July 2010 Archives

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air reported on Friday that a few House Democrats are proposing that one part of Obamacare be repealed.  The part they are interested in repealing is the provision that requires businesses to file 1099 tax forms for all transactions with vendors that total over $600.  Previously, 1099's were required only for services received.  According to the Democrat's plan for healthcare, this provision, which would have gone into effect in 2012, would have reaised $19 billion over 10 years to pay for Obamacare.

Mr. Morrissey concludes:

"The next question will be how Democrats will pay for the repeal.  According to their pay-go rule, any cut in revenue has to be matched either with a commensurate increase elsewhere or by an equal spending cut.  Otherwise, they not only violate the very rule that Democrats cheered on its passage in February, they also push ObamaCare into a deficit producer, even in their skewed calculations without the doctor-fix they passed in June.

"Hopefully, this section gets repealed quickly.  That should start some momentum for repealing the rest of it."

This whole situation could have been avoided if Congressmen had read the bill before they passed it.  I wonder what other surprises we are going to hear about as implementation comes closer.

National Review Online posted an article on Friday about the current campaign to portray Obamacare as a good thing.  One of the targets of this campaign is senior citizens, who generally disapprove of the plan. 

The article reports:

"The National Council on Aging, for example, just released a survey that's astonishingly misrepresentative. The NCOA asked 636 seniors true-or-false questions about "the top twelve facts" they should know about Obamacare. Only 17 percent knew the "right" answers to half of the questions; not a single person got a perfect score. The news release read: "Most Seniors Misinformed, Unaware of Key Provisions of the Affordable Care Act.""

Even on the surface that seems a little odd, because generally speaking, senior citizens vote and stay informed.  So, what is going on here?  Well, it depends on who wrote the questions and who determines the answers.

The article lists a few of the questions:

• "The new law will result in future cuts to your basic Medicare benefits." By more than two to one, seniors said the statement was true; the survey said that was wrong.

• "The new law is projected to increase the federal budget deficit over the next ten years and beyond." By more than three to one, seniors said that was true; the survey said that was wrong.

• "The health care reform law will cut Medicare payments to doctors." Seniors said true by three to one; wrong answer, according to the survey.

The facts actually show that the seniors were right, the survey was wrong!  According to the article:

• The health-care law takes $575 billion out of Medicare over the next ten years to pay for massive new entitlement programs.

• The Medicare actuary says that at least one in six Medicare providers, including hospitals, nursing homes, and physicians, could be operating at a loss by 2019 and could end their participation in the program, which could "possibly jeopardize access to care for beneficiaries."

• More than 7 million seniors will lose their Medicare Advantage coverage, and millions more will find access to care restricted. The Congressional Budget Office found that seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage will lose an average of $800 a year in benefits.

• As Rep. Paul Ryan explained at the Blair House summit in February, "When you strip out the double-counting and . . . gimmicks, the full ten-year cost of the bill has a $460 billion deficit. The second ten-year cost of this bill has a $1.4 trillion deficit."

• The legislation keeps scheduled cuts in payments to doctors, which is why the Congress passed a separate "doc fix" bill in June to keep doctor payments from being cut by 21 percent.

The article concludes:

Pollster.com compiled an average of all of the polls, and they found 45 percent oppose and 42 percent favor the health-care law. Rasmussen, which polls likely voters, shows that 58 percent want it repealed. And that's before people start to feel any of the impact of higher health costs, cuts to Medicare Advantage, higher taxes, and onerous and expensive mandates on individuals and businesses.

But the reeducation campaign nonetheless continues.

This law can be stopped before it does major damage.  The way to stop it is to elect people to Congress in November who pledge to "REPEAL AND REPLACE."  If your Congressional candidate is unwilling to make that pledge, vote for his opponent.

On November 16, 2006, Speaker-Elect Nancy Pelosi said, "This leadership team will create the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history."   I am not going to speculate as to whether she meant those words when she said them, but that is not the Congress that has been created since the Democrats took over. 

The Friday night news dump was a tradition in the Clinton White House.  It also seems to be a staple of the Obama Administration.  Mark Hemingway at the Washington Examiner posted an article Friday about the Obama Administration news dump.  Representative Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) has chosen to go through an ethics trail rather than accept the charges made against her by the eithics subcommittee.  This comes in the wake of the charges against Charlie Rangel, who initially said that he wanted to go through a trial in order to clear himself.  Meanwhile, many Democrats are calling for Representative Rangel's resignation because they don't want to deal with an ethics trial during an election year.  It will be interesting to see if the same Democrats ask Representative Waters to resign.

Today's Washington Examiner reported on the charges against Maxine Waters.  She is under investigation because of a possible conflict of interest in a case regarding a bank seeking federal aid.  Her husband owned stock in the bank and had served on its board.  According to Friday's article:

"Ms. Walters has publicly boosted OneUnited's executives and criticized its government regulators during congressional hearings.  Last fall, she helped secure the bank a meeting with Treasure officials."

The bank received a federal bailout despite serious charges of misconduct by the bank executives.

It's time we held our elected leaders to the same standards we face as citizens.  There is a basic lack of honesty among some of our Congressmen.  Please vote carefully this November so that we can attempt to elect people who will listen to the citizens they are supposed to represent and will behave with basic integrity.

This article has two sources--an article posted on Friday at the Weekly Standard and an article posted Thursday at GOP.gov.

The Weekly Standard article, by John McCormack, reminds us why the Democrats in the House of Representatives were unable to pass the bill:

"...the bill failed because Democrats suspended the rules, which denied the Republicans the chance to offer any amendments and required a 2/3 majority to pass. According to Hill sources, Democrats suspended the rules because they were afraid that Republicans would offer a motion to recommit--the one amendment allotted to the minority party by the rules--to pay for the bill using money from Obamacare or the stimulus or an amendment to deny funds to illegal immigrants."

The Weekly Standard article also points out:

"Three government programs already exist to provide care for 9/11 responders, but this bill would have expanded the number of people who could get care."

The article at GOP.gov explains one of the the Republican objections to the bill:

"The funding would be a new entitlement over the next 10 years for 90 percent of the costs of operating the new program. The remaining 10 percent of the costs of the program would be the responsibility of New York City for fiscal years 2011 to 2018. Then for fiscal years 2019 and 2020, New York City is responsible for only 1/9^th  of the cost.  The federal government's contribution would be capped at the lower of 90 percent of the costs or a specified amount each fiscal year beginning in FY2011 and ending in FY2020. Over this 10-year period, federal spending could not exceed $3.35 billion. No federal funds would be available for the program after FY2020."

There are a number of other objections to the bill explained at GOP.gov.  Some of them are:

• Limited oversight fails to ensure taxpayer funds are spent properly and effectively.  Government health care programs, such as Medicare, have a significant amount of fraud. 
• H.R. 847 includes protections for trial lawyers, including the ability to receive taxpayer-funded compensation for work not directly related to recovery from the VCF.  In addition, attorneys who have been compensation under another settlement will have access to settlement funds under the reopened VCF.   
• H.R. 847 increases hospital reimbursement rates to 140 percent of Medicare reimbursement rates on average for New York City hospitals while ObamaCare cuts $150 billion in payments to hospitals around the country.

Please take a look at the article at GOP.gov to see the other objections.  As written, this was a bad bill that needed to be amended in order to pass.  Had the Democrats allowed amendments, the improved bill could have passed with a simple majority.

Tampa Bay Online posted an Associated Press article today about the House of Representatives failure to pass a bill to help the first responders of the 9/11 terrorist attacks pay for the health problems they have encountered because of the toxic fumes they breathed in the rescue and cleanup efforts.

There were procedural things done in the process of placing this bill before the House of Representatives that need to be considered in understanding exactly what happened.  (I will be posting more on this bill and what happened as more information becomes available).

Democratic leaders opted to consider the bill under a procedure that blocks any GOP amendments to the bill.  That procedure requires a two-thirds vote for approval rather than a simple majority.  The bill failed to win a two-thirds majority.  The actual vote tally can be found at thomas.gov.  If you look at the tally, you will see that the vote was largely along party lines, although some Republicans voted for it and others voted against it.  Some Democrats voted against it and some voted for it.  The actual vote was 255 for and 159 against, with 18 not voting.

The bottom line here is simple.  Had the bill gone forward in the usual manner and Republicans allowed to make amendments to it, it would have needed a simple majority to pass, and it would have passed.  Because the atmosphere right now in Washington is so toxic, a procedureal maneuver was used by the Democrats to keep Republicans from adding input to the bill.

This is campaign season.  The atmosphere will only get worse.  I am not sure exactly when Congress is going home, but they need to leave now and think about what they are doing to the country.  We need to remember all of this foolishness in November.  There are probably less than ten people in Congress right now that I think deserve to be re-elected in November.  If you have a longer list, I would love to see it!

Yesterday Arutz Sheva (Israelnationalnews.com) reported on living conditions in Gaza.  According to the article:

"Egyptian journalist Ashraf Abu al-Houl has added his report to others who were surprised to discover a "prosperous" Gaza in which prices are low and luxury businesses are booming. Al-Houl's story of his trip to Gaza and his realization that "in actual terms, Gaza is not under siege" was written up in the Egyptian daily Al-Ahram and translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI)."

The article points out that the prosperity is not enjoyed by everyone.  Ashraf Abu al-Houl reports that, "The luxury resorts and wide range of consumer goods are enjoyed by "only a few groups," he said, primarily those who own smuggling tunnels to Egypt and those who work for international organizations such as the United Nations' UNRWA and who do not include or aid the rest of the population."

It is interesting that the smugglers, United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), and other international organizations that are supposedly helping the people are living the life of luxury.  It seems as if those organizations need to do a better job of sharing the wealth. 

National Review Online is reporting today on "The Amnesty Memo."  This is an internal U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services memo obtained by NATIONAL REVIEW.  This memo states that the agency is considering how to enact "meaningful immigration reform absent legislative action."   In plain English, that means how to pass immigration reform without the bother of going through Congress.

The article lists some of the provisions in the memo:

"In the absence of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, USCIS can extend benefits and/or protections to many individuals and groups by issuing new guidance and regulations, exercising discretion with regard to parole-in-place, deferred action and the issuance of Notices to Appear (NTA), and adopting significant process improvements."

