May 2010 Archives

This post was written by a friend of mine who is currently serving in the Marine Corps.  She is an Iraqi war veteran, and I wanted to share her thoughts on Memorial Day.

Hamilton Fish, Secretary of State in the 1850s, said "If the country is worth dying for in a time of war, let us ensure that it is worth living for in a time of peace."
I grew up in an affluent neighborhood in the Bay Area in California--the type of place where people speak of being proud to be Americans, but only because it is a place where they are allowed to live their accustomed lifestyle. But then again, it was also in the 1980s, a time of peace and prosperity when it was easy to say you love this place. Time had healed the bitter sentiments surrounding Vietnam, and we could all be happy dancing in a ring around the sun, so to speak.
I have now seen life further from the Utopian suburbia of my youth than just about anyone there cares to know. The reality, now, is that we are not a country experiencing peace and prosperity. But that shouldn't make us any less proud.
I am back in my childhood home this weekend, and it got me thinking about what Memorial Day is. I was here to attend my sister's Bridal Shower--a gathering of women, most of whom I have known from childhood. As the token neighborhood veteran, I always get quite a few "thank you for your service" niceties.
While the sentiments are always appreciated, I am not ultimately the one who should be thanked. It's the one who didn't come home--the one who never got to hear a "thank you for your service." The one who never got to see a yellow ribbon tied around a tree. They found this country worth dying for, so, in their honor make this country worth living for.
We are engaged in what has been called "The Long War." It may be a long time before we can agree to call our country "at peace." So make it worth living for now. Honor those who have giving all by living and drinking in the freedoms of this land. Go exercise your right to freedom of speech and religious practice. Be proud of what makes you unique. Speak for the war, against the war, be gay or straight, worship your god. And do in a way worth living -- because thanks to those who have died, you can do it freely. Drink this freedom in. And through living life, we can make this country feel at peace.
As for me, right now I'm going for a run. Because that is what my dear friend the late Maj Megan McClung would want to do today.
Happy Memorial Day, God Bless all who have gone, and all who are yet to come.

The Israel National News is reporting that United States Homeland Security wants to deport Mosab Hassan Yousef because it considers him a terrorist.  Mr. Yousef is the son of Sheikh Hassan Yousef, who is a terrorist.  Mosab Hassan Yousef has admitted to terrorist activities in the distant past and later to being a secret agent for Israel.  His book. "Son of Hamas," details his journey from being a terrorist to Christianity.  The book exposes Hamas terrorism and also deals with Mr. Yousef's time as a secret agent for Israel.  Mr. Yousef faces a deportation hearing on June 30 at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Immigration Court in San Diego.

According to the article:

"His saga began in January, 2007 when he arrived at an American airport on a tourist visa without interference. "Seven months later, I went to the Homeland Security office, knocked on their door and told them, 'Hey, guys, I am the son of Sheikh Hassan Yousef, my father is involved in a terrorist organization, and I would like political asylum in your country.'"

"They were shocked," Yousef wrote on the blog. "I came to you and told you who I am to wake you up. I wanted them to see that they have huge gaps in their security and their understanding of terrorism and make changes before it's too late.'

 

"His application for asylum was rejected last February "because there were reasonable grounds for believing he was a danger to the security of the United States and [was] engaged in terrorist activity.""

I have heard this man interviewed.  He is no longer a terrorist and is not a threat to the national security of the United States.  He would actually be a great resource in fighting the war on terror because of his past experience as a terrorist. 

The article concludes:

 

"He (Mosab Hassan Yousef) also claims that he posed as a terrorist while working for Israel. "Yes, I carried a gun," he wrote. "Yes, I was in terrorist meetings with Yasser Arafat, my father and other Hamas leaders. It was part of my job. And I passed on to the Shin Bet all the information I gathered during those meetings and saved the lives of many people--including many Americans.

"Homeland Security has absolutely no idea of the dangers that lie ahead. For nearly 30 years, I watched from the inside as Hamas dug its claws deeper and deeper into Israel. They started awkwardly, clumsily, but they got good at it. And al-Qaeda is becoming more like Hamas.

"Al-Qaeda started with huge attacks like September 11. But bin Laden has learned from Hamas's war against Israel how to bleed its enemy. Al-Qaeda understands how effective the Hamas strategy will be on American soil."

A former Israeli security agent, identified as "G," has confirmed Yousef's account as a secret agent and said that Yousef's spying saved the lives of many Israelis.  (IsraelNationalNews.com)"

How in the world can we fight a war on terror if Homeland Security can't even figure out who our enemies are? 

On May 15, AOL News posted a story about Nick Pozzi, who was an engineer with ARAMCO in 1993, when an oil spill larger that what is happening in the Gulf of Mexico happened in the Persian Gulf. 

According to the story:

"But remarkably, by employing a fleet of empty supertankers to suck crude off the water's surface, Pozzi's team was not only able to clean up the spill, but also salvage 85 percent of the oil, he says."

The spill was approximately 70 times the size of the Exxon Valdez spill.  According to the article, Mr. Pozzi has tried on numerous occasions to lend his experience to the current oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, but:

"Shortly after the April 22 sinking of the Deepwater Horizon, he and a friend, Houston attorney Jon King (with whom Pozzi recently launched a business called Wow Environmental Solutions), traveled to Houma, La., headquarters for BP's response center, to offer up the lessons he'd learned working in the Persian Gulf.

"Ever since, he says, the pair's been stonewalled."

Meanwhile, we are watching the marshlands and beaches of Louisiana being destroyed.  Mr. President and BP, please listen to the voices of experience. 

As we settle in to celebrate the beginning of summer, let's remember what this three-day weekend is about.  We honor our fallen soldiers and need to remember them, but let's also remember and honor those from other countries who have defended freedom along with us.

This is a link to a beautiful YouTube video honoring many of the British soldiers who have died while fighting alongside us in Afghanistan.

Charles Krauthammer posted a very interesting commentary at Townhall.com yesterday about the oil rig that exploded in the Gulf of Mexico.  He points out that the first question asked should be, "Why are we drilling in 5,000 feet of water in the first place?"

One of the things not often mentioned is that the environmentalist movement has forced us into that position.  The environmentalist movement has successfully placed the Pacific and nearly all the Atlantic coast off-limits to oil production.   Mr. Krauthammer points out that we have had a ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for thirty years--a place where oil is close to the surface and the risk of environmental destruction would be minimal.  Mr. Krauthammer states that we have pushed the drilling from barren areas to populated areas, from the remote wilderness to a center of fishing, shipping, tourism and recreation.  This has been done, oddly enough, as a result of environmentalists' actions. 

In terms of the President's response, Mr. Krauthammer concludes:

"...We expect our presidents to play Superman. Helplessness, however undeniable, is no defense.

"Moreover, Obama has never been overly modest about his own powers. Two years ago next week, he declared that history will mark his ascent to the presidency as the moment when "our planet began to heal" and "the rise of the oceans began to slow."

"Well, when you anoint yourself King Canute, you mustnt be surprised when your subjects expect you to command the tides."

We need to keep in mind that oil spills will happen.  We also need to think about making drilling as safe as possible and making sure we do it where we are capable of solving any problems that may arise. 

Today's Washington Examiner points out that Representative Joe Sestak was not eligible for the job that Bill Clinton supposedly offered him--you know, the job offer that White House counsel Robert Bauer said was legal and that has caused all this controversy. 

This is one place where Representative Sestak's statements and the White House counsel's statements are not in agreement.  The problem with not telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth is that you have to make sure everyone is on the same page saying the same thing--and you have to remember everything that has been said!   I think someone forgot the details.

I guess this story may be with us for a while.

AFTERTHOUGHT:  I wonder if I would involve Bill Clinton in a coverup knowing how hard he and Hillary fought to regain the White House.  There may be a ton of things going on under the surface here that could prove interesting in the future.

As previously reported at Right Wing Granny on March 15, Democrat Representative Joe Sestak, on February 18, told a talk show radio host that the White House had offered him a high-ranking job in return for dropping out of the Pennsylvania Democrat Primary for Senate.  On February 19, the White House denied the charge.

Frankly, I really didn't think this was any big deal, but now I am beginning to wonder.  Today's Washington Times carries the latest details of the story.  The story that was put out by the White House this afternoon is that ex-President Clinton was asked to approach Representative Sestak about accepting a non-paying job in the Obama Administration in exchange for dropping out of the Democrat Primary.

According to the article:

"...White House lawyer Robert F. Bauer said the job offered was a non-paying, advisory board position in the executive branch and that allegations of improper conduct by the administration "rest on factual error and lack a basis in the law."" 

People who know a whole lot more than I do about how Washington works question the premise that a non-paying position would have been offered--it's not even a good bribe!  The original statement by Representative Sestak was that someone in the Obama Administration had offered him a high-ranking position.  What was released today makes that statement look like a lie.  One speculation is that the conversation with ex-President Clinton is probably real, but that there may have been another conversation with a member of the Obama Administration that Representative Sestak was referring to.   This is where the legal problems lie.

If Representative Sestak was telling the truth, what was done is a crime.  It does fit the pattern of Chicago politics that seems to run through this administration, but I really doubt that it will be pursued (I would love to be wrong about that!).

Yes, you read the headline right.  It's not a total stand, but it's a beginning.  According to Hot Air, the Massachusetts Senate passed a measure (28-10) barring the state from doing business with any company that is not in complaince with federal laws regarding the hiring of illegal immigrants.  The bill also denies in-state college tuition rates for illegal immigrants.  The bill also provides for tougher penalties for creating or using fake identification documents.  The Republicans only hold five seats in the Massachusetts state Senate.  The bill was passed after polling indicated that 84 percent of Massachusetts voters supported tough immigration laws.  The House of Representatives in Massachusetts voted down a measure in late April that would have denied welfare payments to illegal aliens.  I suspect this vote in the Senate is an attempt to placate voters after recent Republican victories in the state.

This measure still has to pass the Massachusetts House and be signed by Deval Patrick.  It should be very interesting to see what happens next. 

On Wednesday, The New York Times ran a short article in their health section about the reversal by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) of their decision on female circumcision in the United States.  They had supported a ceremonial watered-down version of the procedure be allowed in this country in order to keep families from sending their daughters overseas to have the procedure.

According to the article:

"The (original) policy statement ignited a storm of criticism from opponents of female genital cutting. Dr. Judith S. Palfrey, president of the academy, said: "We're saying don't do it. Do everything that you can to support that family in this tough time, but don't be pulled into the procedure.""

I am truly glad they have reversed their policy.  This procedure harms the health of women--it does nothing positive.  It should be made illegal worldwide.

The Detroit News reported today that the International Red Cross is defending its policy of training Taliban fighters in first aid and giving them first aid kits. 

The International Red Cross began the courses in 2006 and will continue as long as they are needed.

The first thought that came to mind when I heard this was to wonder how the Taliban would treat a wounded person they encountered who was not one of them.  The second question was to wonder why anyone would prolong the life of a person dedicated to killing innocent people.  The sad part of this is that the Taliban will not hesitate to kill any member of the Red Cross once the Taliban feels that the usefulness of the Red Cross to their organization is over.  These are not soldiers--they are terrorists.  Until we recognize that fact, we are going to be in danger.  This is the equivalent of aiding and abetting a murderer.

Fox News reported yesterday on a Department of Homeland Security alert given to Texas that a suspected member of the Somalia-based Al Shabaab terrorist group might be attempting to travel to the U.S. through Mexico. 

According to the article:

"Security experts tell FOXNews.com that the influx of hundreds of Somalis over the U.S. border who allegedly have ties to suspected terror cells is evidence of a porous and unsecured border being exploited by groups intent on wrecking deadly havoc on American soil."

Meanwhile, Breitbart.com is reporting that the State Department has stated that the "US National Guard troops being sent to the Mexican border will be used to stem the flow of guns and drugs across the frontier and not to enforce US immigration laws."  Does our government think that terrorists can only come across the border in Texas?

The danger in an unsecured border is that an alliance between terrorists and the drug cartels in Mexico could bring numerous people into this country who have no other intention than to do America harm.  Phoenix has become one of the world's kidnapping capitals because of the crime brought in by the drug cartels.  There have been numerous innocent civilians and policemen killed in the city by illegal immigrants and the people involved in smuggling them.

If we do not secure the borders and become aware of exactly who is in our country, our country will be destroyed before our eyes.

The Hill is reporting today on the progress of a new tax relief and unemployment aid package that is expected to come up for a vote in the Senate this week.   Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) says that the Republicans would oppose the package because the Congressional Budget Office estimates the measure would add $134 billion to the federal deficit over ten years. 

According to the article:

"(Senator Harry) Reid said Tuesday he would be willing to hold the Senate in session over the holiday weekend to pass a $58.8 billion emergency supplemental and the extenders package, which Democrats say would create jobs."

Hasn't anyone figured out yet that extending unemployment benefits may win you votes in the short term, but it does not create jobs.  If people know they have two years of unemployment, they tend to wait longer before seriously looking for a job. 

