had a 150-day requirement, but the House changed that requirement and increased the fine for noncompliance from $750 to $2,000 per employee.

To say that this bill is a nightmare is a total understatement.  "Repeal and replace" needs to be the rallying cry of anyone who wants to be elected to Congress.  If a candidate whimps out on repeal and replace, he needs to be replaced!

 

CNET reported today that a Washington, D. C. federal appeals court has ruled that the Federal Communications Commission has no right to impose Net neutrality on internet providers.  The court ruled that "because the FCC "has failed to tie its assertion" of regulatory authority to any actual law enacted by Congress, the agency does not have the authority to regulate an Internet provider's network management practices."

The reaction by Congress was predictable.  Generally speaking, Republicans supported the ruling, opting for less government regulation of the internet, and Democrats opposed the ruling, suggesting that the internet be put under the type of regulations used on landlines.  These regulations would include price regulation, service quality controls, and technological mandates.

If you are over the age of 40, you might remember that radio as an money-making business blossomed after the 'fairness doctrine' was removed about twenty years ago.  The removal of that federal regulation allowed talk radio to find a home on the AM band and totally revived the AM band.  If you want to see growth in an industry, remove the heel of government from its throat.  It will grow.  We need some basic regulations to keep things honest, but generally speaking, government has overreached and impeded economic growth rather than encouraged it.

 

Today's UK Times reported on the new British tax program that will negatively impact British take-home pay starting today.  At the start of the financial year, high earners in Britain will be paying a 50 percent income tax.  There will also be increased taxes on dividends for people considered 'high earners.'  Those earning more than £150,000 (approximately $230,000) would be affected by these tax increases.  There are other changes in the tax structure that will also go into effect--changes in child tax credits, taxes on bonuses, and changes in stamp duties for homes.

The article reports that these changes could be shelved if the Conservatives win the upcoming election.

This is where we are headed unless we elect fiscal conservatives (from either party) in November.  If the Republicans are willing to step up to the plate in reducing spending, I will support them.  I hesitate to support Democrat candidates because even if they are conservative, they will support the Democrat Party leadership in the House and Senate, and thus will not be voting as fiscal conservatives, regardless of personal views.

 

I have to start this post with a disclaimer.  I don't play poker.  I don't object to the game; I simply do not have the skill set required.  Bluffing is not something I do well.  However, I can think of instances where bluffing would be a useful skill (politics, diplomacy, international relations, etc.).

Yesterday the New York Times reported on President Obama's plan to make nuclear weapons obsolete.  As part of that plan, he renounced the development of any new nuclear weapons and limited the circumstances under which America would respond to an attack with nuclear weapons. 

There are a few troubling things here.  There are a number of bullies in the world right now--Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, and Russia.  I have put Venezuela in this category because of the recent strengthening of their ties to Russia.  Bluffing can be an effective weapon in dealing with a bully--telling the bully that you will limit your response to his attacks is not an effective response.  Allowing a bully to develop a more powerful weapon while you disarm is also not a wise strategy.

We may not like the fact that America has, in the past, been the final stopgap against bullies, but right now, we are the only stopgap left.  We step down from that role at our own peril. 

Have you wondered about the "Tea Party"?  I have.  I went to a tea party in Providence, Rhode Island, last April 15th.  There were signs (nothing obscene or violent), families, people dressed as American Revolutionary characters, and speakers from the local media and local politics.  They seemed like regular people with basic ideas.  Nothing seemingly earthshaking and nothing threatening.  On the rare occasions that I have watched mainstream media, I have seen the Tea Party members portrayed as fringe lunatics.  They seemed pretty normal to me.  Maybe I'm a fringe lunatic, but I really don't think so. 

Anyway.  Today's American Thinker posted some statistics about the Tea Party that are interesting.  According to Rasmussen polling, sixty-three percent of Mainstream America said that their views are closer to those of the Tea Party than those of President Obama.  Forty-eight percent of voters say that their opinions on major issues are closer to the Tea Party than to President Obama.  Eighty-seven percent of the Political Class (who are they?) say that their views are closer to President Obama's than those of the Tea Party.  Is the Political Class the people who were exempted from the changes coming in the recent healthcare reform act?  Among unaffiliated voters, fifty percent say their views are closer to the Tea Party than to the President.