The article concludes:

"In the immediate wake of the court decision blocking the Arizona immigration law yesterday, the memo is sure to create controversy -- and the sense that the administration is bent on preserving and extending the nation's de facto amnesty."

We already have the Environmental Protection Agency attempting to enact Cap and Trade laws without going through Congress, now we have Immigration pondering if they can initiate amnesty for illegal aliens without bothering Congress with the details.  Unless Congress decides to take a stand against this sort of thing, we will lose our democracy. 

I am not a lawyer and do not totally understand a lot of what I am hearing about the decision yesterday to prevent the immediate implementation of the Arizona illegal immigration law.  Therefore, I will give some perspectives from people who have the background to understand what just happened.

Andy McCarthy at The Corner at National Review Online pointed out yesterday that the law in Arizona is in compliance with federal law.  He states, "The judge, however, twisted to concept of federal law into federal enforcement practices (or, as it happens, lack thereof). In effect, the court is saying that if the feds refuse to enforce the law the states can't do it either because doing so would transgress the federal policy of non-enforcement ... which is nuts."

If you follow the link to the article, you will see his total argument that the decision reached yesterday was not based on sound law. 

Paul Mirengoff at Power Line commented yesterday:

"...Other judges might have waited to see how Arizona implemented the law before striking it down based on a construction Arizona has repudiated. Judge Bolton did neither.

"Judge Bolton also appears to have overstated the burden the Arizona law places on lawfully present aliens. According to Heather McDonald and Mark Krikorian, the number of lawfully present aliens who cannot instantly establish their right to be in the country is small. And even as them, their right to be here probably can be established quickly by contacting federal authorities.

"In the weighing of interests required before a preliminary injunction is issued, it would seem that Arizona's interest in coping with half a million or so illegal immigrants and the havoc this influx is causing outweighs the small burden the law may impose on a relatively small number of lawfully present aliens. In any event, I don't believe the contrary view is established in advance of seeing how the law actually works."

It seems to me that not enforcing federal immigration laws puts a huge burden on the residents of Arizona.  Phoenix has become the kidnapping capital of the world.  I suspect that strict enforcement of immigration laws would change that quickly.

CNS News today reports:

""Aliens from countries of special interest to the United States such as Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan (known as special-interest aliens) also illegally enter the United States through the [southwest border] region," Richard Stana, the GAO homeland security and justice issues director, said in a report issued July 22 on alien smuggling across the U.S.-Mexico border."

I understand that the lack of border security has to do with the Obama Administration's push to give illegal aliens amnesty so that they can become Democrat voters.  However, I am concerned that in their pursuit of voters, the Obama Administraiton is endangering our country.  You can see the video of President Obama before he was president saying that border security and amnesty were a politcal 'trade off'' at Hot Air.  It was posted on June 22 of this year after Senator Kyl stated that he had been told by the President that we would not have border security until amnesty was passed. 

Yesterday's Washington Times reported on how the Justice Department is dealing with two distinct classes of voters. 

According to the article:

"Obama Justice Department outrages never cease. The politically charged gang led by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is more interested in helping felons vote than in helping the military to vote. Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, has put a legislative hold on the already troubled nomination of James M. Cole to be deputy attorney general until the attorney general ensures full protection for voting rights of our military (and associated civilian personnel) stationed abroad. The senator is right to raise a ruckus."

At the same time the Obama Justice Department is undermining the law that insists that miltary absentee ballots be mailed 45 days before an election, the website of the Justice Department devotes a large section - 2,314 words - to advising felons how to regain voting privileges. 

According to the article:

"... Justice Department official Rebecca Wertz told a Feb. 1 conference of the National Association of Secretaries of State that the new law's requirements(mailing military absentee ballots 45 days before an election) are somehow open to interpretation. On July 28, an attendee at that conference - heretofore uninterviewed - told The Washington Times that Ms. Wertz's message was "totally undermining" the law. The earlier reports actually underplayed the effect of Ms. Wertz's comments. "It was even more pronounced at the meeting," said the source. "She undermined [the law] right in front of everybody. When I heard what she was saying, I thought: 'You've got to be kidding!' ... It was a clear reversal of roles for Justice to no longer be enforcing the law."

Senator Cornyn is holding up the nomination of James M. Cole until Eric Holder takes steps to ensure that the 45-day rule will be enforced.  Among other things, Senator Cornyn is asking that the Justice Department provide a state-by-state accounting of compliance efforts.  I, for one, hope Senator Cornyn sticks to his guns.  Our military deserves the right to have their votes counted.

Reuters is reporting today on the blocking of key parts of Arizona's immigration law by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton.  Judge Bolton blocked the provision that required a police officer to determine the immigration status of a person detained or arrested if the officer believed the person was not in the country legally.  Also blocked were provisions requiring immigrants to carry their papers at all times and making it illegal for people without proper documents to tout for work in public places.

If someone is here illegally and commits a serious crime, why in the world should we keep them in an American jail?  Why can't we establish their status and ship them back to their home country?  It would be cheaper for everyone and would provide some protection from repeat offenders for Americans.  How many innocent people and police officers have to die before we begin to enforce our borders?   How many signs do we have to put up telling Americans to stay out of their own parks due to drug runners and murderers?  This is our country--the threats caused by illegal immigration have as much to do with national security as terrorism does.  When are we going to protect our own country?

I firmly believe that forcing British Petroleum to set aside $32.2 billion (in a fund they would not administer) for the Gulf oil spill was a shakedown.  Regardless of the integrity of the man overseeing the payment program, I suspect that somewhere hidden in the small print, Chicago politics are in play.  Well, there are some unintended consequences.

CBS News reported yesterday that BP took a $17 billion loss in the second quarter. 

According to the article:

"BP set aside $32.2 billion for the cost of the spill, a charge that led to the $17 billion quarterly loss. But according to the msnbc.com report, BP plans to offset the entire cost of the spill against its tax bill, which will slash its U.S. taxes by $10 billion."

I would like to point out that BP did nothing illegal or unethical here--they took legally allowed tax write-offs.  What this essentially means is that the government treasury will be receiving $10 billion less revenue because of BP's losses.  BP may be paying for the clean-up and the impact on the Gulf residents, but, as usual with this administration, the American taxpayer is left holding the bag.  Had the administration allowed BP to pay expenses as they came up, I suspect their tax burden would not have been as greatly affected.

I really think this is poetic justice.

One of the current debates in Congress is whether or not to let "George Bush's tax cuts for the rich" expire.  Well, first of all, "tax cuts for the rich" is not an accurate description of the law.  What is not generally mentioned is the fact that many of the "rich" are what is known as "S" Corporations.  These are small businesses that are generally responsible for growing the economy by hiring new people.  Because the total business income is reported on a personal income form, the person filing the form will look "rich" to the uninformed observer.  What needs to be considered are the expenses against that income and the fact that this is business income and not someone's personal income.  If the tax cuts on these corporations are allowed to expire, people will lose their jobs and fewer people will be hired.  That is not necessarily what you want to happen in a recession.

Anyway, just for the record, let's look at who pays taxes.  The information that follows is taken from an article posted at Americans For Tax Reform yesterday.

• As of 2006, the tax burden of the top 1 percent of taxpayers exceeds the tax burden of the bottom 95 percent combined.  Moreover, according to the National Taxpayers Union, households in the top 5% by income have been paying about 60% of the federal income tax bill for years.
• As the New York Times reports, "the Top 5 percent in income earners--those households earning $210,000 or more--account for about one-third of consumer outlays, including spending on goods and services, interest payments on consumer debt and cash gifts, according to an analysis of Federal Reserve date by Moody's Analytics.  That means the purchasing decisions of the rich have an outsize effect on economic data."
• In 2009, approximately 47 percent of U.S. households paid no federal income taxes.  While 2009 had fewer households owing taxes than other years due to some allegedly temporary tax breaks and a lagging economy, the Tax Foundation reports that close to 40 percent of households owe no federal income taxes in an average year.  According to the IRS, 67 percent of Single Head of Household returns in 2005 had no tax liability whatsoever.
• The proportion of American tax returns that incur no tax liability increased by 59 percent between 1989 and 2007, the latest year for which full analysis is available.

The thing to remember here is that the income tax is based on wages and salaries earned--not on accumulated wealth.  Any increase in taxes is going to hit the middle class before it impacts anyone else.  The very rich will find tax shelters to get around new taxes, and those of us in the middle class will pick up the slack.  One of the characteristics of a socialist country is a very wealthy upper class, a very poor lower class, and an almost non-existent middle class.  That is the direction our tax code is headed in.

Merco Press is reporting today that outgoing Colombian president Alvaro Uribe criticized Tuesday the possibilities of a peace proposal with the Colombian guerrilla groups FARC and ELN and emphasized that Colombia will not fall into the trap of "internationalizing dialogue".  It is nice to see a world leader who understands that you fight evil--you don't negotiate with it.

The article reports:

""We're not going to fall into that trap again. We only demand from the international community that they abide by the agreed international rules we respect: fighting terrorism and offering them no refuge, nowhere", insisted Uribe who next week, on August 7 will be stepping down after eight years in office and as the most popular Colombian leader in decades."

A U.S. - Columbia Trade Promotion Agreement was sent to Congress on April 7, 2007, by President Bush.  It is still not approved.  Congress refuses to admit that President Uribe has made considerable progress in fighting FARC and ELN and is unwilling to ratify that agreement which would help Columbia stand strong against the designs of those terrorists and of Hugo Chavez.  The issue that has prevented Congress from ratifying this agreement has to do with the influence of American unions on the Democrat Congress.

The article at Merco Press concludes:

"President Chavez rejects the "terrorist group" labels for FARC and ELN (imposed by the US and the EU) arguing they are part of the "Bolivarian revolution" combating regional oligarchies.

"He has been in the past and is now again strongly pushing for the "peace dialogue" between the guerrillas and the Colombian government.

"With the guerrillas on the run and virtually no public opinion support, and following some spectacular rescue-coups by Colombian special forces, there is no significant ambiance for such a peace dialogue in the country, according to the latest polls."