Pay attention to the language used in this discussion.  According to the article:

""We know they'll try to blame Republicans for their own inability to come to an agreement if we don't go along with their effort to add another $130 billion to the deficit by the end of the week," he said.
 
""So let's be perfectly clear: There's one reason Democrats are having trouble getting an agreement on this bill and one reason only -- and that's because it's so blatantly reckless," McConnell added." 

Washington has been in the habit of overspending other people's money for a long time.  This November, we need to examine our Senators and Representatives who are running for re-election, see how much debt they have added to the budget, and if they have overspent, vote them out of office.

The New Orleans Times-Pacayune reports today that the Jefferson Parish Council fully supports Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal's efforts to build a berm to protect the marshes of Louisiana.  The Parish Council decided to back the plan without knowing how much it will cost.  This gives you an idea of how desperate the situation is becoming.

We have all seen pictures of the dead animals and the dying marsh grass.  Hopefully BP will be able to stop the flow of oil into the Gulf of Mexico in the very near future, but meanwhile, Louisiana has to deal with the oil that is already headed into their wetlands.

According to the article:

"For three weeks, Jindal and local officials have pressured the Army Corps of Engineers to approve the project, a move that would free up money and dredging equipment to begin building the sand berms. The Jefferson council said today it's still waiting a response."

I realize that there are concerns that building barriers could have a negative environmental impact, but has anyone considered that the oil continuing to flow inland will definitely have a negative environmental impact.  It is time for the federal government to get out of the way and let Governor Jindal handle the situation--it seems as if he is the only person with any authority that is interested in cleaning up the mess.  The Louisiana south coast is a beautiful area, and the state of Louisiana needs to be allowed to do what is necessary to clean up the mess.

Today's Washington Examiner posted an editorial about the growing dependence of Americans on government handouts.  The editorial points out the private sector paychecks have declined to 41.9 percent of personal income during the first quarter of 2010.  In December 2007, it was 44.6 percent.  The personal income received from government programs has climbed to 17.9 percent, plus another 9.8 percent for government employees, bringing us to a total of 27.7 percent.  According to the editorial, the remaining personal income is from "small business proprietor profits, farm profits, privately funded pensions, investment sales and dividents, and insurance annuities."

As the number of people dependent on government grows, Heritage Foundation's Index of Dependency is rapidly rising.  It increased 13.9 percent for 2009, the biggest increase since 1962. 

The editorial states:

"The problem is that government only redistributes income to dependent individuals after taking it from productive individuals, a process that is reflected in tax returns."

Keeping in mind that whatever the government subsidizes increases, this does not bode well for the future of our country.  We are encouraging dependency while discouraging productivity.

As America fights two wars and is watching the situation on the Korean peninsula, President Obama chooses to ignore his customary Presidential duties on Memorial Day.  Yesterday's Washington Post reported that the President intends to spend Memorial Day in Chicago. 

According to the article:

"Vice President Biden and his wife will appear in Obama's place, laying a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, as well as holding a breakfast for Gold Star families -- families whose loved ones died in military service -- at the White House earlier that day."

President Obama will speak at the Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery, which is south of Chicago, on Memorial Day.

Townhall.com reported yesterday that Congress is getting ready to pass a tax increase on oil.  The new tax would be 32 cents a barrel, which Congress estimates will raise about $11 billion over the next decade.  The current tax on a barrel of oil is 8 cents.  The stated purpose of the tax is to 'clean-up' the oil spill in the Gulf.  The obvious question is, "Since BP is responsible for cleaning up the oil spill, the cost to the government is not going to be anywhere near $11 billion, so why are we increasing taxes on oil?"

Well, the tax is part of a much larger picture.  There is a bill in the works that Congress hopes to pass before Memorial Day.  The bill includes a one-year extension of some popular tax breaks that expired at the end of last year, and expanded unemployment benefits which include health insurance subsidies.

The House could vote on this as early as today, the Senate is hoping to vote on it by the end of the week.  This tax will impact everyone.  It will be a hidden tax, so many Americans may not be aware of why the cost of some items suddenly increases.  It will increase heating bills in the winter, the cost of gasoline, and will have a ripple effect, raising prices throught the economy.  This will slow down the economy and could bring us to a double-dip recession.

Please watch to see who votes in favor of this tax increase.  Anyone who votes for this needs to be voted out of office in November.

UPDATE:  Representative Bill Cassidy, a Republican from Louisiana, has introduced House Resolution 1374 stating that all revenues from the now 8-cents-a-barrel oil tax should be used to clean up the spill and for no other purposes.  See Thomas.gov for further developments.  This could be interesting.

Christians And Jews United For Israel (CJUI) held a rally Sunday in Brookline, Massachusetts.  It may have been reported in the major media, but I couldn't find it.  It was reported on the organization's website, cjui.org.  Pictures of the rally and videos of one speaker can be found on the website.  Supporting Israel is important for the United States.  Israel is the only stable democracy in the Middle East and has been a steadfast ally of the United States since it was recognized as a country in 1948.  Jerusalem is Israel's capital and has been since 1948.  The people who rallied in Brookline on Sunday understand this and support Israel.  Please visit their website to learn more about them.

This is a picture from the rally in Brookline on Sunday.

The New Orleans Times-Picayune is probably one of the best sources on what is happening with the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.  The people of Louisiana are facing major environmental damage from the spill.  As the parent of children who own a home in New Orleans, this is something I am watching carefully. 

Amid all the blame that is being thrown in every direction, Louisiana Governor Boby Jindal has stated that he will do what it takes to protect the marshlands of his state.  Governor Jindal has stated that:

"the state is not waiting for federal approval to begin building sand barriers to protect the coastline from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill." 

Thank God for someone who is more interested in action than placing blame.

The article further states:

"The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is studying the environmental impacts from the emergency barrier proposal. The Corps didn't immediately respond to e-mails and telephone messages."

This is not the time for studying the barrier proposal--it is the time for putting the barriers in place to protect that land that has not yet been impacted by the oil spill.  Hopefully, the barriers can be put in place before any more major damage is done.  Thank you, Governor Jindal, for being willing to solve a problem rather than simply blaming someone for it.

Yesterday's Eagle Tribune, a Merrimack Valley (Massachusetts) newspaper, posted an article about a strike that has been going on at Shaw's distribution center in Methuen, where workers distribute meat, dairy and produce to all 176 Shaw's Supermarkets and Star Markets in New England.  About 250 employees are on stike, saying that Shaw's refuses to give them affordable health insurance.  The strike began on March 7th. 

According to the article:

"Three hundred union workers originally went on strike after rejecting a contract offer on March 7. They survived on $100 a week from the union and on donated food. The strikers lost health insurance on April 1, forcing them to miss medical appointments and sign up for COBRA or MassHealth. Things improved for them when the state awarded them unemployment benefits starting with the week ending May 1.

"People involved in the strike say there's no end in sight."

As anyone who lives in Massachusetts knows, healthcare insurance costs have skyrocketed since the state healthcare reform act was passed in 2006.  We would all like affordable health insurance, but until that law is repealed in this state, we can expect our costs to rise.

The article also points out:

"Shaw's says on its website that, on average, the Methuen workers earn $19.06 per hour, and their weekly health insurance premiums are below the national and regional average. Shaw's said its first contract offer would be its best, and the company has so far kept that promise; it hasn't returned to the table with anything the union would accept."

The dispute between the union and Shaw's will be worked out by both parties in the future.  Meanwhile, I resent the fact that my tax dollars are being used to pay workers on strike.  These are people who have chosen not to work at this point, and they should not be entitled to unemployment insurance.

Today the DEBKA File reported that America has sent three top officials to the Middle East to calm tensions in the wake of Israel's homeland missile defense exercise entitled Turning-Point 4.

According to the article:

"Sunday, May 23, OC Northern Command, Brig. Gady Eisenkott said: "No party concerned has an interest in another showdown, but the IDF could be ready to fight within hours." He added that [if confronted] "Israel could take on both the Syrian-Lebanese front and Gaza." He was talking to the local council heads in Galilee, northern Israel."

This five-day exercise will test Israel's responses to simultaneous missile and rocket attacks against civilian locations from Lebanon, Syria, Iran and the Gaza Strip.

According to the article:

"Syria has placed its air force and air defense forces on high alert, while Hizballah has transferred thousands of its militiamen to South Lebanon and placed the border region on a war footing against a supposed Israeli attack."

For whatever reason, summer seems to be a tense time in the Middle East.  Unfortunately, as America has abandoned its traditional relationship with Israel and not stood strong against Iran, we have paved the way for an attack on Israel.   There is no reason for Iran to fear retalliation from America if it attacks Israel.  Because our President has not supported Israel, we have put Israel in danger.  I expect to see some sort of eruption this summer--whether it be an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities or an attack on Israel by Syria through Lebanon.  Either way, I do not expect a peaceful summer.

Investors.com posted a story Friday about ShoreBank in Chicago and the fight to save it.  The banks advertising claims, "Van Jones saves at ShoreBank so his money fights for green jobs just like he does." 

According to Investors.com:

"Rep. Judy Biggert, R-Ill., has joined Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., in a letter to Obama asking for records concerning ShoreBank and how it lined up at least $125 million in capital from major banks to qualify for $75 million from the federal government.

"ShoreBank has a history of making the very kind of risky loans that leftist agitators such as Acorn, with government help, pressured banks to do under the Community Reinvestment Act. Ron Grzywinski, one of the original founders of ShoreBank, was the only banker to testify in front of Congress in support of the CRA of 1977."

President Obama praised the bank for its investments in Kenya last year when he was visiting Africa. 

The article concludes:

"He (President Obama) did run to fundamentally transform America -- and if those banks are on Main Street and they follow Obama's agenda, they get help from those fat cats now in thrall to the government, not to mention all the president's friends. Pretty sweet deal."

Do you wonder where the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) money is going and how much has been spent?  Well, there is a fantastic website that tells the story.  Visual Economics illustrates what has been done with TARP money--so far about $540 billion has been paid out to 829 recipients.  Of that money, $194 billion has been paid back.  The site also points out that in 2008, Senator Chris Dodd, Chairman of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs received $854,200 in donations from recipients of TARP money.  President Obama received $4.3 million from employees of companies who received TARP money.  Remember, TARP money came out of the pockets of taxpayers.

The danger of any TARP-type legislation is that the money will be ultimately be used politically to fund campaigns and reward supporters.  Unfortunately, that is where we are.

The name of this site is Right Wing Granny, so it should be obvious that I tend to lean right.  At the present time, that tends to be Republican, but that is not always the case.  There have been many Democrats in the past I would have supported and a lot I would not have (but I could say the same thing about Republicans).  Anyway, since I am currently leaning Republican, I want to say that although I am moderately optimistic about moving the nation more to the center in November, I haven't broken out the party balloons just yet.

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted a very interesting article yesterday about predictions for the November election.  He referenced an article in The Hill which was titled, "Sensing Momentum, Senate Dems Don't Want To Ease Up." 

The article in The Hill states:

""I think we keep going and realize we're not here to win elections. We're here to get things done," said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), who will be up for reelection in 2012. "I'm not afraid of tackling any of it. I'm a believer that the American people ultimately are going to be glad that we're working on hard problems rather than self-perpetuate our time here. I think we keep pushing."

""When we look back, this has been a hell of a Congress, and the term 'go slow' isn't going to describe what happens," said retiring Sen. Ted Kaufman (D-Del.). "You're going to see it get more and more frenetic.""

I'm not sure what these people have been smoking, but the Democrat who won in Pennsylvania won on a platform that makes me look like a liberal, and the approval ratings of Congress have recently hit new lows and stayed there!

This is all speculation until you look at where the corporate donations are currently going. 

John Hinderaker of Power Line also referenced an article in today's Washington Post titled, "Corporate PACs Betting on Republicans to gain control of Congress." 

According to the Washington Post:

"The pattern represents a distinct change from a year ago, when Barack Obama was sworn into office and Democrats took control of Congress. Back then, corporate political action committees made a shift to the Democrats, giving 58 percent of their donations to the party. So far this year, only 48 percent of the contributions from big business are going to the Democrats." 

Don't break out the celebratory balloons yet if you are a Republican, but keep the popcorn handy--this may be interesting to watch!

Yesterday the Washington Times posted a short article on the changes the Texas State Board of Education has made in the history and social studies curriculum. The Washington Post posted an article on the subject today.  Texas textbooks are significant because they generally end up being used in most school systems in the nation.

The Washington Times reports that some of the discussions involved using B.C.E. and C.E. instead of B.C. and A.D. to classify historical periods.   The more traditional B.C. and A.D. were kept.  The students will also learn that America is a "constitutional republic"--not a democracy (that is something that should have been taught all along!).

The Washington Times reports:

"During the monthslong process of creating the guidelines, conservatives successfully strengthened the requirements on teaching the Judeo-Christian influences of the nation's Founding Fathers and attempted to water down rationale for the separation of church and state."