So what does the Tea Party stand for?  Tea stands for Taxed Enough Already.  That I can agree with.  Many of the candidates the Tea Party supports give out copies of the US Constitution along with their campaign literature.  There doesn't really seem to be an organized Tea Party, and I hope it stays that way.  Right now, the Tea Parties are holding our political leaders accountable--they are attending town meetings and holding rallies.  They are doing what all Americans are supposed to be doing.  The only threat they represent is the one to the entrenched political hacks that the rest of us have put up with for so many years.

I am always amazed at the many ways some people can come up with to take money out of other people's pockets.  Robbing people is not allowed, but it seems as if governments are becoming geniuses at thinking up new ways to take money away from the people who earn it. 

The UK Financial Times reported yesterday that UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown is finishing up negotiations on a global banking tax that could be approved at the meeting of the Group of 20 in June.  Evidently, Britain, France, and Germany already support this tax; he is hoping that the United States will join in that support.  Why in the world would we want to be part of this?

Germany wants to use the money raised to provide an insurance program for failed banks, but Prime Minister Brown is concerned that will lead to risky behavior on the part of the banks.  Ms. Merkel of Germany suggested that each country should be allowed to decide how to spend the money raised by this levy.  Why are we letting other countries meddle in our tax policies?  We can mess them up sufficiently ourselves!

This is an idea that needs to go away quickly.  The G20 should never be allowed to determine American tax policy.

Newsbusters.org posted an article yesterday contrasting the reporting of two 'brick thrown through the window at political party office' stories.  In Marion, Ohio, 50 miles north of Columbus, a brick was thrown through the window at the Republican Party's headquarters.  No one outside the local media has reported the incident.  Meanwhile, a similar incident at Ohio's Democrat headquarters in Hamilton County received nationwide coverage. 

When Newsbusters researched the article in the local press, it stated that Associated Press contributed to the report.  When they looked on the Associated Press website for links to the article, there were none.  Obviously, AP knew of the attack, but chose not to report it other than locally.  Meanwhile, the left is trying to link any sort of political malfeasance to the Tea Party or the Republican Party.  Where is the other side of the story?

 

 

 

Today's Washington Examiner posted an editorial voicing their concerns about the number of people who are receiving some or all of their income from the federal government.  The article pointed out:

"According to the Federal Bureau of Economic Analysis, the share of total personal income in the United States that comes from government transfer programs -- Social Security, Medicare, veterans' benefits, unemployment compensation, etc. -- has grown rapidly over the past six decades, from 5.9 cents of every dollar in 1950 ... to 17.3 cents in 2009. In addition, according to BEA, another 9.8 cents of every dollar went, in 2009, to salaries for state, local and federal government employees, a figure that does not include costs of fringe benefits. In other words, more than a quarter of all personal income in the United States is paid for with tax dollars."

This is an alarming fact.  I would also like to know the role that welfare spending plays in this equation.  What actions is the government taking to help people off the welfare rolls and help them access employment that will provide for their families?  What attitudes in our society allow people to remain on welfare for generations without seeking jobs?

Admittedly, state, local, and federal pensions have gotten out of hand in some cases.  However, in most cases (as in Social Security and Medicare) the majority of the people who are collecting or will be collecting or accessing those benefits shortly have paid into the programs during their entire working lives.  The coming demise of Social Security has more to do with Congress mismanaging the surpluses during the past fifty years than it does government dependency by the recipients. 

We are at a place where there are too many people in the wagon and too few people pulling the wagon.  Until we change the attitude of Congress toward spending, we will continue to head in the wrong direction.  The 2010 elections give us the opportunity to see if the Republican Party is capable of living up to its promises of cutting spending and ultimately lowering taxes.

The sources for this article are an article at Power Line yesterday and an article at Hot Air yesterday.  Recently, Amnesty International suspended Gita Sahgal, one of its senior officials in London, for stating that the group's collaboration with Moazzem Begg, a former Guantanamo detainee, is damaging to the reputation of the group. 