Until we learn to call terrorists by their proper name (terrorists) and treat them as such, we will not defeat people who kidnap and kill innocent people.  Thank you, President Uribe, for your steadfastness and your wisdom.

This story is based on two articles, one in the Washington Post on Friday, and one at Hot Air yesterday.  The article at the Washington Post points out that in early 2008 the House ethics committee began looking into the affairs of Charlie Rangel, the colorful Democratic representative from New York.  The two most serious charges have to do with unreported income and using congressional letterhead to raise funds for a private center named after him at City College of New York.  There will be a trial in September.  In preparation for that, the alleged violations are expected to be made public tomorrow.  I need to mention that this process was totally avoidable.

The Washington Post reports:

"Sources familiar with the case said that Rangel could have avoided this showdown by accepting the subcommittee's findings. He was briefed on the allegations against him -- as required by House rules -- in recent weeks, and he rejected them."

This is rather odd.  Hot Air reports:

"Rep. Charles Rangel's chances of cutting an ethics deal are in jeopardy over allegations that he met privately with Ethics Committee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) Monday night without any Republican members of the bipartisan panel present."

"Lofgren says she hasn't spoken to Rangel since last Thursday, and sources close to Rangel deny that there was an attempt to cut a backroom deal with Lofgren. But Rangel's attorneys met with Democratic ethics committee staff Monday, according to people close to the investigation."

This may be a case of using words carefully.  If Rangel's lawyers and Democratic aides met with Republicans present, this could jeopardize any sort of bipartisan ethics process. 

 Meanwhile, Representative Rangel is being challenged in a Democrat party primary by Adam Clayton Powell Jr's son.  Ironically, in 1970 Charlie Rangel defeated Congressman Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. in a Democrat primary.  Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. was chairman of the Education and Labor Committee in 1961. As committee chairman he supported the passage of important social legislation, but was eventually removed from his seat by the Democratic members-elect of the 90th Congress following allegations of corruption.

It's sad to see people who are supposed to serve the public misusing their positions.  We need to clean house in November and elect people who understand the concept of public service.  It is discouraging to see the number of 'public servants' who use their positions to amass personal wealth. 

Sometimes its embarrassing to live in Massachusetts.  Every chance I get, I vote, and only about five times in the thirty-something years I have lived here has my candidate won (the most recent example of that was Scott Brown).  Well, our state legislature has done it again.  They have found another way to discount the value of my vote.

According to Boston.com the Massachusetts Legislature has approved a new law intended to bypass the Electoral College system and ensure that the winner of the presidential election is determined by the national popular vote.  OK.  That doesn't sound all that bad.  But wait a minute. 

According to the article:

"Under the law, which was enacted by the House last week, all 12 of the state's electoral votes would be awarded to the candidate who receives the most votes nationally."

So why should I vote?  Should I find another state to vote in so that my vote will count?

The Electoral College was originally set up to ensure that the votes of people in small states or sparsely populated areas would count in a national election.  Because of the Electoral College, a presidential candidate is prevented from concentrating on one state or area of the country--he is forced to address the entire nation.  It is not a perfect system, but it does give those of us who live in small towns or small states a voice in our government.  To give the electoral votes of Massachusetts to whoever wins the popular vote nationally is to take away the voting rights of the people of Massachusetts.

The article states:

""We've had a lot of bad ideas come through this chamber over the years, but this is going to be one of the worst ideas that has surfaced and actually garnered some support," said (Richard) Tisei, who is also the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor.

"The bill, which passed on a 28-to-9 vote, now heads to Democratic Governor Deval Patrick's desk. The governor has said in the past that he supports the bill, said his spokeswoman Kim Haberlin."

Where can I go so that someone will count my vote too?

Ryan Mauro posted an article at Frontpagemag.com today entitled, "Why WikiLeaks Will Fail."  Ryan Mauro is the founder of WorldThreats.com, National Security Advisor to the Christian Action Network, and an intelligence analyst with the Asymmetric Warfare and Intelligence Center.

Mr. Mauro points out that the aim of WikiLeaks in the past was to undermine the war effort in Iraq.  WikiLeaks has now turned his attention to Afghanistan.  This week it released over 90,000 secret documents with the goal of casting U.S. military efforts in Afghanistan in a negative light.

Mr. Mauro states that the leak may have the opposite effect of what was intended.  According to the article, the documents:

"...expose the Taliban's close alliances with Iran, Pakistan and Al-Qaeda and thus bolster a key rationale for the war in Afghanistan - that the U.S. military is fighting terrorists abroad so that we do not have to face them at home."

The documents leaked reveal the Taliban as radical Islamists acting as proxies for foreign elements, including al-Qaeda.  The documents also point out that the Taliban and Iran have worked in unison since September 11, 2001.  The documents confirm that Iran supplies weapons to the Taliban and has also been involved in training the Taliban.

The article concludes:

"The reason Iran's meddling in Afghanistan hasn't been made public is explained in one file. President Karzai requested that the U.S. not publicize the finding of Iranian weapons in Kandahar, so as not to jeopardize an upcoming visit by Ahmadinejad. An April 2007 file says that he wanted "to avoid additional friction with Afghanistan's neighbors." The documents also show that Afghan and U.S. officials were having trouble thinking up ways to counter Iran's efforts to influence political parties through bribery, spending $4 million on 90 parliamentarians. It appears that fear has caused the Afghan government not to expose Iran's terrorism connections."

It's time to fight the war in Afghanistan with two hands, win it, and get out.  We can help stablize that country, but we have to exercise some serious force first.

This story is based on two sources, an article from The Hill yesterday, and an article from CNS News today.  Both sources are reporting on the fact that the Republicans in Congress and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are trying to repeal a provision in the healthcare reform act that would be very cumbersome for small businesses. 

According to CNS News:

"In section 9006 of the health care law, starting in 2012, the new health care law requires businesses, tax-exempt organizations, and government entities to file Form 1099 for every single business-to-business transaction of $600 or more, for both property and services. So small businesses purchases from vendors that exceed $600 must report those transactions to the IRS."

This means that a small business must track its office supply purchases and other business to business purchases and send 1099's to the vendors involved.  This is a new provision--previously only services above $600 needed to be reported.  

CNS News further reports:

"Nina Olson, head of Taxpayer Advocate Services, said, "If the IRS continues to ramp up enforcement while reducing taxpayer service programs, I would be concerned about its ability to administer the new health care credits and penalty taxes in a fair and compassionate way."

There are serious questions as to whether the IRS will be able to track this new requirement.  There is also the question being asked by some Congressmen, "What does this have to do with healthcare?"  I think that as we come closer to seeing the healthcare reform bill put into effect, we will find out that a lot of the bill has very little to do with healthcare.

Former Republican State Party Chairman Jim Rappaport has announced his support for Marty Lamb for Congress (Marty is running against Jim McGovern in the Third Congressional District in Massachusetts). 

According to the press release from Marty Lamb's campaign:

"We need more business leaders serving in Congress. That's why I am supporting Marty Lamb. He is the only candidate, Republican or Democrat, running who has signed the front of a paycheck and created jobs. Marty knows first-hand the burdens the federal government places on small businesses and how mandates are job killers," said Rappaport.

Speaking of the actions of our current Congressional leaders, Marty Lamb stated:

"As a small business owner, I never sign a contract before knowing what is in it. But yet Congress passed the national health care mandate without fully understand its costs or impact on our economy. That's wrong," said Lamb. "At a minimum taxpayer will have to fund $1 trillion to pay for Obamacare. Where is the money gong to come from? Taxpayers? China?"

Marty Lamb's plan on spending (called the Lamb Chop Plan) includes items that all American taxpayers are concerned about:

1. Instituting a balanced budget amendment
2. Passing a Line Item Veto
3. Limiting government spending to rate of inflation (TABOR)
4. Hiring freeze for all non-essential employees
5. Paying off the national debt
6. Moratorium on new entitlements
7. Establishing a Sunset Committee
8. Ending off-budget expenditures
9. Prohibiting bailouts
10. Taking back unspent TARP funds

I need to mention that I have been working for Marty Lamb's campaign since he began gathering signatures.  I have never worked on a political campaign before, but I felt as if it was time to get involved and to support people who understood how small business works.  I have been very impressed by the people I have met who are also working on the campaign and the fact that I am not the only person who has not been involved in a campaign before.  Marty Lamb's campaign is truly 'grass roots', and I believe he has a good chance of defeating Jim McGovern in November.

Newsbusters posted an article yesterday about an interview Oliver Stone gave to U.K. Sunday Times.  The original article is subscription only, so I am not linking it.

According to the article, Oliver Stone, in speaking of the Holocaust, stated that "America's focus on the Jewish massacre was a product of the "Jewish domination of the media.""

Stone is also quoted in the article as saying:

"...his upcoming Showtime documentary series "Secret History of America" seeks to put Hitler and Communist dictator Joseph Stalin "in context."

You can follow the link above to the story to read the rest of Stone's comments.  It is a disgrace that Showtime gives this man a platform to spout his horrible distortion of the world and its history.  It is truly sad that this kind of anti-Semitism can be freely expressed with no consequences.

Today's Washington Examiner posted a report on the coming tax increases of January 1. The tax increases will kick in due to the expiration on the Bush tax cuts.  At this point I would like to mention that the Bush tax cuts expire because President Bush did not have a filibuster-proof Congress at any time that he was in office, and thus was not able to make his tax cuts permanent.  The Democrat party is still spinning those tax cuts as 'tax cuts for the rich' that increased the deficit.  The tax cuts did no such thing--the increased spending that began in 2006 when the Democrats took over Congress increased the deficit.  It would have been nice if President Bush had vetoed some of the spending, but he didn't, and the deficit grew (although nothing like what it has grown in the past eighteen months).

Investor's Business Daily reports that everyone who pays taxes will see a tax increase on January 1, 2011.  Even the 10 percent bracket will increase to 15 percent.  Capital gains will increase from 15 to 20 percent.  Dividend income will go from being taxed at 15 percent to a 39.6 percent tax rate.  The increased taxes on capital gains and dividends not only discourage investment (which creates jobs), but impact senior citizens who depend on dividends for their income. 