The Judeo-Christian roots are America are seen in every constitution of the states that made up the original thirteen colonies.  To deny them is to deny the roots of America.  These roots are also seen in the Mayflower Compact and many of the original charters of our major colleges and universities.

The Washington Post reports:

"The new standards say that the McCarthyism of the 1950s was later vindicated -- something most historians deny -- draw an equivalency between Jefferson Davis's and Abraham Lincoln's inaugural addresses, say that international institutions such as the United Nations imperil American sovereignty, and include a long list of Confederate officials about whom students must learn."

I will admit I have no idea why students have to learn about Confederate officials, but I really don't think it will damage them.  To say that McCartyism was vindicated is an interesting idea--when the Soviet Union fell and we had access to their documents, we did find that there were Communist agents planted throughout our country and our government.  That was a fact.  However, I'm not sure if that vindicates some of the things that went on during the Congressional hearings of the era.  On the other hand, there are many things that have gone on in Congress over the life of our country that are not neccessarily things we can be proud of!

It sounds to me as if the ideas in the new curriculum will provide some interesting discussions for students.  If I am being honest, I have to say that when I was in high school, social studies was not one of my priorities.  It was not until after I got out of school and began reading on my own that history became something interesting.  I am grateful for the foundation that my high school teachers laid, but I think the real value of a social studies textbook is to encourage a student to investigate and think on his own. 

Yesterday Archy Cary at Big Journalism posted a story about a protest in Montgomery County, Maryland.  Doesn't sound all that unusual--this country was built on protest--but there was a thuggish element to this that, unfortunately, we may see more of.

Washington MPD's Civil Disturbance Unit (part of Washington, D. C., police department)escorted 500 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) protesters to the house of Greg Baer, a Bank of America executive, where they created a disturbance in the quiet neighborhood.  Mr. Baer was not home at the time, his teenage son was home alone and was terrified by the mob outside.

A personal account of the story written by journalist Nina Easton can be found at Fortune Magazine. 

In her story, Nina Easton points out:

"SEIU has said it wants to organize bank tellers and call centers -- and its critics point out that a great way to worsen employee morale, thereby making workers more susceptible to union calls, is to batter a bank's image through protest. (SEIU officials say their anti-Wall Street campaign has nothing to do with their organizing efforts.) Complicating this picture is the fact that BofA is the union's lender of choice -- and SEIU, suffering financially, owes the bank nearly $4 million in interest and fees. Bank of America declined comment on the loans."

Some other details of this event are also posted at Big Government.   Protest is a part of American tradition, but bussing a mob of 500 people to a private home is not protest--it's intimidation and needs to be stopped.  

Fox News is reporting today that John Morton, assistant secretary of homeland security for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, has stated that his agency will not necessarily process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona authorities. 

According to the article:

"In response to Morton's comments, DHS officials said President Obama has ordered the Department of Justice to examine the civil rights and other implications of the law.

""That review will inform the government's actions going forward," DHS spokesman Matt Chandler told Fox News on Friday.

"Meanwhile, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano said ICE is not obligated to process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona authorities.

""ICE has the legal discretion to accept or not to accept persons delivered to it by non-federal personnel," Napolitano said. "It also has the discretion to deport or not to deport persons delivered to it by any government agents, even its own.""

This is simply unacceptable.  The Arizona immigration law was legally passed; it conforms to the guidelines of United States immigration law; and it does not allow policemen and law enforcement officials to 'racially profile.'  The lack of federal support to enforce this law is unacceptable.  What part of 'illegal' does John Morton not understand?

I was sorry to see newly-elected Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown vote to end the debate on the Financial Reform Bill.  My local paper reports that Senator Brown changed his vote "after receiving promises from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on issues related to Massachusetts."  We shall see how much Senator Reid's promises are worth.

Anyway, Jim Kuhnhenn at Townhall.com posted a summary of the bill today.  There are some positive aspects of the bill--if they are properly enforced.  One of the things that caused the mortgage meltdown was banks being pressured by groups such as ACORN to issue mortganges to people that would not be able to pay them back.  If this bill ends the ability of such groups to exert that kind of pressure, that will be helpful.  In the bill, borrowers will be required to show proof that they will be able to make their mortgage payments and lenders would be prevented from raising interest rates to impossible-to-pay levels.  These are steps in the right direction.

The biggest flaw in the bill is that it does nothing to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.   In the first quarter of 2010 Freddie Mac has lost $8 billion.   It has requested another $10.6 billion from the government and stated that it would need more in the future.  This is something that should have been dealt with in the bill.

The Senate version of the bill does eliminate the 'too big to fail' fund.  The House is supposed to take its fund out during the reconciliation process. 

This was far from a perfect bill, and I need to see how intrusive it is before I can actually support it.  There were many questionable ideas in its formation, and I am not aware of how many of them have been taken out.  It seems as if Congress really does have to pass a bill in order for any of us to know exactly what is in it.

There is an old joke about a man who was looking for his car keys under a streetlight after having dropped them across the street, near his car.  When asked why he was looking across the street instead of where he had dropped the keys, he explained, "Because the light is better here."  That is what we have going on in the discussions of President Obama and President Felipe Calderon as they discuss the illegal immigration situation.

Investors.com posted an article yesterday detailing the relationship between illegal immigration from Mexico to the United States and the Mexican drug cartels.  The article points out that up until the mid 1990's smuggling immigrants across the border was done by small operators who came and went.  When the United States increased its Border Patrols and border control measures, these small businessmen disappeared. 

The article points out:

"The cartels -- which had vast networks of smugglers, document forgers, safe house operators, drivers, and officials on the take -- had resources to evade border checks and to rake in money.

"Texas' border crackdown in recent years sealed a key entry point, so Arizona has become the new gateway."

This is one of the reasons Arizona passed its new immigration law--to protect its citizens.  The article concludes:

"Fact is, drug cartels are financed by cash, and much of that cash is coming from a nonstop stream of illegal immigrants -- who, incredibly enough, are being encouraged to immigrate to the U.S. by the Mexican government itself as a convenient means of relieving themselves of the pressure of creating jobs and investing in education.

"Unfortunately, this is now being ignored in the wartime strategy to defeat Mexico's violent cartels.

"It makes zero sense. Until cartels start losing the billions in cash flow they get from illegal immigrant smuggling operations, it won't matter how many drug operations are won."

Aside from the fact that the two Presidents are choosing to encourage a situation that is harmful to the United States, the spectacle of the President of the United States joining the head of a foreign country in bashing an American state from the White House followed by Democrats in Congress cheering a foreign leader as he bashes an American state in a speech before Congress is simply obscene.  If can't unite against a foreign President encouraging policies that are not beneficial to us, can we unite against anything?

"Never argue with someone who buys ink by the barreI" is a quote credited to Indiana Congressman Charles Bruce Brownson (1914-1988).  I suspect every United States President since George Washington has had his difficulties with the press.  Congress also has had occasional problems with the press.  In the past, that was simply considered part of the job and everyone just moved on.  Well, things may be changing.

Yesterday's New York Times reported that President Obama held a ceremony to sign a bill promoting freedom of the press around the world and then refused to take questions from reporters.  At a "news conference" with Felipe Calderón on Wednesday, he took only one question from the American media--Univision.  So far he has avoided any questions on Tuesday's election results.  It seems to be rather tight control of the press at a time when he says he is promoting freedom of the press.

Meanwhile, Congress is having its own freedom of the press issues.  According to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air yesterday:

"Last week, a congressional hearing exposed an effort to give another agency--the Federal Election Commission--unprecedented power to regulate political speech online. At a House Administration Committee hearing last Tuesday, Patton Boggs attorney William McGinley explained that the sloppy statutory language in the "DISCLOSE Act" would extend the FEC's control over broadcast communications to all "covered communications," including the blogosphere."

The original purpose of the DISCLOSE Act was to require the disclosure of corporate and union political speech after the Supreme Court's January decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission held that the government could not ban political expenditures by companies, nonprofit groups, and labor unions.

According to Mr. Morrissey: 

"The bill, however, would radically redefine how the FEC regulates political commentary. A section of the DISCLOSE Act would exempt traditional media outlets from coordination regulations, but the exemption does not include bloggers, only "a communication appearing in a news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication..."

This bill could be used to shut down any non-traditional outlets of political speech on the internet.  Stay tuned. 

Michael Barone is one of the gurus of American politics.  He has forgotten more about what happens in elections than most of us will ever learn.  He posted his analysis of yesterday's election in today's Washington Examiner.  He lists five lessons learned from the voters yesterday.

• Big spenders got defeated.  As he put it, "Suddenly pork is not kosher."
• The Tea Party was a force to be reckoned with. 
• Anti-Obama sentiment will not necessarily mean votes for Republicans (illustrated by the victory of Mark Critz in Pennsylvania).  Critz ran on a very conservative platform and was able to convince the voters to vote for him.  That was a loss for the Republicans, and can be done by other Democrats.
• The left wing of the Democrat party is not giving up--they did well in two primaries--Louisiana and Pennsylvania.  The labor unions and moveon.org are heavily funding liberal candidates.
• Because of yesterday's results, we will probably see more polarization in the future--not less.

I wonder if polarizaiton is a good or bad thing.  In one sense, it allows the country to decide which direction it is going.  In other sense, it makes compromise difficult.  But if the answer to a problem is black and white, why are we looking for gray?  There are areas where compromise is a good thing, but there are also areas where compromise of principles is not a good idea.

If you ever had any doubts that the Obama Administration supported Israel at all, they are about to be shattered.  Andy McCarthy at The Corner at National Review On Line reports on a Reuters story stating that the President's national security team is looking for Hezbollah moderates in Lebanon that they can support in order to weaken the influence of the hard liners in the organization. 

According to Reuters (via National Review):

""Hezbollah is a very interesting organization," Brennan told a Washington conference, citing its evolution from "purely a terrorist organization" to a militia to an organization that now has members within the parliament and the cabinet.

"There is certainly the elements of Hezbollah that are truly a concern to us what they're doing. And what we need to do is to find ways to diminish their influence within the organization and to try to build up the more moderate elements," Brennan said."

The wisdom involved in this outreach is akin to the wisdom that says I can go into the lion's cage and pet the lion because he is such a beautiful animal.  These people have no idea what they are dealing with.  Mr. McCarthy also points out that the United States considers Hezbollah a "foreign terrorist organization".  Why are we trying to befriend terrorists? 

The elections are over; the spin begins.  Real Clear Politics posted a story yesterday about the White House spin on yesterday's elections.  The spin is "it's and anti-incumbent year--incumbents of both parties are being voted out of office."  Well, maybe, maybe not.

Jay Cost, who wrote the article, points out:

"...Arlen Specter is probably going to lose today. If that happens, Snarlin' Arlen will make the fourth high-profile pol that Barack Obama embraced in friendship who was later rebuked by the voters of a blue or purple state. Deeds, Corzine, Coakley, Specter. The White House doesn't want this "narrative" to get out - so they're pushing this alternative instead."

There was a time during the Clinton Administration when every person Bill Clinton campaigned for lost.  It seems as if the Obama Administration is running into the same problem.  The only good news for the Democrats yesterday was that they held John Murtha's congressional seat, but even that is a mixed blessing.   Mark Critz, the Democrat candidate, ran on a platform of opposing the healthcare reform bill (but stating that he is not going to work to repeal it); he claimed to be pro-life and pro-gun.  I wonder if he will be able to keep those stands after he arrives in the House of Representatives.

This sets up the kind of scenario we will see played out in the southern part of America this November if 'blue dog' Democrats plan to run for re-election.  The Democrats took over the House by running candidates who appeared to be conservative Democrats.  When these Democrats got to Washington, they elected Nancy Pelosi as Speaker and turned sharply left.  Many of them have resigned and those remaining will have a hard time being re-elected.  A Democrat who runs as a conservative and votes liberal will probably be a one-term Congressman.

The sentiment recently expressed by voters is not 'anti-imcumbent'--it is more 'get your hands off my pocketbook and your nose out of my life--it is not the government's business how much my children weigh!'  It should be an interesting November.

Last week Andrea Peyser wrote an article in the New York Post about the construction of a mosque near ground zero.  The Muslim house of worship would be built with a 13-story cultural center in a building that was formerly owned by Burlington Coat Factory.

When I first read this story, it really didn't register.  But after I heard comments from some of the surviving relatives of the people killed at ground zero on September 11th, I wondered what is really going on here.  There is a lot of land available in New York City to build a mosque.  Land prices are down right now; there is no reason to build at ground zero.  There are also two disturbing things about this mosque.  The planned opening day for the mosque is September 11, 2011.  The cost of the mosque is expected to be in excess of $100 million.  There are some obvious questions as to where this money is coming from.

Fox News reported yesterday that there are now plans to build a second, smaller mosque two blocks from ground zero. 