According to Power Line:

"Sahgal pointed out that "to be appearing on platforms with Britain's most famous supporter of the Taliban, whom we treat as a human rights defender, is a gross error of judgment." (And worse, I would have thought)"

The article further states:

"Following Sahgal's suspension for criticizing Amnesty International's alliance with Begg, supporters petitioned the organization on her behalf. That led to Cardone's spirited defense of Begg. He argued that Begg advocates detainees' due process rights within "the same framework of universal human rights standards that we are promoting," Attempting to reconcile this extraordinary claim with Begg's association with violent jihad, Cardone asserted that advocacy of "jihad in self defence" is not antithetical to human rights."

Oh my.  Hot Air states it a little more forcefully:

"In response to the petition, AI Secretary-General Claudio Cordone has issued a letter in vigorous defense of AI's collaboration with Begg and Cageprisoners. Steve Emerson's Investigative Project on Terrorism has the story, here. In the letter, Cordone states AI's position outright: advocacy of "jihad in self defence" is not antithetical to human rights. That Islamists reserve unto themselves the right to determine when Islam is, as they put it, "under siege," and when, therefore, forcible jihad is justified, is plainly of no concern -- only actions America's self-defense are worthy of condemnation."

It seems as if Amnesty International has lost its way.  Human rights are totally in the eye of the beholder--murder may not be an abuse of human rights depending on who is doing it.  It is sad to see an organization that is supposed to support human rights condoning the murder of innocent people.

Yesterday at Hot Air, Ed Morrissey posted an article about too much state (or city) government.  It seems as if we are surrounded by government entities that want to tell us how to live.  The example in the article was frothy cocktails, considered dangerous by several states.  Yes, you read that right.  On January 19, 2010, a New York cocktail hot spot had to take the 'Earl Grey MarTEAni' off the menu because it included raw egg white.  (Just to clear this up, a comment at Hot Air from a chef explained that the acid in the citrus in a cocktail containing raw egg white will neutralize any bacteria.)  The cocktail menu explained that the drink had raw egg white, the 'standard raw egg white warning' was also in the menu, and the cocktail was prepared in front of the patron.  The health department complained that the patron was not also told verbally.

The health department eventually backed off (after threatening court action and other serious penalties), and the cocktail is again on the menu.

Frankly, even though I don't drink I am offended by this kind of silliness on the part of state or local government.  Don't they have anything better to do?  How many people are paid to go into bars and see what is in the drinks and if they are explained to the patrons verbally? 

I'm retired now.  I babysit grandchildren, but I do have some time on my hands, so I would like to volunteer for the Font Police.  "Who (or what) are the Font Police?", you innocently ask.  They will eventually be part of the new healthcare reform bill recently passed.  According to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air, included in the healthcare reform bill was a provision demanding that every restaurant with 20 or more locations will have to comply with a national standard of menu labeling which includes calorie information on the menu.

According to the article:

""The nutrition information is right on the menu or menu board next to the name of the menu item, rather than in a pamphlet or in tiny print on a poster, so that consumers can see it when they are making ordering decisions," says Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, who wrote the provision."

I figure it will be just a matter of time before they send out the Font Police to make sure the calorie information is big enough.  Since I am a former office manager with years of typing and desktop publishing experience, I feel that my talents would be a real benefit to the Font Police, and I would like to join them.  I would also like to mention that after the taxes that will have to be passed to pay for the Obama Agenda, none of us will have the money to go out to dinner anyway, so the whole question of putting calories on the menu is moot.  Ed Morrissey mentions in his article that as a diabetic, he has very simple ways of figuring calories when he goes out to dinner, and none of the necessitate the Font Police!

Please read the entire article at Hot Air.  Ed Morrissey points out some of the problems with what may be a well-intentioned idea.  He also points out the question of federal jurisdiction if a restaurant only does business in one state.  This is a growth and jobs killer included in a bill that is also a growth and jobs killer.  Please remember in November to remove anyone from office who voted for this awful bill.  Repeal and Replace.  Let's elect people who will do that.