The inheritance tax will be 55 percent for an estate valued at $1 million or more.  If you live in a state with high real estate values, that is not a very high number.  In New York, California, or Massachusetts, that is a house, two cars, and a small investment portfolio (or 401K). 

Senator Jim DeMint, (Republican-S.C.) proposed an amendment last week to end the death tax.  That amendment would have created an estimated 1.5 million new jobs (according to the American Family Business Foundation).  Unfortunately, the Democrats voted down the amendment. 

The article concludes:

All of the foregoing reminds us of President Reagan's wise maxim: "Our problem is not that the American people don't pay enough in taxes, it's that the government spends too much."

We need a new Ronald Reagan to provide common sense at this time.

The Australian is reporting today on a secret letter sent to the Scottish government by the United States regarding the release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi (the Lockerbee bomber).  The Obama Administration had stated in the letter that releasing al-Megrahi for compassionate reasons was more acceptable than locking him up in a Libyan prison.  This was based on the assumption that al-Megrahi was suffering from prostate cancer and only had a few months to live. 

According to the article:

"The US Senate foreign relations committee launched a probe after The Sunday Times revealed this month that Megrahi's doctors thought he could live for another decade.

"A source close to the Senate inquiry said: "The (LeBaron) letter is embarrassing for the US because it shows they were much less opposed to compassionate release than prisoner transfer.""

"Last week, a succession of British politicians - including Mr MacAskill, Mr Salmond and former justice secretary Jack Straw - delivered a diplomatic snub to the senators by refusing to fly across the Atlantic to answer questions at the Senate's hearing on Thursday (US time) about their role in Megrahi's release."

The British are not obligated to show up for United States Senate hearings.  I think it is a bit of arrogance to expect them to come and be grilled by Congress!  The bottom line here is that we believed what we were told and acted accordingly.  It is a shame that the families of the people killed in the Lockerbee bombing had to watch the hero's welcome al-Megrahi received in Libya and then be told he may live another ten to twenty years.  As usual, in the area of terrorism, the Obama Administration was snookered.

The link here is the CBS News story from Tuesday that stated that Shirtley Sherrod accused the White House of forcing her resignation.  Frankly, Miss Scarlet, I don't give a ----!  I am bringing up this story again for the purpose of pointing only one thing out.  I have heard the complete tape.  At the end of the tape, Ms. Sherrod blasts the Bush Administration for anything and everything and declares opposition to President Obama's healthcare plan as racist.  Maybe Ms. Sherrod got over her racism, but she has not yet reached the point where she is unwilling to accuse anyone she disagrees with of being a racist!  I don't believe that is any reason to fire her--I have worked with many unique people in my life who operated under similar mindsets.  My point is simply this, name calling should not pass as intelligent political dialogue.  Ms. Sherrod is entitled to think whatever she things about the Bush Administration and she is entitled to believe that Obamacare is the answer to the nation's healthcare challenges.  However, to simply brand the opposition as 'racists' is to discourage intelligent debate and move further away from a reasonable solution to the problem. 

Hot Air posted an article today about another unintended consequence of the recent Healthcare Reform Act.  The bill that Congress passed was supposed to provide all children insurance under their parent's policies until age 26.  Sounds like a great idea, but there were a few things Congress forgot to consider.

Insurance companies are in business to make money.  They use actuarial charts to set rates and write insurance policies.  In the free market that works.  In a market with excessive government regulation, it doesn't.  One of the effects of Obamacare that is becoming obvious is that fewer children will have healthcare coverage than before. 

According to the article:

"Starting on September 23rd, insurers will have to allow children onto plans at any time regardless of previous insurance or pre-existing conditions.  The way the law is written, after that date parents can wait until their children get sick to sign them up for individual plans at any time.  Insurers can't predict the cost of sudden additions to plans for those making immediate use of the system, and so instead just won't make those kinds of plans available."

This is very similar to the problems Massachusetts is having with its healthcare plan, which supposedly was one model for Obamacare.  Because insurance companies cannot refuse anyone insurance at any time, people were waiting until they needed major medical procedures to sign up for insurance and dropping the coverage when the procedure was done.  This thoroughly skewed the previous actuarial tables and the insurance companies asked the state for permission to raise their rates.  When the state turned down a majority of their requests, the insurance companies discontinued many of the policies they had been writing. 

It is becoming very obvious that Obamacare fully implemented will be a total nightmare.  The answer is very simple--REPEAL AND REPLACE.  Remember that in November.

Yesterday's Washington Times reported that the Justice Department's Voting Section has encouraged states to waive the statute that requires states mail absentee ballots to military personnel at least 45 days before an election.  This statute was put in place so that the military serving overseas would have a chance to get their absentee ballots in before deadlines to have their votes counted. 

If this statute is waived, many of our military will not have their votes counted in elections because they cannot get them back to their voting districts in time.

Sen. John Cornyn has met with Defense Department officials in charge of protecting military voting rights.  One of the problems here is that generally speaking the military votes Republican, and in a Democrat administration with Chicago roots, fair play may not be the name of the game.

John Hinderaker at Power Line reported yesterday that the cap and trade bill is dead--at least for now.  As usual, the Democrats are claiming that they can't pass the bill because of lack of cooperation on the part of the Republicans (who are accused of only wanting to secure political points).  Really?  What about the Democrats who refuse to support the bill? 

The question here is whether or not the cap and trade bill will be brought up and passed in a lame duck session after the November elections.  The Democrats seem to be conceding that they will lose their majority (at least in the House of Representatives), and there is some speculation that they will use a lame duck session to pass unpopular legislation before the Republicans take over.  I suppose that is a possibility, but I suspect that it might be something people remember in future elections.  I doubt that even the Democrats would be willing to take that chance.

The New Orleans Times Picayune reported Wednesday on a rally held in Lafayette, Louisiana, to protest the drilling moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico. 

According to the article:

"About 15,000 people packed the Cajundome on the campus of the University of Louisiana-Lafayette as Gov. Bobby Jindal and a stream of speakers blasted the six-month moratorium declared after BP's oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico."

"...The offshore petroleum industry and companies that serve it employ about 100,000 people in Louisiana, according to the LSU Center for Energy Studies."

On June 23, rightwinggranny.com reported that the scientists originally consulted on the oil spill had not recommended the six-month moratorium (although the Obama Administration originally claimed that they had).  The six-month moratorium will devastate the area's economy, increase America's dependence on foreign oil, and probably result in $7 per gallon gasoline prices at the pump within a year.

I hope the Obama Administration heard what the people who rallied in Lafayette were saying, but I am not optimistic.

After being acquitted of larceny and fraud in connection with a project to construct a new line for the New York City Subway, Ray Donovan, Secretary of Labor under Ronald Reagan, stated,  "Which office do I go to get my reputation back?"

Sarah Palin would be perfectly justified in asking the same question.  Today's Daily Caller  details the efforts of the "JournoList" to discredit Sarah Palin.

"Daniel Levy of the Century Foundation noted that Obama's "non-official campaign" would need to work hard to discredit Palin.  "This seems to me like an occasion when the non-official campaign has a big role to play in defining Palin, shaping the terms of the conversation and saying things that the official (Obama) campaign shouldn't say--very hard hitting stuff, including some of the things that people have been noting here--scare people about having this woefully inexperienced, no foreign policy/national security/right-wing christia wing-nut a heartbeat away.....bang away at McCain's age making this unusually significant.....I think people should be replicating some of the not-so-pleasant viral email campaigns that were used against (Obama)."" 

I was in the audience when Sarah Palin spoke in Auburn, New York, last year.  She was articulate, well-spoken, and talked to the crowd in terms all of us understood.  It is a shame that a group of media people decided to trade objective reporting of her nomination for Vice President for personal destruction in order to achieve a political goal.  

The revelations in the Daily Caller this week have been eye opening.  It is a shame that we cannot trust the major media in this country to tell us the truth objectively.  I truly believe that any person who participated in the smearing of Sarah Palin and became part of the Obama campaign rather than reporting events objectively should be fired.  They were not doing their job.  If you want to be part of a political campaign, join the campaign--don't claim to be an objective reporter.

Just a note--the name of this blog is right wing granny.  I am open about my political beliefs and the candidates I support.  I shall continue to be so.  There is nothing wrong with supporting a cause--the problem is supporting a cause while pretending to be objective.

CNS News reported yesterday that the electonic healthcare records provision in the stimulus bill which requires that a patient's BMI (Body Mass Index) be included in the electonic records (see rightwinggranny article of July 16), allows that certain other information be omitted. 

According to the article:

"Dr. David Blumenthal, the Obama administration's National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, said on Tuesday that patients can choose to omit procedures such as abortions and positive HIV tests from the electronic health records (EHR) that every American is supposed to have by 2014 under the terms of the economic stimulus law that President Barack Obama signed last year."

The article further states:

"The "incentive program" Garrett (Peter Garrett, the spokesman for HHS's Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology) refers to is the system of bonus payments the government will make to health care providers that implement EHRs by 2014.  Garrett did not mention the penalty system that diminishes a health-care provider's Medicare and Medicaid payments if it does not comply with the EHR mandate by 2014.  As the January 13, 2010 edition of the Federal Register noted: "Section 1848(a)(7) of the Act provides that beginning in CY 2015, EPs who are not meaningful users of certified EHR technology will receive less than 100 percent of the fee schedule for their professional services.""

It is time to put the brakes on government intrusion into our private lives.  If BMI has to be recorded electronically, why doesn't all other information have to be included?  This isn't even a part of Obamacare--it's part of the federal stimulus program--another result of a huge bill that was passed without anyone thoroughly reading it and understanding what the unintended consequences of passing it would be.

It is time to vote out of Congress any member of who supported healthcare or the stimulus bill and do anything possible to undo the damage caused by both.  If you value your freedom and privacy, look up the voting records of your Senators and Congressmen and vote accordingly.

Fred Barnes has posted an editorial at the Wall Street Journal about the recent stories about the JournoList.  Ezra Klein, a writer for the Washington Post, started the JournoList in February 2007 and wisely shut it down last month.  The JournoList was a group of several hundred journalists who formed a group to promote liberal causes and liberal politicians rather than report news accurately.