It seems rather insensitive to build a mosque on a site where Muslims murdered Americans and even more insensitive to open the mosque on the tenth anniversary of that date.  If the Muslims in charge of this mosque truly wanted to convey a message of peace, it seems to me that they would change the location and the opening date of their proposed mosque.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article yesterday about China's treatment of Mexicans who were visiting China legally last year.  Mr. Morrissey posted the article in response to China lecturing America on its human rights violations--including Arizona's new immigration law.  This is the story.

According to Time Magazine last May:

"When AeroMexico Flight 098, the first flight out of Mexico to China since the H1N1 outbreak, arrived in Shanghai in the early morning of April 30, the 25-year-old Mexican tourist who became China's swine flu patient showed no signs of illness. "He denied having come into close contact with any suspicious case of swine flu within the previous week or having any H1N1 flu symptoms in his health claim form," said Chen Ming, deputy director of the information center at the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine. "His temperature was normal when taken twice at the airport, and he also looked well....But the virus can stay latent for days and still be infectious. The man flew to Hong Kong, where he was later diagnosed with the disease."

As a result of this diagnosis, the Chinese government quarantined 70 Mexicans who arrived in China over the May 1 holiday weekend, most on different flights from the infected man.  Reportedly, some of those quarantined were held in "unacceptable conditions."   China then halted all AeroMexico flights coming into China. 

Mr. Morrissey points out that the Mexicans entered China legally and were treated very badly.  If China had been that concerned about the Swine Flu, they could have just put all of them on a plane back to Mexico instead of essentially locking them up.  Somehow I don't think China should be lecturing us on human rights.

Yesterday Kevin Mooney at Big Government posted a story on the current status of ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now).  Congress is in the process of defunding the organization after some scandels relating to voter registration and how money was spent. 

Mr. Mooney points out that although ACORN claims to have disbanded, it has simply changed its name and continued.  ACORN Housing, for example, is now the Affordable Housing Centers of America.  Federal records show that ACORN has received over $53 million in federal funds since 1994.  There is some question as to whether or not Congress will successfully cut off these federal funds.  Meanwhile, ACORN is not suffering from a money shortage.  Wellspring Advisors, Vanguard Charitable Endowment, the Rockefeller Fund and the Tides Foundation are some of the organizations people can give to in order to support ACORN. 

Project Vote is the ACORN entity that all of us need to be concerned about in November.  The organization conducts registration drives to register Democrat voters and has a reputation for illegal registrations.  ACORN is the subject of voter registration fraud investigations in at least 14 states.  These are the people who registered to Dallas Cowboys starting lineup to vote in Nevada and Mickey Mouse to vote in Florida. 

The article states:

"The political operatives that continue to stand behind the renamed affiliates are very shrewd in the sense that they will target areas where elections are close and where they have sympathetic local election officials."

ACORN will continue to be funded as long as there are people who value being in power more than integrity.  I understand that ACORN may have helped people get affordable housing, but the fact that they were willing to fund an underage prostitution ring convinces me that they should not receive federal funds.  Until all their tentacles are defunded, they will be a waste of federal money and a threat to the integrity of American elections.

This was written by a friend of mine who is trying to stop what could be the end of the small, independent fisherman in New England.

    On May 1 of this year, new regulations were implemented in the NE groundfish fishery. The fishery, comprised of 19 different species, is at its highest levels in 30 years. Fishermen have been promised for years by NOAA and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) that when these stocks rebounded, they would be able to have greater access to fish them. However, the newest science demostrating the current levels of these stocks is not being implemented; instead NOAA/NMFS are not only holding back this science but also hiding it from the general public. They instead continue to base regulations off faulty, old data that was collected by a research vessel with well documented problems (i.e. the net it was using in order to catch fish for fish surveys was towed closed and off the bottom, and therefore did not give remotely accurate estimates of the true numbers of fish in the ocean). The new regulations, termed Amendment 16, include even more drastic cutbacks in the face of the highest fish stock levels in many years, and a refusal by NOAA/NMFS to base the plan on the newest science. Due to these severe cutbacks, as well as the way the new plan is managed, 50-75% of the New England commercial fishing fleet could disappear by the end of the summer. If there are so many fish, why the need for the job loss and loss of our cultural heritage??? This will devastate coastal communities.

Today's Washington Examiner pointed out another surprise in Obamacare.  The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which is inside of the Department of Health and Human Services, has estimated that the healthcare reform act as passed will increase the cost of healthcare by at least $311 billion. 

There are a few more surprises coming.  Companies are looking at the cost of penalties for not providing healthcare for employees versus the cost of insuring the employees.  Since the penalties are cheaper, many companies will be dropping insurance coverage for employees and dumping them into the 'public' system. 

Remember the discussion that the 'public option' in Obamacare was dead?  Well, according to the article:

"Remember when Obama and congressional Democrats made a big show of dropping the public option government insurance program that was supposedly going to give private insurers competition and drive rates down? The truth is the public option is alive and well, residing in Section 1334, pages 97-100, of the new health care law. That section gives the U.S. Office of Personnel Management -- which presently manages the federal civil service -- new responsibilities: establishing and running two entirely new government health insurance programs to compete directly with private insurance companies in every state with coverage for people outside of government."

This does not sound like transparency in government.  It sounds like the first step toward government-controlled healthcare. 

REPEAL AND REPLACE!!!!!  It is the only way forward!!!  Keep that in mind in November.

According to Massachusetts Election 2010:

The North Attleboro Republican Town Committee is sponsoring the first Republican Candidates Debate for the 3rd Congressional District.

The debate will be held on Tuesday, June 15th, from 6:30 to 9:30 at the Cobb Theater, North Attleboro High School, 1 Wilson Whitty Way in North Attleboro. All five Republican candidates running in the primary against Sen. Jim McGovern will be present:

• Robert Chipman of Plainville
• Brian Herr of Hopkington
• Martin Lamb of Holliston
• Michael Stopa of Holliston
• Robert Delle of Westboro

The complete announcement from the North Attleboro Republican Town Committee follows:

On Tuesday June 15th, the 3rd Congressional District of Massachusetts will hold it's first Republican Candidates Debate In North Attleboro from 6:30pm till 9:30pm.
The Debate will be held at the Cobb Thearter: 1 Wilson Whitty Way in North Attleborough

As a taxpayer, voter and citizen I urge your devoted interest in this Democratic process that so many lives have afforded you in what we call, "Freedom". Won't you join our North Attleboro Republican Town Committee as we present you, the voter, an opportunity to directly engage the five Republican candidates running for the Peoples Seat currently held by incummbant Democrat James McGovern.

Our district currently comprises all or most of 28 cities and towns with an economic base alone equal to many 3rd world countries GNP, our population ten years ago included 1/10th of the states residents and an almost exact replica of the now coined phrase "gerrymander district" from 1812, your state comprises one of the largest congressional delegations to Washington of any of our 50 states and if you don't think your vote counts on primary day Tuesday September 28, 2010 we can only refer you to January 20 headlines of this year.

All five candidates for election as your next Congressional Representative of this 3rd Congressional District will be present: Robert Chipman of Plainville, Brian Herr of Hopkington, Martin Lamb of Holliston, Michael Stopa of Holliston and Robert Delle of Westboro. Each candidate taking questions directly from you the taxpayer, you the voter, you the citizen. Please engage your political interests, be here at the forfront, in the heartland of Scott Brown's base of support. Without your vote and interest this democracy will loose never think your vote doesn't count.

I encourage, urge and otherwise respectfully request your presence to this political debate that features a variety of individuals cut from the American fabric who will stand up for your interests, beliefs and concerns. Candidates seeking support through fair, honest, hard working, family oriented citizens like yourselves hoping to save the American Dream.

James Lang
North Attleboro Republican Town Committee

I personally am supporting Marty Lamb, but I will support whoever wins the primary.

Yesterday John Hinderaker at Power Line posted a story about the Obama Administration's efforts to encourage China to treat its citizens more humanely.  Needless to say, the administration is treading carefully because we need China's support on a number of difficult issues--Iran going nuclear, North Korea getting more aggressive, climate change rules, etc.  However, when you consider the fact that China routinely harvests organs from murdered political prisoners, I think there may be some room for improvement in their human rights policies.  Well, they think we have some problems too.

The article points out:

"Assistant Secretary of State Michael] Posner said in addition to talks on freedom of religion and expression, labor rights and rule of law, officials also discussed Chinese complaints about problems with U.S. human rights, which have included crime, poverty, homelessness and racial discrimination.

"He said U.S. officials did not whitewash the American record and in fact raised on its [sic] own a new immigration law in Arizona that requires police to ask about a person's immigration status if there is suspicion the person is in the country illegally."

I have a few questions.  What is China's policy on illegal immigrants?  Is there poverty in China?  What about China's one-child per family policy and the murder of girl babies that results from that policy?  What about freedom of religion in China?

If our government can't see a difference between harvesting organs from political prisoners and closing our borders to illegal immigration, I think it's time to elect a new government.

Michael Yon (MichaelYon-online) has been in Thailand for the past few days reporting on what is going on there.  I don't believe he has posted anything at his website, but has a profile on Facebook where he is posting what he sees and hears.

Today's UK Times Online posted a story on what is going on in Thailand.  Anti-government protestors are fighting the military and one of the protest leaders is warning of a civil war. 

The article states:

"With at least 30 dead and more than 232 injured since the fighting erupted on Thursday night, pressure on the Thai Government to end the insurrection is growing. A total of 59 people have been killed since violence erupted in April, almost all of them civilians."

The protestors have set up fortified encampments within the capital city, and the military has declared these areas "live fire zones". 

According to Michael Yon on facebook:

"From what I have seen on the ground, Thai soldiers and police have behaved with restraint. They have controlled their fire. Not fired wildly. They have been responsible in the face of madness."

The protestors (Red Shirts) have asked for a ceasefire, which the government has refused.  They have also requested UN-brokered talks, but that offer was also refused.  The protestors are demanding the dissolution of Parliament and fresh elections. 

Billy Graham is said to have stated, "Eleven o'clock Sunday morning is the most segregated hour in America."  I am not sure when that statement was made, but I saw evidence this morning that at least in some parts of New England, it is no longer true.

I had the privilege this morning of attending a church service in a town about an hour from my home.  I was there because my Pastor was there to help install a new Pastor in that church.  As I have said, this was not my usual church, and I was totally encouraged to be there.  In addition to a beautiful service in a unique location (the church meets on the third floor of an office building), I saw evidence that, at least in that city, the church is coming together. 

This was a relatively small church, and I saw people of all ages, races, and ethnic backgrounds.  So at least in some parts of Massachusetts, eleven o'clock Sunday morning is not the most segregated hour in America--some of us have put aside our differences are are working together to make our families stronger, our communities better, and our country more like what our founding fathers envisioned. 

The church has a role to play as America moves forward.  We are in a unique position to know who is in need and to help them out.  We are in a unique position to deal with some of the addiction problems our society has developed.  And we are in a unique position to strengthen families--the building blocks of our society.  Thank God that some of us are learning to work together regardless of age, race, or ethnic background.  I am sure that there are other churches out there throughout the country that have put differences aside to work together in ways that show the love of Jesus, and I am grateful for them.

"Tariq Azam TTP Spokesman interviewz"

About the video of Hakimullah Mahsud Amir of TTP I would say that the Pakistani government w...as making a false propaganda about the death of Hakimullah Mahsud and they had even convinced the Americans that Hakimullah Mahsud has been killed in the American drone attack. But we have been denying this from the start that Amir Sahib has been killed he is alright and he is in contact with all the Taliban leaders active in different areas. Amir Sahib is looking after the day to day business of the movement. But the Pakistani secrete agencies were still making this false propaganda that Amir of TTP Hakimullah has been killed in drone attack. Due to this the Muslim Ommah and Mujahideen were greatly demoralized and disappointed so it was felt that a video of Amir Sahib should be released to tell the world and all the Muslims that Amir Sahib is alive and not only alive but is active and is in contact with all the Mujahideen groups who are fighting against Taghoti forces in any part of the world.

Every Mujahid in the world is receiving his messages and he is in contact with them. By the video we also wanted to show to the world that Tehrik-i Taliban is moving forward towards its goals. The Tehrik is again getting stronger and is getting nearer to its objectives every day.

By this (the Time square attack) we also wanted to give a message to the head of Taghoti forces in the world and which is involved in the killing, displacing and dishonoring of Muslims in the world and its supporters and allies that soon America will also burn and it is digging its own grave and our fidayeens has entered America who will carryout attacks on their soil. Those forces who want to crush Muslims and who want to erase Islam from the world and who want to crush Mujahideen and Jihad we want to tell them that they can't crush the Muslims or the Mujahideen and neither could they do any harm to Islam but instead they would burn and they would be crushed and they would be digging with their own hands their graves.

The Americans couldn't even dream of what the TTP has proven to them (by organizing the foiled attack).This was only a car full of explosives which could not explode but many other would explode right on their soil and America would also burn very soon, God Willing.