This chart shows one of many reasons unemployment will remain high.  This chart is from Hot Air on March 31.  Ed Morrissey wrote the article that includes it.  In the article, he points out that right now federal employees make more than their counterparts in the private sector and recieve better benefits (our taxes pay these wages and benefits, which were negotiated by public-sector unions).  Generally speaking, the government does not lay off employees in a recession to the degree that the private sector does (if at all).  Public employees continue to lobby for bigger government and better benefits--public-sector pension benefits are causing major fiscal problems in a number of states right now.  We have forgotten that the government is supposed to work for us, and now, in the current economy, we are all working for the government and not being paid for it!

This article is based on a Washington Times commentary by Dave Harbour, commissioner emeritus of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners,a retired member of the Regulatory Commission of Alaska, and publisher of northerngaspipelines.com; and a National Review article by Jonah Goldberg, editor-at-large of NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE and a visting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.  Both articles provide an explanation of what the changes in offshore drilling policy made by President Obama will do.

Mr. Harbour points out in the Washington Times commentary:

"At this time of domestic travail, it makes imminent sense to develop domestic energy wealth using American workers. To minimize our resource potential is suicidal econ- omically. The Obama-Salazar announcement last week further weakens our country as environmental groups feign outrage. Why? First, the administration has, in effect, reinstated much of the moratoria area that Congress and the president released following the great oil price rise in August 2008. It has effectively renewed moratoria by canceling the lease-sale programs of the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service (MMS) and giving lip service to opening up other areas by planning to study them, not develop them. Second, what federal lands are available are only somewhat available. Just as a goose thinks it is being fed when the farmer is fattening it for slaughter, the administration talks about a balanced energy program while calculating destruction of the golden egg."

Similar thoughts are echoed by Jonah Goldberg in the National Review article:

"Back when oil cost $140 per barrel, Pres. George W. Bush lifted the executive ban on offshore oil drilling. Once elected, Obama quietly reinstated it. Since then, Obama's Interior Department has been doing just about everything it can to slow, hamper, and prevent oil and gas exploration in the U.S. and offshore. There's no reason to believe the administration won't keep doing that. Besides, Obama's announcement actually bans more oil and gas reserves from exploration than it opens up: nothing in the Pacific, nothing in the western Gulf of Mexico, nothing in southern Alaska -- all promising areas."

Expanding ethanol made from corn is not the answer--it drives up food prices around the world and is generally not efficient.  What America needs right now is an intelligent domestic energy policy.  Unfortunately, as long as President Obama is in the White House and Ken Salazar is Secretary of the Interior, that is highly unlikely.  Please remember as you pay your taxes this month and watch unemployment lines grow (the boost in jobs this month was census workers, government workers and temporary jobs), that America has the resources to come out of this recession.  We also have a President, his administration, and Congress preventing us from using those resources.

Today's Washington Post posted an article by Charles Krauthammer with his observations on the foreign policy of the Obama Administration during their first year (or so) in office.  When you list all of it, it really doesn't seem to make much sense.

We begin with the return of the bust of Winston Churchill bust to Britain.  Mr. Krauthammer suggests that it simply could have been moved elsewhere rather than shipped home.  It has gotten worse.  Last month, Hillary Clinton suggested that Britian return the Falkland Islands to Argentina.  Mr. Krauthammer details the history:

"In 1982, Argentina's military junta invaded the (British) Falkland Islands. The generals thought the British, having long lost their taste for foreign lands, would let it pass. Besides, the Falklands have uncountably more sheep than people. They underestimated Margaret Thatcher (the Argentines, that is, not the sheep). She was not about to permit the conquest of a people whose political allegiance and ethnic ties are to Britain. She dispatched the navy. Britannia took it back."

First of all, the allegiance of the residents is to Britain.  They choose not be a part of the uncertainties of politics and political fortunes in Argentina.  Second of all, why in the world would we comment on a twenty-plus-year-old event that did not effect us?  It's almost as if we are picking a fight.

President Obama reneged on our promise to Poland and the Czech Republic to provide them with a missile shield (not to mention that the missile shield would boost our national security also).  In Honduras we supported a would-be dictator rather than uphold their constitution.  He is visiting China and Indonesia and not visiting India (an ally).  President Obama may be conducting foreign policy, but I am not sure it is American foreign policy.   