One of the groups main projects was the promotion of Barack Obama for President.  Mr. Barnes reports:

"JournoList contributors discussed strategies to aid Mr. Obama by deflecting the controversy. They went public with a letter criticizing an ABC interview of Mr. Obama that dwelled on his association with Mr. Wright. Then, Spencer Ackerman of The Washington Independent proposed attacking Mr. Obama's critics as racists. He wrote:

""If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they've put upon us. Instead, take one of them--Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares--and call them racists. . . . This makes them 'sputter' with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.""

This is disturbing.  Smear tactics are something most of associate with 'yellow journalism'--not the mainstream press.  The alternative media has tried to bring people the other side of the story, and in many cases alternative media has done the job the regular media should be doing.  Talk radio has grown by leaps and bounds since the early 1990's, and the internet has numerous blogs and news sites.  As long as people are willing to do a small amount of investigation, they can get the other side of the story.

I am not a chess player--I can't sit still that long, and planning strategy bores me (and I may not be that bright!), but I feel as if the country is involved in a giant chess game with a group of Chicago thugs.  The issue is control of our country, control of our economy, and control of our news.  Will the people be in control or will the government be in control?  I am waiting for the effort to shut down the alternative media on the radio and on the internet.  I hope I am wrong in thinking that this is a possibility, but so many things have happened in the past year and a half that I had thought were impossible, I am not sure that this could not happen.

Power Line reported yesterday that Rashid Khalidi, Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University, reportedly has signed an appeal for funds to outfit a ship--to be named The Audacity of Hope--that will challenge the Israeli blockade of Gaza in September or October.   The article at Power Line chronicles the history of Mr. Khalidi and his anti-Israel bias. 

The article reports:

"As to the appeal to fund the voyage of the Audacity of Hope, it states that the ship will sail from the U.S. to the Eastern Mediterranean, where it will join ships from "Europe, Canada, India, South Africa and parts of the Middle East." As Campus Watch points out, the appeal employs the word "we" when speaking of the upcoming trip, which gives the impression that the signatories, including Khalidi, intend to be aboard."

Andrew McCarthy at the corner at National Review reports:

"The United States has neutrality laws against things like fitting, furnishing or arming vessels with the intent of committing hostile acts against a country with which the U.S. is at peace. (Challenging a blockade is a hostile act.) We also have laws against providing material support to terrorist organizations like Hamas. Will the Obama Justice Department pursue an investigation of Khalidi?"

We are a country with a constitution and laws.  It would be nice if the Obama Administration would pay attention to both!

Today Jonathan Strong continued his reports on the media at The Daily Caller.  It has become routine for the left media to accuse the right media of being uncivil.  But Sarah Spitz, a producer for National Public Radio, might be an example of a lack of civility of the left side.  Ms. Spita wrote that if she were in the presence of Rush Limbaugh having a heart attack, she would "Laugh loudly like a maniac and watch his eyes bug out" as he writhed in agony.  I'm not sure what is driving that kind of hatred, but it seems inappropriate on the part of a journalist. 

Mr. Strong also points out how the Tea Party members were portrayed when the Tea Parties began.  They were called Nazis, brownshirts, religious nuts, racists, homophobes, anti-feminists, anti-abortion lunatics, anti-immigration whackos, pathological government haters, gun nuts, and anti-tax nuts.  When they opposed healthcare, the mainstream media was not willing to actually discuss issues--it was more fun demonizing the opponents of healthcare.  Now that healthcare has passed and we are finding out that we were seriously lied to by the President and the Democrats in Congress, there is not a lot of reporting on healthcare by the mainstream media.   When will it occur to them that they also will be affected by the new healthcare laws?

Mr. Strong also details the attacks on Fox News by other news organizations.  Fox News is not perfect, but there is more balance of opinion on Fox news shows than anywhere else in the media.  Please follow the above link to read the entire article, it is an eye-opener!

A democracy needs well-informed voters to survive.  If we are to turn over a democratic form of government to our children and grandchildren, we had better be aware of what news we can trust and what news we can't trust.  This is a critical time for our country, and most of the media is selling us down the river.

Yesterday National Review On Line had an amazing article about the Gurkhas who are fighting in Afghanistan with the British Army.  The Gurkhas are soldiers from Nepal who volunteer for the British army.   Their traditional weapon is the kukri, a curved short sword.  According to the article, "It is said that the sound of Gurkhas sharpening their kukris was enough to frighten the Japanese in the Second World War."

In Afghanistan, the Gurkhas have again proved themselves as valiant soldiers.  The Gurkhas battalions have British officers.  Recently, a renegade Afghan policeman entered the Gurkha barracks and shot Major Bowman, one of those officers, dead in his sleep. 

According to the article:

"...at the same time, the Gurkhas were in action in Helmand, in pursuit of a top Taliban commander. Under heavy fire, they killed him. Orders were to establish the commander's identity. It was too dangerous to drag him out while still engaged with the Taliban, so a Gurkha cut his head off with his kukri. Quick thinking, you may say."

The Gurkha who cut off his head has been recalled to Britain and may face court-martial and jail. 

The article concludes:

"The story goes that by cutting off the commander's head, the Gurkha has offended Muslims, on the grounds that their custom is to bury bodies whole. What nonsense this is, what an example of the self-abasement now habitual whenever we come up against Islam in any shape or form. And the renegade Afghan policeman who shot Major Bowman in his sleep wasn't giving offense?"

I suppose this is totally politically incorrect, but would the war on terror end more quickly if we began burying terrorists and enemy soldiers with pig carcasses?  Civilized society is a place for good manners--war is not.  We have to be as humane as possible, but cultural sensibilities to terrorists and terrorist fighters will only prolong the war and get more Americans, British, Australians, Canadians, Czechs, Poles, and other brave men killed.  Let's fight this thing and get it over with.

Yesterday, Power Line posted a story on the coming energy legislation.  The article quotes Ken Haapala, Executive Vice President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP:

"Although the Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act (APA) appears dead, Senator Reid announced he will introduce yet another version of cap-and-tax this month by any other name. But both the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and EPA have produced studies showing that cap-and-tax will be economically harmful. The CBO report is a solid, prudent review of three studies: Resources for the Future, Brookings Institution, and CRA International. All report that significant declines in total employment will result from APA. ..."

The question being asked is, "If this bill is so harmful to the economy, why does it keep coming up?"  Follow the money.  The article explains that under the law, allowances for carbon dioxide emissions will be sold and some will be distributed free.  The part distributed free during the 2013 to 2034 life of the program as $2.1 Trillion - about the amount of total Federal revenues in 2009. The largest beneficiary is the electricity industry to the tune of $870 Billion.

The article further points out:

"Politicians claim the value of the free allowances to the electricity industry will then flow to the consumers of electricity. Chamberlain uses established microeconomic theory backed by empirical studies to show that much of the value will flow to the shareholders of the companies that are generally in the highest income group. Thus, the entire scheme results in a massive transfer of wealth from the lower and middle income groups to the wealthy. No wonder Duke Energy declared cap-and-trade will give share holders a $1,000,000,000 (Billion Dollar) profit.

"Very interestingly, the Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) industry, basically non-existent with an unproven technology, receives $246 Billion in free allowances - twice the 2009 budget for California. Given the sheer volume of carbon dioxide involved, it is highly unlikely that CCS will ever become viable. ..."

As usual, the American consumer (and taxpayer) will provide the money to flow to the wealthy.  We need a press that will tell this story--when will they figure out that they also will be negatively impacted by the programs the Obama Administration is attempting to push through? 

Today's New York Post posted a story about the Justice Department's legal battle against Arizona's immigration law. 

The article opens with this thought:

"Last week, the Justice Department made an astonishing statement about its unprecedented lawsuit to stop the Arizona illegal-immigration law. Attorney General Eric Holder's spokeswoman, Tracy Schmaler, claimed that it was appropriate to go after Arizona, but inappropriate to stop "sanctuary cities."

"Schmaler said: "There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law. . . That's what Arizona has done in this case.""

There are a few major problems with this statement--the first being that it is not true!  Federal law forbids sanctuary cities; Arizona's law is in compliance with federal immigration law. 

According to the article:

"In 1996, Congress prohibited sanctuary cities in no uncertain terms: A "local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual" (8 USC Sec. 1373(a))."

One of the problems with sanctuary cities is that illegal alien gangs operate quite freely in them.  Logically, illegal-alien gangs like Mara Salvatrucha 13 prefer to operate in cities where the police can't report them to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.  Why risk being deported when you don't have to? 

The ability of the Obama Administration to ignore the wishes (and safety) of the American people is breathtaking.  Hopefully, as support for secure borders grows, they will see the error of their ways.

The story of the day on the alternative media today is at The Daily Caller.  It is the story by Jonathan Strong showing the media planning how to support President Obama and how to get him elected in 2008.  The story cites specific instances of newspapers covering up stories or making phony charges against anyone who said something negative about the candidate.

One example given in the article:

"In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama's relationship with (Reverend) Wright by changing the subject.  Pick one of Obama's conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, "Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares---and call them racists."

Hopefully, I am not the only person offended by this.  Some of the comments made by the press that participated in making sure that leftists politicians stayed in power:

Katha Pollitt---Hayes's colleague at the Nation---didn't disagree on principle, though she did sound weary of the propaganda.  "I hear you, but I am really tired of defending the indefensible.  The people who attacked Clinton on Monica were prissy and ridiculous, but let me tell you it was not fun, as a feminist and a woman, waving aside as polically irrelevant and part of the vast rightwing conspiracy Paula, Monica, Kathleen, Juanita," Pollitt said.

"Part of me doesn't like this #### either," agreed Spencer Ackerman, then of the Washington Independent.  "But what I like less is being government by racists and warmongers and criminals."

A free and honest press is necessary to keep a democracy functioning.  Democracy depends upon an informed voting public.  It is sad to see news outlets planning to slant their reporting in order to sway public opinion in favor of one candidate.  Please follow the link and read the entire article to see what was going on.  I am not sure that what was done actually changed the election, but I suspect that if the reporting had been honest, a lot fewer people would be surprised at some of the actions taken by the Obama Administration.