And by this we also want to send a message to the heads of Americans allies and their supporters that they would also be burned like America if they continue their support to the Americans.

The Tehrik under Amir Sahib is getting popular and is spreading in all the four corners of the world and this Tehrik is now not only confined to the agencies only it is now spreading every where and it is getting stronger. All the Mujahideen in the world are in contact with one another and they are communicating with one another.

As far as Tehrik Taliban Pakistan is concerned it is now not only confined to South Waziristan agency but has been organized in all the tribal agencies and the Tehrik Taliban is fighting against the Taghoti forces. They are united and they have no differences of any kind with one another they are all united.
Thanks to Allah, just like the Russian forces in Afghanistan were defeated similarly America and its allies are facing defeat in Afghanistan.

The Tehrik Taliban is fighting against the enemies of Islam at every front and are defeating them everywhere. The TTP Taliban are organized and active in all the sectors in the agency and they are inflicting great damage to the impure army (Pakistan Army) in the agency. You would have heard and seen that the Pakistani army claimed that they had secured and cleansed Swat of the Taliban and they even took their American masters on the tour of Swat. but it is again coming under the control of the Taliban and attacks are taking place on the army regularly by the Taliban in Swat and the Taliban are again gaining control of Swat.

The army is now forced to admit that the Taliban are still controlling Swat. And in the Khyber Agency, Mohmand Agency, Bajaur Agency, Orakzai Agency and even Kurrum Agency the Taliban are according to their planning inflicting great damage to the Taghoti army, the mercenary army which gets its pay from the Kerry Logar bill is facing defeat everywhere.

All the Mujahedeen groups' in every part of the world are in contact with one another and they cooperate with each other and they are interdependent on one another those who fights for Allah and their religion. So we are going to take revenge from the Jews and Christians for all the killing and brutalities inflicted upon the Muslims by them.

Where ever there are Mujahedeen they are one and their mission is to impose the laws of Allah in this world.

I will also tell you now with the help of Allah there is no shortage of suicide bombers in the TTP and they are in great numbers in the Tehrik. There are thousands of Suicide Bombers with the TTP in Pakistan. The control of the suicide bombers are in the hands of responsible and intelligent people who use these suicide bombers according to the need of the time. They are used on different occasion against the Taghoti forces in the area.

The TTP don't target public places through suicide bombers to kill civilians this is done by the government to defame the Taliban to decrease their support in the people. I would also make one thing clear that we believe in fighting Jihad according to the Shariah rules. This is a very brave and proud nation and we don't want to give this nation into the hands of Americans such as Gen. Paptreas, Holbrooke and Armitage we don't want this nation to become the slave of the Americans. This is an independent nation and here would be an Islamic rule on this land.

This Pakistani army and government have given a lot of trouble to our people just to please the Americans. They are sacrificing their own country and people to please the Americans. So the people should keep very close watch on this government and now is the time to remove the government whose every policy is against the people and anti-Islam as soon as possible. As long this government is in power military operation by the impure Pakistani army would go on in the area and jihad against them would go on as long as this government goes on pleasing the Americans. We are from the people and the people are ours and so is Pakistan, it belong to us and one day this hypocrite government would also be removed from power in Pakistan.

The media's main responsibility is to tell the truth to the people about this military operation going on in South Waziristan that what is the real situation on the ground and why has this American war been imposed on our areas. The journalists should tell the truth to the people about this American imposed war in our areas. These are not threats to the journalist community but just to tell them that they should perform their duties honestly. the government is claiming that they are in control in South Waziristan I invite the journalists to come to South Waziristan and see for themselves what is the real situation on the ground in the agency and the journalist should tell the public that the Taliban are in control in the agency and not the Pakistani army and if you can print government news in your newspaper so you should also report about the success made by the Taliban against the army in your papers. I want the journalist to present our side of the story also along the government's claims. I want to invite the journalist to visit all the area from Swat to South Waziristan and see for themselves the ground situation. Who is stopping the journalists from their duties is this present government who according to the Do More Policy of Armitage is stopping the journalist from reporting the truth.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air today cited Nancy Pelosi's latest quote about the new healthcare bill.  There is a video at Hot Air (follow the link above) if you would like to hear her comments, but here is what she said:

"We see it as an entrepreneurial bill, a bill that says to someone, if you want to be creative and be a musician or whatever, you can leave your work, focus on your talent, your skill, your passion, your aspirations because you will have health care."

A few months ago, Ms. Pelosi stated:

"So, you can't--everybody has so much to gain from this, small businesses, as I said, seniors, young people, women, our economy. Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance or that people could start a business and be entrepreneurial and take risk, but not job loss because of a child with asthma or someone in the family is bipolar--you name it, any condition--is job locking."

These have to be two of the dumbest statements ever made by a political official.  The best comment on these statements comes from Duane Patterson, Hugh Hewitt's producer, who stated at the Hughniverse (no link--you have to join to get there).

"If House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's suggestion were to take hold in America. there would be 300 million out of work aspiring artists thinking their health cae is now free, and not having anyone left actually working and paying the taxes necessary to fund it."

I would love to be a professional muscian, songwriter, singer, maybe.  But there are a few problems--I hate to practice, I can't sing, and I have never written a song.  Other than that, it's a great idea--at least as good as Nancy Pelosi's telling me I should follow my dream even if it doesn't mean being productive!

Almost everyone has seen the video at You Tube of a member of the Black Panther Party holding a nightstick at a Philadelphia voting place in 2008.  Yesterday the Washington Times posted an article explaining that a justice official has stated that there was "insufficient evidence" to bring a civil case against the New Black Panther Party for disrupting election in Philadelphia. 

"Mr. (Thomas E.) Perez, the only Justice Department official to testify publicly before the commission about the case, said that without sufficient proof that party members or the organization's leader, Malik Zulu Shabazz, directed or controlled unlawful activities at the poll or made speeches to incite or produce lawless action, the complaint "would have likely failed" in court."

I understand that pictures can be doctored and thus cannot be relied upon as evidence, but this video seems rather clear.

A written statement by the Black Panther Party stated that Mr. Shabazz should not have brought a nightstick to the polling place, but stated that it was an 'honest error.'  If a tea party member showed up with a nightstick, would that be an 'honest error'?  I am truly sorry that our Justice Department does not see fit to protect voters from intimidation at the voting booth.  There are laws setting limits on how close political activity can be to polling places, don't we have laws to prevent voter intimidation?  Is anyone in the current administration interested in upholding them?

Byron York posted an article at the Washington Examiner yesterday wondering whether the Senate will have access to all of Elena Kagan's papers during the confirmation process.  Mr. York reminds us that when John Roberts was examined, all of his work done at the Reagan White House Counsel's Office during the 1980's was provided to the Senate when they asked for it.  With that precedent set, it will be difficult to withhold Elena Kagan's papers generated during her time in the Clinton White House Counsel's Office in 1995 and1996. 

The only questionable item that I have come across in Ms. Kagan's background is a controversy she was involved in while serving in the Clinton White House in 1996. 

"...the Clinton administration was accused of siding with a group of radical environmentalists locked in a standoff with federal agents in Oregon. Officials at the U.S. Forest Service suspected that a staffer at the White House Council on Environmental Quality tipped off the protesters about a coming federal crackdown.

"The situation drew the attention of Republicans on the House Committee on Natural Resources, who found that Kagan, in the White House Counsel's Office, did little, if anything, to find or punish the leaker, even though that person had revealed confidential information that potentially endangered the lives of Forest Service agents. GOP investigators asked for Kagan's notes on the matter at the time, but the White House refused, claiming executive privilege."

It is not a surprise that a Supreme Court nominee of Barack Obama would be liberal.  The question is whether or not she believes in enforcing laws equally regardless of who is involved.

Wednesday's Washington Examiner posted a commentary on the fact that defense contractor Northrop Grumman has decided to move its corporate headquarters from California to northern Virginia. 

The article states:

"This is a big win for the commonwealth, as Northrop employs more than 122,000 people worldwide, generated more than $32 billion in revenue last year, ranks as the fourth-largest defense contractor, and is the nation's largest shipbuilder. The two spurned suitors have nobody but themselves to blame for their loss to Virginia."

What were the determining factors in the decision?  Washington, D. C., offered $25 million in tax breaks, Maryland offered $22 million.  Virginia offered $14 million.  So why choose Virginia?  Simple.  Virginia has a 6 percent corporate tax rate (Maryland is 8.25, Washington, D. C., is 9).  While Virginia's new governor, Bob McDonald, trimmed the state budget by $2 billion, Maryland's governor, Martin O'Malley, instituted a tax on millionaires that resulted in many high-income people fleeing the state.  Maryland and Washington, D. C., have some of the same problems that caused Northrop Grumman to leave California.  Northrop Grumman has chosen Virginia because that state seems to be taking actions that will avoid those problems. 

As Greece erupts and America (and the IMF) send money, America moves in the direction of bigger government, more spending and higher tax burdens.  There is, however, a light at the end of the tunnel.  A. B. Stoddard posted an article at The Hill on Wesdnesday showing how Chris Christie, Governor of New Jersey, is doing the things that will put his financially disastrous state budget back in the black.

Needless to say, the actions necessary to move the state from a deficit of $10.7 billion of a $29.3 billion budget to a balanced budget are not universally popular in the state.  The first thing Governor Christie did when he took office was declare a state of emergency.  He then signed an executive order froze spending and then proceeded to cut $13 billion in spending. 

The Teacher's Unions are screaming that they are being mistreated--the have had to accept a salary freeze for a year and will now pay 1.5 percent of their healthcare insurance. 

According to the article:

"New Jersey, which has the highest unemployment in the region and highest taxes in the country, lost 121,000 jobs in the private sector in 2009 while adding 11,300 new education jobs. During the last eight years, K-12 enrollment rose just 3 percent while education jobs increased more than 16 percent. According to the Newark Star-Ledger, during the recession that has cost many residents their homes and jobs and scaled back hours and pay for the employed, teachers' salaries rose by nearly 5 percent, double the rate of inflation."

Property taxes rose 70 percent in the last ten years, and 1 percent of the taxpayers are paying 40 percent of the income tax in the state.  Needless to say, people who are high-earners, who own large houses, and who own businesses are fleeing the state.

Governor Christie has stated that he does not care about re-elected.  It will be interesting to see when the time comes whether or not the people of New Jersey appreciate or understand what he is doing to save the state from itself.

Today's New York Daily News reports that Congress has cut the amount of money to be spend in New York City to prevent terrorism.  The Department of Homeland Security is cutting transit funding on anti-terrorism from $153 million to $111 million.  Money to protect the port of New York City is being cut from $45 million to $33.8 million.

According to the article:

"The Homeland Security Department is trying to duck the blame for the subway part of the insanity, saying that the cut for New York only reflects an overall transit security cut by Congress.

But all Congress did was approve the funding request from the White House, which was down from $400 million to $250 million."

I am totally in favor of any move that will cut government spending.  However, when you consider that the first duty of government is to protect its citizens, I am really beginning to wonder about the priorities of this administration.  As our budget deficit soars with new spending on healthcare, energy programs, and other non-defense items, we find ourselves the target of a terrorist movement that wants to eliminate us.  It we don't successfully deal with the terrorists, the rest won't really matter very much.

The disconnect between voters and the people they have previously elected is growing.  The majority of Americans opposed the recent healthcare reform bill, and many contacted their Congressmen to tell them they were opposed.  The bill passed anyway.  Well, Massachusetts has similar problems.

Yesterday Rasmussen Reports released a poll showing that 70 per cent of Massachusetts voters favor denying public benefits to illegal immigrants.  A law to do that was introduced into the Massachusetts state legislature recently, and was defeated by a 75 to 82 vote.

The Rasmussen group also polled Massachusetts residents regarding the illegal immigration law recently passed in Arizona.  Forty-one per cent of Massachusetts voters approve of the law.  Governor Patrick has stated that if the legislature of Massachusetts passed a law similar to the one passed in Arizona, he would veto it. 

According to the article:

"But 52% of Democratic voters favor a boycott of Arizona, while 74% of Republicans and 66% of unaffiliateds oppose it.

"When it comes to having a law like Arizona's, however, 64% of GOP voters are in favor of it, but 68%of Democrats are opposed. Among unaffiliated voters in Massachusetts, 46% favor such a law, while 39% oppose it."

I guess I just don't understand the problem.  If I am stopped by a policeman for some reason, I expect to have to show some sort of ID.  I don't consider that an imposition--I consider it a given.  If we are not going to enforce our current immigration laws, why do we have them?

Last year, President Obama signed an executive order granting the international police agency INTERPOL the ability to operate inside the United States without the kind of restraints placed on American law enforcement agencies.  INTERPOL is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Its staff and offices at the Department of Justice cannot be searched, and its files cannot be seized.  It sounds harmless enough to those of us who follow the law, but the potential for misuse is rather obvious.  Here is an example.

CBN News is reporting today on the story of Shahram Homayoun, an Iranian who fled his country 19 years ago because he feared for his life because he supported democracy and human rights. 