Yesterday, SRN News reported that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has instituted its first set of price controls on the health insurance industry.  The article states:

"Insurance Commissioner Joseph Murphy said he had rejected 235 of 274 proposed rate increases because they included "excessive increases and rates unreasonable relative to the benefits provided.""

The insurers have responded by stating that caps on the premiums they charge are only justified if their are also caps on the costs that the health care providers--doctors, hospitals, etc.-- charge them.  The article further points out:

"The announcement had political overtones: Gov. Deval Patrick, a Democrat, is seeking re-election this fall against a field that includes Republican Charles Baker, the former president of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care.

"Patrick is staking himself out as the guardian of small businesses and middle-class voters, and trying to cast Baker as an industry protector. The governor argues that small businesses are limiting their hiring because they cannot cope with double-digit health care premium increases."

Health insurance premiums are part of a much bigger picture.  Health insurance (and other types of insurance) are based on actuary tables.  This is a business model that has worked well for a considerable amount of time.  In contrast, the 'business model' of government control or takeover of a private industry is one that has almost always been a disaster--see AMTRAK, the US Post Office (in contrast to FedEx and UPS), etc.

The rejection of rate increases needed by insurance companies (partially needed due to the lack of tort reform, the lack of competition across state lines, and the fact that hospitals and doctors are charging private patients more because government reimbursements under Medicare and Medicaid are totally insufficient) will lead to less healthcare.  Even the most dedicated doctor is not going to keep his office open if he is continually losing money.  If the insurance companies cannot get the premiums they need to stay in business, they have no incentive to remain in business.  At that point, we have government health insurance, which will result in less quality healthcare for everyone.

This is a link to the American Thinker article posted today about Congressional Representative Hank Johnson's (D-GA) comment to Admiral Robert Willard, head of the U.S. Pacific fleet, in response to the Admiral stating the plan for an increase in American military presence on the island of Guam.  The article includes the video of the exchange.

"My fear is that the island will become so overpopulated that it will tip over and capsize."

This is not a joke.  The article points out that Congressman Johnson is ill and can become confused and lose his train of thought.  Then why is he still in Congress?????  It really is time to take a good look at the upcoming House of Representatives elections and retire a lot of people who are not able to do their jobs well.

 

Today's American Thinker reported on remarks made by President Obama at Northern Virginia Community College in Alexandria, Virginia, on Monday.  The President stated that the takeover of the student loan program included in the healthcare reform bill will:

"...save American taxpayers $68 billion in the coming years -- $68 billion.  That's real money -- (laughter) -- real savings that we'll reinvest to help improve the quality of higher education and make it more affordable."

If we reinvest it (spend it), how is it savings? 

In today's Washington Examiner, Daniel Kish points out that President Obama's announcement that he will open large amounts of land to offshore drilling will not help America achieve energy independence. 

"So what does the President's plan really do?  First of all, it kicks the can down the road on the issue of leasing off the coast of Virginia, from 2011 to 2012.  Leasing off Virginia's coast has received bipartisan support from state and federal politicians, and was a key component of Gov. Bob McDonnell's successful election campaign.  The sale was scheduled for 2011; now it's 2012." 

This is an indication of how a plan that was supposed to help us with energy indepence will actually serve to slow that energy independence down.  When gasoline hit $150 per barrel in the summer of 2008, George Bush and the Democrat Congress acted to open the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) for drilling.  Since that time, the only thing that has prevented that drilling has been Secretary of Interior, Ken Salazar.  The announcement by President Obama does not change the fact that Ken Salazar is still in place.  This announcement is a sleight of hand as the President intends to use the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to enact the "Cap and Trade" laws that have no chance of passing in the current Congress.  Look for an announcement in the coming weeks that the EPA will take action on declaring carbon dioxide a pollutant.   

It is also telling that drilling leases will not be allowed in ANWR or off the southern California coast (see yesterday's Los Angeles Times).

For more information on this subject, see the press release put out by John Boehner yesterday, and the analysis put out by American Solutions.  Unfortunately, the announced policy will not lead us in the direction of energy independence.