Sometimes there are situations where you are just not sure what the truth is.  Anyone who is a parent has had to deal with that sort of thing when dealing with a dispute between their children.  I was one of those horrible parents who sent both children to their rooms when I couldn't figure out who started it.  At least they both learned that what they were doing was unacceptable behavior.

There has been a lot in the press last night and today about the forced resignation of Shirley Sherrod from the USDA.  There are a few things to be observed here.  She admits that race played a part in doing her job to help a white farmer who was losing his farm.  She readily admits that she did not do all she could to help the man because he was white.  That decision was made 20-something years ago, and there are no indications that she would make the same decision today.  However, there is no indication that she would make a different decision today either.  For me, that is the problem.  Can this lady be trusted to administer government programs equally to Americans regardless of their race?  I don't know.  There may be other government employees about whom that questions should be asked, but unfortunately she is on video as having racially discriminated in the past.  Are there white government employees who routinely (or have in the past) discriminate against people of other races?  They should also be shown the door.  Discrimination is wrong.  Period.  Discrimination should not be used as a "gotcha game" to get even with past sins.  There are past sins, but they are past.  They can never be undone, and doing wrong does not atone for them in any way.  So much for that.

Meanwhile, back to the story.  Ms. Sherrod has claimed that the White House forced her resignation; the White House has denied that charge.  It would be interesting to know exactly who called for her resignation.

One of the disadvantages of the electronic age (or the advantages, depending on your point of view) is that anything you say can show up on a video at any time.  For most of us that's not really a problem, but for Shirley Sherrod it is.  Some comments Ms. Sherrod made at an awards ceremony held by the NAACP in March have come back to haunt her. 

You can follow the link to biggovernment.com to hear the speech and see the statement by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) as to why they accepted her resignation.  The basic story is simple.  When a white farmer came to Ms. Sherrod at the USDA because he was about to lose his farm, Ms. Sherrod provided the minimum required assistance.  She had mixed emotions about helping the man because she was thinking about the number of black farmers who had lost their farms.  I don't know if she was actually telling the truth or thought she was playing to an audience.  Either way, her actions were wrong. 

Racism is wrong, regardless of who is practicing it.  I am glad to see that Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack was quick to affirm a nondiscrimination policy at the department.  I wonder if the NAACP will be as quick to denouce the racism Ms. Sherrod exhibited.

The statement has been made by someone smarter than I am that the states could serve as laboratories for new programs the government was considering.  If that is true, Massachusetts provides a strong argument for the REPEAL AND REPLACE movement regarding healthcare reform. 

Massachusetts healthcare reform law was enacted in 2006.  According to an article posted at Power Line today:

"Romneycare affords us a glimpse into the not very distant future if Obamacare is not repealed. Employers are dumping their health care plans. The governor is essentially attempting to impose price controls on insurers. If the governor is successful, insurers would just throw in the towel. When that happens under Obamacare, we will take our nationalized medicine straight."

There are a few things that have happened as a result of Massachusetts healthcare reform that were not expected--insurance premiums have risen 5.7% more than in other states. In Boston, prices for employer-provided family plans are increasing 8.2% faster than in other large metropolitan areas (according to saveyourrights.com).  I don't know what rates are in other parts of the country, but I can attest to the fact that my rates have increased drastically.  I have also been aware of people who had basic affordable insurance that covered their needs who were forced by the new law to purchase a more expensive policy with coverage they did not want or need.  I am also hearing stories about people losing their chose of which hospital to be treated in, when previously they had that choice.  I would like to see Obamacare and Romneycare disappear as suddenly as they arrived!

Let's elect a Congress in November that will REPEAL AND REPLACE!

CBN News is reporting today that the  U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has announced that health insurance pools can not cover abortions.  This announcement is in response to public outrage over recent decisions by the states of New Mexico and Pennsylvania to use federal taxpayer money for abortions (after President Obama promised that taxpayer money would not be spent on abortion). 

It should be noted, however, that the program still makes an exception in cases of rape, incest, or the health of the mother.  The problem in this is that the concept of the 'health of the mother' is very vague and has the potential to be misused.

According to the article:

"Meanwhile, the abortion battle, which is centered on the president's health care law, is far from over. 

"Beginning in 2014, federally subsidized health insurance plans can cover abortions, if policy holders pay for coverage separately."

I am sure there will be more to come on this issue.  I plan on watching it carefully.

Today I became aware of a concept called the 'effort honor roll' now being used in some of our schools.  Because I do not want to embarrass any particular school or student, there will be no link attached to this article.  If you want to read what some schools say about their 'effort honor roll', just google it.  You will find out more than you want to know.

One school listed the qualifications for the 'effort honor roll.'  They included consistency in the following areas:  being on time, turning in complete work on time, turning in high quality work in content and appearance.  Further areas of qualification included participation, group work, and citizenship.  The final qualification was 'consistently works to the best of his ability.'  At the risk of seeming incredibly naive, if a student meets all those requirements, wouldn't they automatically have the kind of success that would put them on the real honor roll?  If they are doing everything right but not making the honor roll, what is the problem? 

What are we teaching our children with the 'effort honor roll'?  Are we telling them that they will be rewarded regardless of what they actually achieve?  This seems to me to be a really bad idea.  Are we afraid to teach our children that they may not always be successful in receiving an award, but if they work harder, they can achieve it?  

What impact does rewarding effort rather than achievement have on these children when they grow up and have real jobs?  What are the long-term unintended consequences of this policy?  Anyway, I really think this is a really insane idea from someone who thinks we all need to be rewarded for something (which is a nice concept, but not real life!).

Townhall.com columnist Dan Kennedy posted an article entitled, "The Flight Of The Money:  Where Has It Gone?" 

Mr. Kennedy points out that two months ago General Motors was held up as an example of successful government intervention.  During the week of July 4th, General Motors announced that it needed to borrow $ 5 billion dollars to repay its debt.  It really wasn't a good example, but that didn't stop the spin.

The article asks, "Where is the economic growth caused by the stimulus?"  He points out some of the indications that it is not there.

• Flight of Capital.  Major corporations are moving hundreds of millions of dollars into overseas investments.
• Capital not being put to work.   There is an estimated $2 trillion of excess cash reserves currently held by companies other than financial institutions.  With the rapid changes in regulations, the spectre of increased taxes and healthcare costs, there is a fear of expansion or new hiring.  No one is sure what tomorrow's rules will be.
• Companies are moving overseas because they fear they will not be able to operate profitably with the new taxes and regulations headed their way in this country.

According to the article:

"Beginning in 2011, he (President Obama) has a dizzying array of redistribution and destruction of wealth tax schemes ready for unleashing, like crazed beasts through the Gates of Hell, to eat whatever enterprise remains.

"The economy is starved for private sector money in motion. Deprived of lifeblood. Gasping for oxygen that isn't there. If you but listen, you can hear the death rattle. Even the business and financial news media pretty much fails at stitching these things together, to reveal the full picture. The few highly credible experts who speak eloquently about it, like my friend, the economist Harry Dent Jr., are mysteriously shunned by the media. There seems more willingness to point to the façade than to walk people around to the vacant lot behind it, and edge of cliff it teeters on so precariously."

Unless the composition of Congress changes in the November election, we will not see this country recover from the Obama economic policies.  The hope in a new Congress is that they will be able to repeal some of the policies that have been the worst offenders in slowing down the economy.  I would like to see both healthcare reform and the financial reform act repealed and replaced with legislation less than one hundred pages long that actually does what it claims to do.  In healthcare it would mean less government control, in the financial reform bill, it would mean actually reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who were at the center of the mortgage market collapse.  I am not sure Congress will totally change hands, but it needs to.

Andrew Breitbart's website Big Peace posted a story yesterday about an attempt at tolerance in the Middle East.  I'm sure most of us are in favor of tolerance in general, but this tolerance had a twist.  Jordan's Queen Rania has written a children's book called  "The Sandwich Swap." 

According to the article at Big Peace:

"The book uses  lunch sandwiches (one peanut butter and jelly, the other pita bread and hummus)  as a metaphor for the differences between two friends from different cultures. The Book touches on such issues as getting to know others, openness and multiculturalism."

The article further states:

"According to a report by the liberal Israeli newspaper, Ha'aretz, Jordan's Queen Kumbaya Rania has refused all offers to have her book published in Hebrew for distribution in Israel. Keep in mind that Jordan is one of two Arab states that has signed a peace treaty with Israel (the other is Egypt)."

Jeff Dunetz, who wrote the article at Big Peace, believes that the only reason Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel is fear of the Palestinian Arabs. 

The article points out the history of Jordan and the Palestinians (the land that is now Jordan was taken from the original land promised to Israel in 1917 and given to the Arabs as a Palestinian state.  Unfortunately, that is not what it has become.)

According to the article:

"Abdullah (Abdullah II, the Jordanian King) rejects the Palestinians living in his country because Jordan is a Palestinian state. Palestinian Arabs are estimated to be between 50-75% of the Jordanian Population.  The ruling monarchy of Jordan is not Palestinian Arab and constantly needs to guard its power. That  is why Jordan has kept the Palestinian Arab refugees in a ghetto since 1948. It is also why even to this day, Jordan refuses to give the Palestinian Arabs citizenship or allow them to be integrated into Jordanian society. Don't forget, until 1967 the West Bank of the Jordan River was part of  Jordan, so the country used to be an even greater percentage Palestinian Arab. When the terrorist Arafat was getting too powerful,  the Jordanian Army acting on the orders of the Abdullah's father, King Hussein, massacred thousands of Palestinian Arabs to get them out of the country."

The problem of Palestine was created by the Arabs--not the Jews.  There never was a state of Palestine until Transjordan was established.  The lack of a Palestinian state has nothing to do with Israel--it has to do with Arabs mistreating Arabs.  However, as long as anti-Semitism is major part of Arab thinking, there will not be peace in the Middle East.

Today's Wall Street Journal posted an article about a Republican budget plan to cut spending, deficits, and taxes, and balance the budget.  As you remember, the Democrats did not pass a budget for next year--they 'deemed' a budget passed and planned to work on the budget after the election in November.  That way they cannot be held responsible for the excessive spending.