According to the article:

"Homayoun owns a satellite television network in L.A. called Channel One TV. He broadcasts pro-democracy programming into Iran on a daily basis.

"Now Iranian officials want to silence him -- permanently. A prosecutor in the Iranian city of Shiraz recently issued an arrest warrant against Homayoun on charges of terrorism."  

Mr. Homayoun has stated that he has never called for violence against the regime in Iran.  He simply promotes the idea of democracy.  The Iranian regime alerted INTERPOL to Mr. Homayoun as a terrorist.  Because of this alert, all countries that are members of INTERPOL were notified of his 'terrorism.'   Because of this alert, his bank accounts have been closed, and he has not been allowed to open new accounts.  This action by the Iranian government may eventually result in the shutting down of his pro-democracy network.  If that happens, the Iranian government has successfuly curtailed free speech in America.  If tyrannical regimes begin to use INTERPOL as an extension of their tyranny, no one is safe.

I need to begin this article by saying that I regret any civilian casualties in any war, but also that I understand that those casualties are a part of war.  Dropping two atomic bombs on Japan caused untold civilian casualties, but it also saved thousands of soldiers and ended a war.  We need to keep this in mind as we move forward in the war on terror.

The source of this article is a Navy Times article posted today.  There is a proposal currently circulating in the International Security Assistance Force in Kubal, Afghanistan, to award a medal for "courageous restraint" for holding fire to save civilian lives.  Since we are dealing with an enemy who historically hides among the civilian population, this is a sure way to ensure that more United States and allied soldiers get killed. 

According to the article:

"The self-protections built into the rules of engagement are clear, and the decision to return fire must be made instantly based on training and the threat," said Joe Davis, a spokesman for the Veterans of Foreign Wars. "The enemy already hides among noncombatants, and targets them, too. The creation of such an award will only embolden their actions and put more American and noncombatant lives in jeopardy. Let's not rush to create something that no one wants to present posthumously."

The way to win the war in Afghanistan is to fight it, win it, and get it over with.  Anything else kills more soldiers, more civilians, and gives the terrorists a victory.  Someone needs to send the person who came up with the idea of this medal into battle and tell him he can't shoot at the enemy.  That is what this medal is telling our soldiers.

Today's Boston Herald reported that Richard Ross has been elected in a special election to fill Scott Brown's vacant seat in the Massachusetts state Senate.  The Republicans will now retain their five seats in the forty-seat Senate.

This is not a move away from being a blue state--the seat was held by Scott Brown, also a Republican.  However, this is an indication that Scott Brown's election to the United States Senate may not have been a fluke.  In the coming November election, there will still be some uncontested Democrats running for office, but there will also be Republican primary elections for some offices late this summer.  That is an indication that Massachusetts may be developing a stronger Republican Party.  A one-party state is not a healthy situation, regardless of which party is in charge.  A two-party state will tend to govern is a way that includes the best ideas from both parties and will tend to be more successful.

Congratulations and best wishes to Mr. Ross.

I suppose it isn't news that we have lost civility, but sometimes I am surprised by the total lack of class exhibited by some Americans.  Fox News reported yesterday that the 75-foot memorial cross in the Mojave Desert has been stolen.  The cross was erected in 1934 by the Veterans of Foreign Wars to honor the soldiers who died in World War I.  Recently, the ACLU challenged its right to be there (claiming it represented the establishment of religion).  The case went to the Supreme Court, where the Court declared the cross was legal.  However, the Court referred the case back to a lower court for further review.  The cross was to be covered with a wooden box or a tarp until that review was completed. 

According to the article:

"The Liberty Institute is now offering a $25,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction in the case, and the National Park Service has established a tip hotline seeking information leading to the recovery of the cross. Anyone with information is asked to contact the Park Service at (760) 252-6120."

This is equivalent to desecrating a grave.  This cross was set in place to honor the soldiers who died in World War I.  In 1934, placing a cross on a grave was the accepted way to honor the dead.  This is not an establishment of Christianity or a slight to the soldiers who were not Christian.  Tradition places a cross on soldier's graves.  There are fields of crosses in France to honor the Americans who died in World War II.

Regardless of how you feel about a cross as a memorial, the cutting down and stealing of the cross is inexcusable.  I hope that when the people who did this are found, they are dealt with severely.

Today's Washington Examiner posted an editorial about the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court.  The editorial points out two areas that the editors feel should be explored in the confirmation hearings.

• Elena Kagan was involved in the preparation of the Citizen's United case which was argued before the Supreme Court.  The question in the case was whether the government could criminalize speech that criticized a public official who was running for office 60 days before a general election and 30 days before a primary.  The question needs to be asked as to whether or not Ms. Kagan believes in the censorship of political speech.
• As dean of Harvard Law School, Ms. Kagan opposed military recruiting on campus.  She did this because she was opposed to the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy of the military and felt that homosexuals should be able to serve openly in the military.  We are in a time of war, and I really am concerned about naming a Supreme Court Justice who has opposed the military in the past.

Having said all this, I believe that the President has the right to name his Supreme Court Justices.  Unless there is some horrible hidden fact that has not yet surfaced, I think Elena Kagan should be confirmed.  I also think that the people who favor more conservative judges should use her hearings to show the difference between conservative and liberal judges.  Knowing his political background, it would be unrealistic to expect President Obama to appoint a conservative judge.  The best those of us who are conservative can hope for is a qualified, fair-minded appointee.  I believe Elena Kagan fits that description.  

Monday's Detroit News posted a story entitled "Landscapers Find Workers Choosing Jobless Pay."  The article explains that Michigan has the nation's highest unemployment rate, and some of its residents are rejecting job offers in order to continue collecting unemployment.  The landscaping industry is finding that some workers are choosing to stay home and collect unemployment rather than working (and paying the expenses involved in working--travel, gas, meals, etc.). 

The average landscaper earns about $ 12 per hour.  That is a $ 480 paycheck per week.  Unemployment pays $ 255, a difference of $ 225.  After federal and state taxes are deducted, the landscaper earns $ 350 a week--$ 95 less than the unemployment check.

Statistics show that an unemployed person in Michigan collects unemployment for an average of 19.4 weeks.  Last year that average was 15 weeks.  Unemployment benefits last for up to 26 weeks.  When state unemployment benefits run out, an unemployed person can apply for extended federal benefits that increase the total time unemployment can be collected to a maximum of 99 weeks.  That's almost two years!

Another part of this picture is the fact that 15 percent of Michigan's economy is underground.  No one knows how many of the people collecting unemployment are working 'under the table.' 

If the goal of paying unemployment is to help people financially while encouraging them to find jobs, it may be that extending unemployment benefits is counterproductive.

In May of 2009, In Tech, a website posted from the research triangle in North Carolina, published an article about natural underwater oil seepage.  The article points out that according to researchers at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) and the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB), the amount of oil that seeps from the ocean floor off Santa Barbara, California, is the equivalent to from 8 to 80 times the amount of the Exxon Valdez spill.  This is a natural occurrence--there are no tankers or oil rigs involved.  The question is, "How does mother nature deal with this?"  Why isn't the area a mess?"

According to the article:

"There is an oil spill everyday at Coal Oil Point (COP), the natural seeps off Santa Barbara, where 20-25 tons of oil have leaked from the seafloor each day for the last several hundred thousand years.

"Earlier research by Reddy and Valentine at the site found microbes were capable of degrading a significant portion of the oil molecules as they traveled from the reservoir to the ocean bottom, and that once the oil floated to sea surface, about 10% of the molecules evaporated within minutes." 

WHOI marine chemist Chris Reddy and UCSB's Dave Valentine are studying the oil seepage at Coal Oil Point (COP) to find out how nature has dealt with this amount of oil.  They have used the Alvin submersible and its support vessel Atlantis to collect sediment samples in the area.

The scientists don't have an answer yet, but the studies continue.  The work they are doing may prevent future environmental damage from the kind of accident that we have recently had in the Gulf of Mexico.  We need to remember that although there are risks associated with off-shore drilling, the safety factor is much better than it was 20 years ago.  If we can copy mother nature's way of dealing with the rare accidents that will happen, we can make off-shore drilling environmentally safe.

CNS News posted an Associated Press story today about a seemingly minor change that has been made by the National Mediation Board in the way companies unionize.  On Monday, the Obama Administration changed a 76-year old rule regarding union elections.  Under the new rule, a company would recognize a union if a simple majority of workers who cast ballots favored organizing a union.  Under the previous law, a majority of the total number of workers was needed--if a worker did not cast a ballot, it was counted as a 'no' vote. 

According to the article:

"The change puts the airline and railroad industries under the same procedures as most other companies, which are overseen by the National Labor Relations Board." 

The unions are hoping to use to new rule to organize unions in some of the major airlines.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out.  The recent recess appointment of Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board was supposed to pave the wave for 'card check' without having to go through the legislative process.  It may be possible that with this new rule in effect, card check may not be necessary.

The information for this story comes from articles at CBN News and Examiner.com about the ousting of Senator Bob Bennett from the Utah Republican Primary Election for the Senate.  Senator Bennett had been in the Senate for three terms.  He was defeated at the state's Republican convention.  The Tea Party movement claims credit for his defeat.

There are a few things that have not been mentioned often in the major media outlets.  According to the Examiner:

"Immigration played a role in his defeat as he had supported comprehensive immigration reform that included amnesty from identity theft and a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens."

Senator Bennett had also voted for two bailout programs and attempted a bi-partisan healthcare reform bill.  According to CBN News:

""Looking back on them, with one or two very minor exceptions, I wouldn't have cast any of them any differently," Bennett said. "Even if I had known at the time they were going to cost me my career.""

My comment on that statement is very simple.  When the Founding Fathers put together the government of America, they did not want Congress to become a career.  The plan was that ordinary citizens would come to Washington, serve in Congress for a few years, then return to their states and live under the laws that they had passed.  This is the principle we need to rediscover.

One of the most striking things about President Obama's foreign policy is the way he treats the friends of America and the way he treats the enemies of America.  Some of the friends who have been disappointed in their relationship with America are Poland and the Czech Republic, who were denied a missile defence system they had been promised under President Bush, Britian, who was simply not given the respect it deserved as a long-time friend, and Israel, who has been asked to make unreasonable concessions in the quest for peace.  I have no idea how the Czechs and Polish are handling this, but American Jews are not happy with the Obama Administration.

Yesterday the Israel National News reported a McLaughlin Group poll which found that although 42 percent of American Jews said that they would vote to re-elect President Obama, 46 percent said that they would consider voting for someone else.  12 percent refused to answer the question or said that they did not know.  Polls are taken all the time and generally are not all that revealing, but when you consider that 78 percent of American Jews voted for President Obama, that is quite a change. 

The article reported:

"The poll showed that key voter segments including Orthodox/Hassidic voters, Conservative voters, voters who have friends and family in Israel and those who have been to Israel, are all more likely to consider voting for someone other than Obama."

The Jewish-American community was one of the strongest voting blocs to support President Obama in 2008.  It will be interesting to see if the results of this poll are still relevant in 2012.  As much as I hate to see politics play a part in the 'peace process', if politics causes us to support Israel in its efforts to continue to exist, I would be fine with that.

Fred Barnes has a post in the Washington Examiner today about the differences that have arisen over the years between pay and benefits in the public and private sectors.  As public sector unions have become more powerful, the salaries and benefits of public sector employees have grown much faster and much larger than their private sector counterparts.  The public sector does not have to make a profit, and generally it is not examined too closely to see how much individuals are paid or the benefits they receive.  The link above will give you information on some of the problems union pensions and benefits are causing in various states.  But I want to look at a different aspect of this.

Union membership in the public sector in 2009 was 37.4 percent.  In the private sector, union membership in 2009 was 7.2 percent.  Therefore, it seems to me that if you wanted to increase the number of union members (and the power of unions), all you have to do is increase the number of public sector workers.  At this point I would like to remind you that the healthcare bill includes a provision for 17,000 additional Internal Revenue Agents (future union members?).  I would also like to mention that the most frequent visitor to the White House during the Obama Administration has been Andy Stern, the President of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) which has 2.2 million members. 

The divide between the wages and benefits paid in the public versus the private sector is important for a number of reasons:

• The wages and benefits paid in the public sector are paid by the people working in the private sector.
• As the public sector increases, the private sector decreases, and the economy contracts.
• At some point, the private sector is going to rebel against the wages they are paying and the benefits they are granting--particularly when those wages and benefits are compared to what they are paid.
• The private sector has moved away from unionization.  As the public sector unions become more powerful, there may be a tendency to strongarm private companies into unionizing (card check through the NLRB rather than legislation?).

At any rate, the growth of salaries and benefits in the public sector needs to be checked or we will see a number of states going bankrupt.  Much of the stimulus money was paid to states to avoid a financial crisis last year.  This year they will have to deal with the problem themselves.  So far, New Jersey is the only state actually trying to find a solution.