Tom Price of Georgia, head of the conservative Republican Study Committee, has put together the budget plan. 

According to the article, the plan:

"...lowers taxes by $1.7 trillion more than the Obama budget by making the Bush tax cuts permanent. Spending reductions start with what Mr. Price calls a "reset" on spending for discretionary programs back to 2008 levels. That insures that "temporary" stimulus funding doesn't get continued year after year. The plan also instructs the President and Congress to dedicate every penny of bailout money repaid to the federal government by the banks to debt retirement."

The article concludes:

"Mr. Price and his RSC colleagues show that you can get from here ($1.5 trillion annual deficits) to there (a balanced budget) through spending discipline and economic growth. Can it be done the Democratic way, with higher taxes and lower growth? Not likely."

With the current Congress, it is unlikely that this sensible budget plan will ever see the light of day.  If voters elect a new Congress in November that is responsive to voters, we might be able to stop the runaway spending and the coming massive tax increases.

The National Jeweler website is reporting today on a provision of the Financial Reform Bill recently passed that will make life very difficult for small, independent jewelers. 

According to the article:

"A legislative addendum that aims to regulate the gold industry to keep "conflict gold" out of the United States passed as part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, a financial reform bill that was approved by the Senate Thursday and is poised to become law."

The article further states:

"On Friday, JA (Jewelers of America) released a statement in response to the bill's passage, saying "While we strongly believe in the goals of this legislation, we are very concerned that the bill--as passed--could encourage jewelry companies to avoid trading in gold from the region, in order to bypass the issue completely. Of course, this unintended consequence will help no one, and end up hurting legitimate miners and their communities. Therefore, we hope to work with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulators and both industry and non-industry stakeholders to ensure that implementation achieves its goals, without hurting jewelry businesses or the very communities in DRC and neighboring countries that it is meant to benefit and protect.""

The problem is that Congress keeps passing 2,000-plus page bills that no one has read.  No one has has any idea what gems (no pun intended) are included in these bills.  The intention here was good, but how good will the intention look when thousands of small jewelry business go out of business because the regulations are too complex for the size of their companies?  This is another instance of Congressmen not protecting their constituents from extreme government regulation.  Instead the Congressmen are responsible for the extreme regulation.  As Ronald Reagan once said, "Government is not the solution--it's the problem."

On Wednesday, rightwinggranny reported that Pennsylvania will use taxpayer dollars to fund abortions under Obamacare.  Yesterday, CNS News reported that Maryland will also pay for abortions with taxpayer money under the new healthcare reform act.  As I am sure you remember, Americans were promised that taxpayer dollars would not fund abortions. 

On March 24, CNN reported that President Obama had signed an executive order preventing the use of taxpayer dollars to fund abortions.  The article states:

""While the legislation as written maintains current law, the executive order provides additional safeguards to ensure that the status quo is upheld and enforced, and that the health care legislation's restrictions against the public funding of abortions cannot be circumvented," the White House said previously."

I guess that executive order didn't really mean much.  CNS News states:

"According to a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) fact sheet published by MHIP, its new Federal Plan will offer the same benefit package as its state-funded plans. "The MHIP Federal Plan offers the same benefit package as other MHIP plan options," that document states. All five of MHIP's plans cover abortion, including one plan that requires no co-pay if the abortion is performed at an out-patient abortion clinic, according information found on page 53 of the 2010 MHIP Certificate of Coverage."

The American people have been lied to.  The healthcare reform bill not only pays for abortion with taxpayer money, there are many other surprises in it.  Healthcare costs will go up, not down.  Those of us who are happy with our current health insurance are very likely to be forced out of our current coverage by the healthcare reform act.

Remember this in November--elect a Congress that will REPEAL AND REPLACE!

Yesterday CNS News posted an article about something seemingly small that was included in the stimulus bill passed last year.  The bill stated that by 2014 all Americans must have electronic health records that include not only height and weight, but body mass index (BMI). 

According to the article:

"The obesity-rating regulation states that every American's electronic health record must: "Calculate body mass index. Automatically calculate and display body mass index (BMI) based on a patient's height and weight."

"The law also requires that these electronic health records be available--with appropriate security measures--on a national exchange."

I suppose it's a little late to say, "I object!"  Why is my BMI included in the stimulus package?  I can understand wanting to put the records in some sort of electronic order, but why is my BMI included? 

BMI is an interesting number.  Generally, it is a measure of obesity.  But, as usual, one size does not fit all.  Many of our professional athletes have BMI's that show them to be obese.  That has to do with the fact that muscle weighs more than fat--professional football players in particular have BMI's that are not in any way representative of their physical condition.

On a personal note--I have a wii fit that I use to keep in reasonable shape (at my age, any shape is reasonable).  I have put on a few pounds as I have aged--not a lot--but a few.  Because I am small boned, my wii fit doesn't acknowledge me as overweight, although I am.  A person my height with heavier bone structure would be the correct weight (which is what the wii is telling me I am), a person with my bone structure needs to lose about fifteen pounds.  BMI is a valuable number when used by a personal physician to judge a person's appropriate weight.  In the hands of the government, it is a useless and possibly dangerous number.  My fear is that we will come to a place where your BMI determines how much medical care the government (yes, they have taken over healthcare) is willing to give you.  That sounds far-fetched, but I don't think it is.  We can't change the stimulus at this point, but we can elect a Congress in November that will repeal healthcare reform before it has a chance to do any real damage.

Yesterday Investors.com posted an article entitled "The Price Of A Vote."  The article deals with one aspect of the financial reform bill that was passed yesterday.  One of the problems with the financial reform package that was passed was that no mention was made of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.  These two entities (possibly the cause of the financial meltdown) will continue as before and will again and again be bailed out by taxpayer money.  The financial reform bill does not address either entity in any way.  One of the companies in the middle of the sub-prime meltdown was Countrywide Financial Corp.  This company had a VIP Mortgage Program that has not received a lot of attention.  That may change.

The top Republican member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Rep. Darrell Issa has been looking into this program.  The program was not available to the general public. 

According to the article:

"Countrywide has made 30 cut-rate loans to senators or Senate employees. A dozen of the VIP loans were made to customers who named the office of Sen. Robert Bennett, a Utah Republican, as their workplace. The remainder went to borrowers whose place of employment was designated as "U.S. Senate" or "U.S. senator."

"None of these loans with their favorable, below-market terms is available to the public. They were reserved for the few with political connections -- including Sen. Chris Dodd, the Connecticut Democrat who was the primary author of the financial reform bill."

The article further reports:

"Issa and the committee are trying to determine if Countrywide, one of the architects of the subprime mortgage problem and now owned by Bank of America, made these VIP loans to buy influence over legislation. But it hasn't been a smooth process.

"Rep. Edolphus Towns, the New York Democrat who runs the committee, is known to have received two mortgages from Countrywide's VIP program himself. He initially balked at issuing a subpoena for Countrywide's records before eventually doing so."

This Congress is a disgrace to America.  The number of Congressmen using their office for their own personal gain is obscene.  We need to remember the actions of these Congressmen in November.  If a Congressman has accepted special loans or other favors based on his office, he needs to be voted out of office.

Ok.  It's time to inject a little reality into "Recovery Summer."  David Limbaugh posted an article at Newsmax.com analyzing some of President Obama's recent statements about the current economy and his role in the recovery. 

President Obama has claimed repeatedly that he inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression (sounds like Bill Clinton--he said he inherited the worst economy in 50 years).  Have both of these men conveniently forgotten Jimmy Carter?  Mr. Limbaugh reports that "Carter's interest rates reached 15.27 percent. Inflation soared to 13.5 percent. And unemployment grew to 7.8 percent." 

Let's look at the 'horrible' economy of George Bush.  According to the article:

"In 2006, the Bush economy grew at 5.6 percent, representing the 18th straight quarter of economic growth, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The unemployment rate was 4.7 percent; it later fell to 4.6 percent, which was lower than the average rate of unemployment for any of the preceding four decades." 

About those deficits--according to the article:

"Plus, Obama's refrain that the Bush tax cuts led to deficits is flatly contradicted by the record, which shows that federal tax revenues grew following his tax cuts."

Mr. Limbaugh concludes:

"Obama's major contributions to the economy are astronomical debt acceleration, obscene unemployment, recession bordering on depression, and business and consumer uncertainty across the board. And this is before Obamacare and his other major tax hikes have even gone into effect."

Hopefully the damage this Administration and this Congress have done to the American economy can be repaired.  The tax increases that are coming combined with the endless new regulations will prevent a serious economic recovery.  We need a new Congress that will lift the yoke of excessive regulation off the small business community and free them to hire new workers and to prosper.  As small business prospers, the nation will prosper.

Congressman Paul Ryan, ranking Republican on the Committee on the Budget, has proposed a plan to get the economy moving that would be an alternative to the current spend, raise the deficit, and borrow more plan that is currently in place and not working.

The plan is detailed at the Roadmap website that Congressman Ryan has set up to detail and explain the plan.  There are video explanations of the plan as well as written details of what the plan is and exactly how it would work.  It is becoming obvious that what we are currently doing is not working very well, and this plan represents a lot of economic principles that have been successful in the past.  We need to elect people in November who will follow this plan.

Please follow the link above, and check out Representative Ryan's plan.

The Hill is reporting today that Senator Joseph Lieberman has stated that the Senate liberals will not oppose a 'utility-only' climate bill.  That's nice.  Can those of us who will have to live with the increased energy costs oppose it?

This is aggravating.  According to the article:

"The duo (Lieberman and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.)) are working with Reid's office on a power plant-focused plan after failing to gain political traction for their earlier climate bill, which also covered manufacturing, oil refining, transportation and other sectors."

Maybe they can't get the support because the American people are feeling over-regulated.  I think that as some of our Congressmen look around at their approval ratings and consider that there will be an election in November, they are thinking twice about what they should support.  The best thing that could happen right now would be to send them all home before they can do any more damage!

Today's Washington Examiner posted a story stating that Governor Bob McDonnell of Virginia is reporting a budget surplus for his state rather than the predicted deficit. 