Please follow this link to an article at NewsRealBlog posted today.  The article deals with the acceptance by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) in the United States of a Muslim practice against women.   The practice is watered down, but is still approved by the AAP.  I understand the concept of reaching out to other cultures that choose to make their homes in America, but I believe we need to draw the line occassionally as to what we will permit.  I believe this is one of those times.  We cannot allow this practice in this country.  It is a betrayal of the idea that a doctor is there to heal.  It is a betrayal of the trust little girls place in their parents and in their doctors.  It needs to be made illegal and anyone who practices it needs to be arrested.

On Thursday, May 6, Rich Trzupek posted an article about the Cape Wind Farm.  Since this seems to be moving ahead, I thought I would print some of the objections from the right and from the left.  Mr. Trzupek posted the article at FrontPageMag.com, which is a website run by David Horowitz, a former 60's radical, now a conservative. 

In the article, Mr. Trzupek cites Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s statement about the wind farm,  "It's a boondoggle of the worst kind. It's going to cost the people of Massachusetts $4 billion over the next 20 years in extra costs."  Mr. Kennedy is an environmental lawyer that you would expect to support 'green' energy.  Mr. Trzupek agrees with the above statement. 

The article further states:

"I recently asked an energy executive why his company was investing in wind-power so heavily, when we both know it doesn't make any economic sense to do so. His reply was that it's all about the government subsidies. Once those run out, they intend to forgo any further - very expensive - maintenance, run the things till they break down and then forget about them. Given the high cost of wind power, and the fact that you have to have an equivalent amount of fossil power ready to back up wind energy (since the wind doesn't blow all the time outside of the halls of Congress) it's reasonable to assume that this fellow isn't the only person in the energy industry thinking along such lines."

I think all of us would like to see cleaner, cheaper energy, but this is not the way to go.  Please follow the link to the article referenced here to read how campaign money is influencing the government subsidies of the Cape Wind Farm.  This is a true example of "follow the money."  Unfortunately it is also a true example of how to take away money from the taxpayers and the consumers of electricity.

'Meanwhile, in Nashville' is the headlline of an editorial posted at Investors.com yesterday.  The editorial deals with the way the major news stories are being dealt with by the mainstream media. 

The editorial points out:

"It's getting obvious that that's the pattern: A parallel example is in the media coverage of combat deaths in Afghanistan. During the Bush years, the media reported deaths of soldiers daily because it advanced an anti-war agenda. With President Obama now at the helm, they've dropped coverage.

"A look at the Los Angeles Times' oil spill coverage, for one, shows birds featured daily in its blog and paper while the 11 oil platform workers have barely registered. On the blog, the news of the deaths wasn't acknowledged until May 5, eight days after the workers' employer identified them in a memorial Web site.

"Is this important? Yes. Regardless of the worries about the birds, the workers' deaths are more tragic and have more implications for society. But as people, they hardly serve an agenda."

While the news was focused on the birds impacted by the oil spill, Nashville, Tennessee, suffered its worst flood in 500 years.  The death toll is still climbing, and the economic impact will be at least $1.5 billion for the region.  It broke my heart to hear the tale of someone in a canoe being able to paddle across the stage of the Ryman Auditorium at the Grand Ole Opry.  The Associated Press covered the story well, but the major newspapers buried the coverage.  Tennessee must have wondered if it was still part of the United States.

It is obvious that as a very 'busy' society; we don't always have the time to pay close attention to what is going on around us.  The news--24-hour news cycle, newspapers, radio, television, internet--should be able to help us with that.  However, it is the responsibility of journalism to report news.  One of the reasons for the explosion of the internet blogs is that the regular news outlets have traded news for manipulation of the public.  A picture of an oil-soaked bird is much more friendly to their cause than a flood in Tennessee or the deaths that occurred when the oil rig exploded.  All are important; it would be nice if all of these things received coverage. 

Terrorist activities within the United States have caused many people to want to take another look at how we Mirandize prisoners.  Charles Krauthammer at the National Review posted a reasonable suggestion yesterday.

Mr. Krauthammer points out that under the public-safety exception in the Miranda Rights law, a suspect does not have to be read his Miranda rights immediately.  The purpose of reading someone his Miranda rights is to ensure that any information obtained from the suspect is admissible in court. 

Mr. Krauthammer points out:

"In this case, however, Miranda warnings were superfluous. Shahzad had confessed to the car-bombing attempt while being interrogated under the public-safety exception. That's admissible evidence. Plus, he left a treasure trove of physical evidence all over the place -- which is how we caught him in two days."

The thing to remember in dealing with terrorism is that any information a captured terrorist gives out is time-sensitive.  It is fairly easy for loosely-constructed terrorism cells to move people and camps as soon as one of their members has been captured.

Let me be clear.  I am not in favor of mistreating people we arrest.  However, when someone admits or is seen carrying out a terrorist act (as in the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber), I think we need to be more concerned about public safety than we are about reading a person his Miranda rights.  Being a terrorist should change the rules--even in America.

Remember being told that if the healthcare reform bill passed, those of us who like their current health insurance would be allowed to keep it?  Well, maybe.  Power Line reported yesterday on some of the information in the subpoenaed documents supplied to Congress by AT&T, Verizon, and other companies.  Remember that when AT&T released information on how much the healthcare reform bill would cost them as a company, Democratic Representatives Henry Waxman and Bart Stupak scheduled a hearing for the corporate officials of these companies to testify.  The hearings were cancelled when someone explained to the Representatives that the SEC required the companies to release the information at the time it was released.  But the documents were forwarded. 

The opening sentence of the Power Line article states:

"Fortune senior editor Shawn Tully covers some of the deep secrets of Obamacare found in the corporate documents subpoenaed by Democratic Reps. Henry Waxman and Bart Stupak. In the words of the headline: "Documents reveal AT&T, Verizon, others, thought about dropping employer-sponsored benefits." "

In simple terms, this means that as the healthcare reform takes effect, companies may decide that it is cheaper to pay the fine for not insuring workers than it is to insure them.  At this point, a large number of people will be dumped into the federal healthcare system, and we will begin to see the beginning of the end of private health insurance.  This is stealth national health insurance.

November 2010 is approaching fast.  We need to vote out of office anyone who voted to end our private health insurance by supporting the healthcare reform bill.  The bill needs to be repealed and replaced by something that would actually lower costs and help Americans who have good health insurance keep the policies they have.  Remember REPEAL AND REPLACE will only be possible with a new Congress.

I have extremely mixed emotions about the Cape Wind project.  Theoretically wind farms are a great idea, but somehow, very few countries that have used them have found them to be economically feasible.  Spain has begun to abandon its wind program due to the cost of wind energy and the need for backup power; the Dutch are having a problem with sinking wind turbines in three of their offshore wind farms.  I have also heard concerns that when the government subsidies for wind power run out, the wind mills will be allowed to run until they break and then left as an unmaintained eyesore.  Again, I have mixed emotions.

CNS News reports today that National Grid, the electric company that supplies much of the electricity to Massachusetts, has agreed to buy power from the Cape Wind Farm. 

According to the article:

"Under the 15-year contract, National Grid would pay 20.7 cents per kilowatt hour starting in 2013 for electricity purchased from the 130-turbine Cape Wind project in Nantucket Sound."

The article further states:

"The cost of electricity from conventional sources is about 9 cents per kilowatt hour. The utility said the deal will add about $1.50 the average customer's monthly electricity bill in 2013."

I live in an all-electric house.  Somehow I think my electric bill is destined to go up more than $1.50 per month.  I think we need more refining of the science of wind-generated electricity.

It is little bit ironic to see the Democrats in Congress talking about extending the Bush tax cuts before the August recess (read before the November election).  The Hill today reported that Ways and Means Committee Chairman Sandy Levin (D-Mich.) would like to extend some of the Bush tax cuts before the August recess.  These were the tax cuts that the Democrats continually labeled "tax cuts for the rich."  Well, at some point the Democrats have had an Epiphany and realized that a large part of those "tax cuts for the rich" were actually for the middle class.  If those tax cuts expire, almost everyone's taxes will go up and the voters might actually notice that.  Whoops.  Please take a look at the chart below.

This picture, from the webite of Heritage.org illustrates the Laffer Curve.  Simply put, the Laffer Curve illustrates the fact that when you lower taxes, revenue goes up.  Our problem is not that our taxes are too low; our problem is that we are spending too much.

At any rate, it will be interesting to see what Congress does with the "tax cuts for the rich."

The Philadelphia Daily News posted an article today comparing the new immigration law in Arizona to an executive order that went into effect in Philadelphia in November.  The article is written by Stu Bykofsky who ends it with these words:

"A later amendment (to the Arizona law) makes it clear that questioning can follow only a "lawful stop, detention or arrest." Example: A stop for a traffic violation where even a white gringo like me must produce ID."

The first thing a policeman asks for when he stops you for any reason is your license and registration.  Americans routinely show identification to buy liquor or cigarettes, to board airplanes, to be admitted to certain clubs, and to be admitted to x-rated movies.  It really is not drastic to ask someone stopped for a reason to produce valid ID.

I am sure many of the illegals in Arizona are simply hard workers looking for a better life, but unfortunately they also include drug dealers, gang members and other undesirables.  We have the right to keep the criminals out of our country.  Unfortunately, checking ID's and closing the border are the only logical ways to do that.

Today's Washington Examiner posted an opinion piece on the current financial reform bill moving through Congress.  The piece points out that the reform bill does not include any reform of either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, the two entities that essentially caused the financial meltdown. 

The article points out:

"Either because Fannie and Freddie have long been incredibly lucrative sources of campaign cash and career protection for Democratic politicians - see, for example,  Jim Johnson, Franklin Raines, and Barack Obama - or because they fear the political consequences of a full public airing of their culpability in protecting these two black holes for tax dollars, congressional Democrats refused to include any such reforms."

 

Senators John McCain, R-AZ, Richard Shelby, R-AL, and Judd Gregg, R-NH, have introduced an amendment to the current financial reform bill that would begin the reforming of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  In the first quarter of 2010 Freddie Mac has lost $8 billion.   It has requested another $10.6 billion from the government and stated that it would need more in the future.  The Obama Administration does not include Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as part of its budget calculations--it does not want to deal with the impact that would have on the deficit.

Please follow the link to the Washington Examiner article to read the full story of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Both entities are in desperate need of reform, and many in Congress are choosing to ignore the need.    

CNSNews is reporting today that Joe the Plumber has been elected to one of nearly 400 seats on the local Republican Party committee in Ohio's Lucas County.  The group meets a few times a year to elect the county chairman and to set the party agenda. 

According to the article:

"He drew cheers at a tea party rally last month in Cincinnati when he told the crowd not to let "a bunch of liberal pansies" take away their rights.
 
""Illegal immigration?" he said. "Put a fence up and start shooting.""

Whether you agree with him or not, his entrance into the political arena is interesting.  One of the effects of the policies of the current President and Congress is that people who have never been involved in politics or cared about politics are getting involved.  This will make for a very interesting mid-term election.

Yesterday Investors.com posted an aritlce about the failed Times Square bombing and the things we need to learn from it.  They listed a number of myths we seem to believe about terrorism in the United States.  These are the myths:

• The only violence we have to worry about is that from the Tea Partiers or the right-wing extremists.  We saw this myth in the initial response from Mayor Bloomberg to the attack, stated in a interview with Katie Couric.  You have to overlook a lot of history to believe this.
• American Muslims don't participate in jihad.  They come to this country because they love it.  Faisal Shahzad, the would-be bomber, is from Pakistan and became an American citizen last year.
• The Taliban can only carry out successful terrorist operations in South Asia.  It is no secret that the Taliban has been trying for years to recruit Americans to conduct terrorism in America.  An American passport is a prized possession to the Taliban.  Their goal is to begin to recruit blond, blue-eyed terrorists that will not be given a second glance by immigration officials.
• We can use drones to deal with training camps, safe houses, and terrorist leaders in Pakistan.  Unfortunately, there is never any substitute for boots on the ground.
• Shahzad is another al-Qaida wannabe--these people are incompetent and represent no threat.  The problem with this idea is that Al Qaeda keeps trying.  The first attempt at the World Trade Center in 1993 failed, the second attempt in 2001 was successful.  The Middle East mindset is long-term; America thinks in terms of days, weeks, and sometimes months--we don't have the attention span for anything longer.  We need to remember this.

We have avoided two serious terrorist attacks in the past five months due to dumb luck.  We can't depend solely on dumb luck to keep us safe in the future--at some point we have to get our act together in the area of anti-terrorism.

Yesterday's Washington Examiner posted an article by Byron York on a proposal by Arizona's two Republican Senators, John McCain and Jon Kyl, to secure the U. S. border with Mexico.

According to the article, the Senators' plan includes:

"...completing and improving the border fence, adding new Border Patrol agents, expanding a policy of briefly jailing illegal border crossers, and several other programs already in existence."

In 2006 Congress passed The Secure Fence Act, which required 700 miles of border fence with double-layered fencing and other barriers.  According to The Customs and Border Protection agency, 646 miles of that fence are finished, so as far as they are concerned, the job is done.  Unfortunately, the double-layered fencing has not made it to most of Arizona.  The border fence in Arizona includes 123 miles of pedestrian fence (all but 10 miles are single-layered high fence) to keep people from climbing over), and 182 miles of vehicle fencing (easy for people to climb over or vehicles to use ramps to get over).  That represents 305 miles of fencing.  The border between Arizona and Mexico is 375 miles long.  It seems as though that might be part of the problem.

The estimate on the cost of the McCain-Kyl legislation to secure the border is about $5 million.  When you consider the amount of money this administration is generally throwing around in all other directions, this is doable.

The article concludes:

"As Kyl and McCain see it, Napolitano has things totally turned around.  Today's problem won't be solved by comprehensive immigration reform.  Instead, solving the problem would make comprehensive reform possible.  And a bargain, too."

I hope the Senate has the wisdom to listen to what these men are suggesting.

I don't think I am the only parent who has struggled with the cost of putting braces on children with crooked teeth.  Back in the age of dinosaurs, when my children wore braces, the cost of braces was about the same as the cost of tuition for a year in a state college.  I suspect both prices have gone up since then.  But braces are a major expense, and many families choose to spread that expense over a number of months.  In the future, that may get interesting.

Today The Hill reports that dentists may be affected by the financial reform legislation now moving through Congress. 

According to the article:

"Dentists could fall under the Senate financial bill because they often allow patients to pay in installments, Graham said. According to a 2009 ADA survey, roughly half of dentists offer this type of billing for three or four months.

"Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-N.Y.), chairwoman of the House Small Business Committee, told Dodd it was "more than likely" that small healthcare practices, including dentists and physicians, would fall under the scope of the new regulator. She noted a recent Federal Trade Commission (FTC) decision that dental and law practices were considered creditors as an example of regulators crafting broad interpretations."

I rather doubt Congress intended to impact dentists with this law, but the fact remains that they did.  One of the major forces at work in Washington under this Congress is the law of unintended consequences.  Our legislators are passing laws, and Congress has no idea whom they will impact or how.  The healthcare legislation was the poster child for this problem; now the financial reform act may run a close second.

The campaign season has begun.  Primaries were held in various states today.  I think we need to send the current Congress home before they can do any more damage.  Leave my children's teeth alone!

The car bomb in Times Square in New York City was noticed by two street vendors who alerted the police.  The bombing was stopped, and the investigation begun.  Today, the Washington Times reports on how the suspect was found and arrested.

Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistani who had just returned from a five-month trip to Pakistan, was arrested at John F. Kennedy airport as he attempted to leave the country.

Mr. Shahzad had removed the vehicle identification number from the dashboard of the vehicle, but had not removed it from the engine block.  That number allowed the police to trace the vehicle and its sale.

The SUV was packed with fireworks. propane gas tanks, and fertilizer.  The NYPD bomb squad has stated that they felt the fertilizer used was not volatile enough to explode.  I'm glad that is only theory and we are not dealing with the results of the bomb.

Regardless of the reasons for this attempted bombing (the South Park connection, etc.), the attempt should make us more aware that there are people out there (and unfortunately here too) that mean to do us harm.  Our federal officials cannot be expected to get it right 100 per cent of the time--that is not a reasonable expectation--but all of us need to pay attention to what is going on around us.  We are responsible for our own safety.

Thank God for the alert street vendors (according to one story, they were Viet Nam veterans) who called the police.

The Washington Examiner reports today that the Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal from the San Deigo area Boy Scouts of a ruling that says that the Boy Scouts cannot lease city-owned parkland in San Deigo.  The Federal judges have said that the Boy Scouts are a religious group and the lease violates the federal law that prohibits the promotion of religion.  The American Civil Liberties Union filed the suit on behalf of a lesbian couple and an agnostic couple, each with scouting-age sons.  The suit was filed in 2006 right after the City Council voted to extend the 50-year lease for another 25 years.

The boy scouts' response is that they have no theology and only believe that children should "do duty to God" to become productive citizens.

So two couples with scouting aged sons can ruin the scouting experience of numerous other scouts because they don't like the morals the Boy Scouts are teaching.  I think we need more groups teaching morals and community service, not less.  I am really sorry this decision will not be overturned.  If the two couples involved don't like what the Boy Scouts teach, they should start their own group to train good citizens--they don't have to attack someone else's group.

Yesterday's UK Telegraph posted a story about Dale McAlpine, a 42-year-old Baptist preacher, who was arrested for causing "harassment, alarm or distress" after listing some of the sins referred to in the Bible--blasphemy, drunkenness, and same sex relationships. 

According to the article:

"The 42-year-old Baptist, who has preached Christianity in Wokington, Cumbria for years, said he did not mention homosexuality while delivering a sermon from the top of a stepladder, but admitted telling a passing shopper that he believed it went against the word of God."

The Public Order Act, which was introduced in 1986, was supposed to be used against violent rioters and 'football hooligans', but unfortunately has been used to curb religious free speech.  The complaint was made to a police community support officer (PCSO) who arrested Mr. McAlpine.  The officer, who stated that he was homosexual, was the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender liaison officer for Cumbria police.

Hopefully, the recent anti hate speech rules that Congress passed will not result in this sort of arrest.  Just as homosexuals have the right to be homosexual, preachers have the right to repeat the Biblical warnings about the homosexual lifestyle.

The source for this article is one with which I am not familiar, but I have read the information other places, and I think it is important to post it.  Net Right Nation reported last week on the changes to the Form 1099 requirements included in the recently passed healthcare reform bill.  If you own a small business, these changes are going to cost you serious time and money.  If you are a consumer, you will be expected to absorb the increased cost to small business.  It is generally a lose-lose situation.

The healthcare reform bill requires that every business file a 1099 Form with both the IRS and the company that provided the services or sold the product for every expenditure that exceeds $600.  Previously, 1099 Forms were only required for contract employees.

The article explains the impact of this change:

"In practical terms, here is what the new law means. Joe's Plumbing prints up 100 color presentations at FedEx Kinko's for a trade show in New Orleans, where they are staying at a Holiday Inn for six days.

At a minimum, Joe's Plumbing will have to contact FedEx Kinko's, the airline, Holiday Inn, the rental car company, and the organization sponsoring the trade show and get taxpayer identification numbers from them so they can comply with this tax law. The company will then have to send out 1099 forms to each of these vendors and dozens, hundreds or thousands more vendors, depending upon the size of the company, thus adding significant compliance costs to every business in America. Everyone from a company's accountant, to building supplier, to carpet cleaner to janitorial service will be trading 1099 forms."

This situation gets worse.  The IRS will not be in charge of setting the rules for the filing and storing of the 1099 Forms--the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will be writing and overseeing these tax regulations.  Yikes.  That's the equivalent of hiring a computer programmer to fix a plumbing problem.  He might be a really good programmer, but that's not his area of expertise.

This provision in the healthcare reform legislation is another reason why 'repeal and replace' is a really good idea.  Please keep this in mind when you vote in November.

Monday's Washington Times has posted an op-ed piece by Ted Nugent on the subject of immigration reform.  Ted Nugent has never been an average rock star even in the days when rock stars were not average.

After the recent murder of Robert Krenz, Arizona passed a law allowing policemen to ask for proof of citizenship from the people they stop.  The new law makes it a crime to be in Arizona illegally (just for the record, that was already a federal crime, but there was no enforcement).  The people who cannot prove they are in the country legally face up to six months in jail and a fine of $2,500. 

Mr. Nugent cites a quote from Ronald Reagan:

"A nation without borders will soon cease to be a nation."

We have borders--the problem is that Washington politicians have refused to enforce them for a number of years.  It was not as critical when the unemployment rate was 5 per cent or before terrorism became a serious threat--now it is critical.

While I don't totally agree with Mr. Nugent's comments, I think he makes some valid points on what we need to do to protect our nation.  With freedom comes responsibility, and we have the responsibility to enforce our borders and our laws.  Before we discuss immigration reform, we need to stop the flow of illegal immigrants into this country.  Congratulations to Arizona for doing that.

According to today's Washington Examiner delegates of 189 nations will meet tomorrow in New York City for their twice in a decade meeting to discuss the forty-year-old treaty designed to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.  Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the only actual head of state taking part. 

According to the article:

"Departing Tehran on Sunday, Ahmadinejad signaled he'll use the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) review conference to assail the U.S. and other nuclear-weapons powers for slow movement toward disarmament."

Great idea--let's start by disarming him.  The United States Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that she thought the Iranian President was coming to New York simply to divert attention away from Iran's nuclear program and confuse the issue.  This is one of the few times I agree with Secretary of State Clinton.

The article further states:

"Treaty members -- every nation but India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea -- gather every five years to review how it's working and agree on new approaches to problems. They do that not by updating the treaty, a difficult task, but by trying to adopt a consensus final document calling for steps outside the treaty to advance its goals -- in U.S.-Russian arms reductions, for example, or by strengthening the hand of the U.N. nuclear inspectors, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)."

It seems rather obvious that this has not been a successful program.  The bottom line here is that until the free countries of the world actually unite against the tyrants of the world who are developing nuclear weapons, more countries are going to acquire nuclear weapons.  Because the free countries of the world are not in charge of the United Nations, the slowing down of the growth of nuclear nations will probably never be a reality.  The only real answer to the problem is for the free nations of the world to share and expand their missile defense programs in order to avoid being the target of a new nuclear nation.

This story is based on two sources, wcbstv.com today and the UK Telegraph today.  Yesterday a car bomb was placed in an SUV in New York City and left to detonate.  Thanks to the actions of a street vendor who reported a smoking car, the bomb was discovered before it detonated.  Wcbstv reports that the New York Police Department is checking surveillance cameras around the area for leads and that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is also involved in the investigation.

The UK Telegraph points out that the bomb was located near the offices of Viacom, which owns the South Park television series.  Last month the writers of South Park were threatened with physical harm because of their portrayal of Mohammed in the series. 

South Park is in its fourteenth season.  During that time, the show has bashed everyone--Christians, Barbra Streisand, Scientology, pedophiles, etc.  The show is rude, crude,and politically incorrect, but it is probably one of the most unbiased shows on television.  Only when they satirized Mohammed were they faced with actual physical harm.  This ought to be a clue to us about the intolerance of the extremist elements of the Muslim religion.

According to the UK Telegraph:

"The bomb was left inside a dark green Nissan Pathfinder, left with its engine running and hazard lights flashing near the junction of 45th Street and Broadway.

"A T-shirt vendor, who was a Vietnam veteran, alerted police when he noticed smoke coming out of it. Police hurriedly evacuated thousands of tourists and theatre-goers, including women in evening gowns, from the area on Broadway's busiest night of the week."

Hopefully, we can quickly find the people who put this car bomb together and put them in jail for a very long time.  Meanwhile, we have a lot to be thankful for--no one was hurt and the bomb did not detonate. 

Ed Morrissey reports at Hot Air today about a provision in the financial reform bill that would allow the Federal Trade Commission to begin to regulate Internet transactions. 

The article points out:

"This has become a pattern with this Congress and administration. Despite having large majorities in both chambers, Democrats refuse to use the legislative path to pass regulation -- mainly because the regulations they want are too radical to pass. Instead, they shift the creation of regulation to agencies like the EPA and its "endangerment" finding for CO2, which would then require Congress and the President to undo rather than vote to impose in the first place."

Mr. Morrissey further points out:

"Even considering that pattern, this is something out of the ordinary. Neither the FTC nor the Internet had anything to do with the Wall Street meltdown in 2008.  If this financial-regulation bill is so desperately needed, why did House Democrats lard it up with this power grab at the FTC?  Why does the FTC need any further authority over the Internet, where fraud and abuse regulations apply already?   The Internet economy has been one of the bright spots throughout a dismal period of recent history.  Do we need to attack the one area that shows growth and promise?"

The loser in this type of transaction (other than the American people) is the U. S. Constitution.  It's time to elect leaders who will uphold the Constitution, not find new and unusual ways to circumvent it.

Today's Chicago Sun Times posted an article about U.S. Army Master Sgt. Pedro Medina.  Master Sgt. Medina, a Chicago policeman who was deployed to Afghanistan in 2008 with the National Guard, returned to Chicago yesterday. 

According to the article:

"One year ago, Medina was out in the open on his military base in mountainous southeastern Afghanistan when mortar rounds exploded around him. He took cover inside a building. A Chinook helicopter was taking off to escape the attack, and a downdraft from the rotors collapsed the building on top of Medina. Doctors later told Medina he was a quadriplegic."

On Friday, Master Sgt. Medina walked through Midway Airport without even using a cane.  Master Sgt. Medina said that he is eager to return to police work after he finishes his rehab.

I am always amazed at the courage and strength of the people who serve in our military.  Please remember all of them in your prayers.