According to the article:

"McDonnell estimated that the surplus for the fiscal year that ended June 30 will be at least $220 million after miscellaneous interest payments are made.  The final figure will be made official in August after year-end adjustments."

In January it was reported that the Commonwealth of Virginia was facing a $1.8 billion budget deficit for the fiscal year, which ended June 30th.  The Commonwealth ended the year with a $220 million surplus. 

Please follow the link above to read the article, which details the steps taken to turn a deficit into a surplus.  The article makes clear that there are still financial challenges ahead for Virginia, but this was a major step forward.  I wonder if Governor McDonnell is willing to help the Obama Administration with its budget problems.

CNS News is reporting today that the healthcare reform bill recently passed by Congress does use taxpayer money to fund abortions.  If you remember, we taxpayers were assured that that was not the case and an executive order was signed that was supposed to prevent the use of taxpayer money to fund abortions.  Well, I guess that was another healthcare lie.

The article explains:

"(House Republical Leader) Boehner and other Republicans point to reports that the Health and Human Services Department is giving Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new high-risk insurance pool that will cover any abortion that is legal in the state."

Regardless of how you feel about abortion, the point is that the American people were lied to by the people in Washington, D. C., that we sent there to represent us.  Who do they represent? 

The article concludes:

"Even before it's fully implemented, the Democrats' health care plan "is already being exposed as a high-taxing, poorly thought-out, and taxpayer-funding-of-abortion monstrosity," (Tom) McClusky (senior vice president of the Family Research Council's political action arm) said.
 
"Republican leader Boehner says House Republicans would codify the Hyde amendment, thus prohibiting all authorized and appropriated federal funds from being used to pay for abortion.  Under the Republican plan, any health plan that includes abortion coverage would not receive federal funds."

If it took lies to pass this bill (about its cost, whether people would be able to keep their coverage, the impact on senior citizens, and abortion coverage), it needs to be repealed and replaced with something the Obama Administration and Congress can tell the truth about (maybe Congress and the Obama Administration need to be replaced with people who can tell the truth!).

Dr. Walter Williams spoke at the college graduation of one of my daughters many years ago.  He showed amazing insight then, and he shows amazing insight now.  Dr. Williams is on the faculty of George Mason University as John. M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics.

In an article posted at Townhall.com, Dr. Williams talks about the myth that Franklin D. Roosevelt's policies ended the depression. 

Dr. Williams points out:

"FDR's Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, wrote in his diary: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. ... We have never made good on our promises. ... I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... and an enormous debt to boot!""

We have only been spending wildly for a year and a half, but does that quote sound like it applies today? 

Dr. Williams points out:

"The Great Depression did not end until after WWII. Why it lasted so long went unanswered until Harold L. Cole, professor of economics at the University of Pennsylvania, and Lee E. Ohanian, professor of economics at UCLA, published their research project "How Government Prolonged the Depression" in the Journal of Political Economy (August 2004). Professor Cole explained, "The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes. Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened." Professors Cole and Ohanian argue that FDR's economic policies added at least seven years to the depression."

Maybe it's time to evaluate whether the Obama Administration's fiscal policies have helped us get out of the recession or have prolonged the recession.  Dr. Williams points out in his article that the only way the government can spend money is to tax it or borrow it.  Excessive taxing or excessive borrowing will not lead us out of the current mess.  We desperately need to cut spending enough so that we can cut taxes.  I suggest that we check the voting records of the people currently in Congress before we vote in November.  Big spenders and politicians promoting pork projects need to be voted out of office.  We need informed, involved voters in November if we are to rescue our children and grandchildren from the incredibile debt the Obama Administration is creating.

We are entering the "silly season."  The silly season is not my name for it, but I can't rememeber which political analyst called June through November of an election year the "silly season."  Anyway, we are there.

Yesterday, Jim Geraghty at the Campaign Spot at National Review Online gave voters a preview of what to expect during the silly season.  Public Policy Polling released a poll showing Democrat Gov. Martin O'Malley leading Republican Robert Ehrlich by 3 percentage points. The poll's sample splits 60 percent Democrat, 28 percent Republican, 12 percent independents.

Anytime you see the results of a poll, you need to look at who took the poll and what their polling sample was.  The most reliable polls are the ones of registered voters only, the most unreliable polls are the ones taken during the day when most people are out working.  In this case, Mr. Geraghty points out that in the 2008 elections, CNN's exit poll showed a Maryland electorate that consisted of 51 percent self-identified Democrats, 28 percent Republicans, and 21 percent of independents.  The sample used in the poll that shows Governor O'Malley leading Robert Ehrlich assumes that 16 percent of the independents who voted in 2008 have become Democrats.  That is contrary to every other poll currently being reported.  Indications are that independents are moving away from the Democrat party.

What this shows is that you can make a poll say anything you want it to by controlling the people you poll.  By adding more Democrats to the polling sample, the pollsters were able to show that Governor O'Malley was leading.  I don't know if polls make an impact on voters, but as voters, all of us need to be aware that polls can be manipulated.

Yesterday's Washington Examiner posted an Associated Press article on the death of George Steinbrenner, the colorful owner of the New York Yankees.  There were two ironies that stood out for me in the article:

• Mr. Steinbrenner died of a heart attack at age 80.  He once stated, "I don't have heart attacks, I give them."
• Because of the compromises made in the George Bush changes to inheritence tax law, the Steinbrenner family may actually be able to retain ownership of the New York Yankees.  That will depend on how Mr. Steinbrenner's estate was set up, but in past years, family businesses have had to be sold to pay the estate taxes required by the government.  In evaluating estate taxes, taxpayers need to remember that all the money in an estate has already been taxed.  I guess estate taxes could also be looked at as taxation without representation.

Please follow the link to the Washington Examiner article.  It highlights an interesting and successful career as the owner of the New York Yankees.  The Yankees are the team everyone loves to hate (I live in Massachusetts, so I may be a bit biased on that), but they won.  His fueds with Yogi Berra and Billy Martin are legendary.  I hope someone in Hollywood will put together an honest biography of this man--I think it would be fascinating.

Today's Waltham, Massachusetts, Daily News Tribune posted a story about Marty Lamb, who is running in the Republican Primary for Senate in the 3rd Congressional District in Massachusetts.   Mr. Lamb was discussing his "lamb chop plan" - a 10-point strategy for cutting federal spending and the taxpayer burden.

The plan is basic common sense.  According to the article, the plan includes:

"End corporate bailouts; pay off the national debt; limit expense increases to the inflation rate; stop creating new entitlement programs like the recent national health care plan; reform the earmark system; and re-establish a committee to propose cuts and scrutinize programs for worthiness."

Mr. Lamb proposed an alternative to extending unemployment benefits--a payroll tax cut for a set period for employers and employees.  This would encourage hiring and stimulate the economy by giving people more money to spend. 

Please follow the link above to check out Marty Lamb's stands on various other issues.  Common sense is a rare quality in Washington today, and I believe that quality is what Marty Lamb brings to the discussion.

Mr. Lamb summed up his campaign for the article:

"Lamb said he is taking the primary seriously, but "I'm still running against Jim McGovern.""

I am planning to vote for Marty Lamb in November.

Yesterday The Hill reported that "the White House and congressional Democrats, with the backing of the AARP, will soon put forth a plan to automatically enroll new private-sector employees in investment retirement accounts (IRAs)."

The concept is that this move would encourage savings.  The program would have tax benefits, but it is unclear whether they would be typical IRA tax-deferred accounts or Roth-type accounts where the income placed in the accounts is taxed, but there is no withdrawal tax.

I guess my suspicious nature has come into play here.  This is the Administration that has taken away the Health Savings Accounts, which were tax-free and saved families money on healthcare.  Since the AARP betrayed its members in the healthcare debate, I tend to be suspicious of anything political they may be involved in.  I am also aware of what happened in Argentina two years ago.

According to the Wall Street Journal on October 23, 2010:

"Argentine President Cristina Kirchner announced this week that her government intends to nationalize the country's private pension system. If Congress approves this property grab, $30 billion in individually held retirement accounts -- think 401(k)s -- managed by private pension funds will become government property."

We need to be aware that this could happen here.  We also need to be aware that after Argentina seized the 401k's, emerging market investors considered Argentina as one of the worst places on the planet to put your money.

At some point, it will become obvious that the Laffer Curve is the answer to our economic woes.  I just hope we figure that out before our country is bankrupt.

CNS News posted a story today stating that the Obama's Administration has issued a revised moratorium on oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. 

According to the article:

"Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said he decided to put in place a new moratorium because of "evidence that grows every day of the industry's inability in the deep water to contain a catastrophic blowout, respond to an oil spill and to operate safely."
 
"The new moratorium was panned by industry groups and generally supported by environmentalists."

Earlier this month, rightwinggranny reported that oil rigs are beginning to leave the Gulf.  Even if this moratorium is struck down, as was the last one, oil companies are going to be very reluctant to put rigs in the Gulf with moratoriums being a constant threat.  This in itself will probably greatly diminish the amount of oil we receive from the Gulf.

Yesterday I saw an ethanol ad on television explaining that using ethanol does not give money to countries that support terrorism.  Well, neither does drilling in the Gulf, and drilling in the Gulf does not have to be subsidized by the government to make it even remotely practical.

According to the article:

"Sen. Mary Landrieu, a Louisiana Democrat, said in testimony to the presidential oil spill panel that she was "alarmed" at the Interior Department's statement that its decision is supported "by an extensive record of existing and new information indicating that allowing new deep-water drilling to commence would pose a threat of serious, irreparable or immediate harm or damage to the marine, coastal and human environment." Landrieu said that statement "contradicts testimony given by drilling experts and ignores the history of oil and gas operations in the Gulf.""

I believe that Senator Landrieu tries to represent the interests of the people in her state.  I suspect she is beginning to wonder about some of the policies of the Obama Administration.

This story is based on two articles, the first from The Daily Beast on July 7, 2010, the other from The Hill today.

President Obama has been President for about a year and a half now.  A lot of the promises and pledges he made in the campaign and in the past year have been broken, and the economy has not yet turned a corner--unemployment is still around 10 per cent.  It is too early to speculate on what the next two years will bring, but there are a few scenarios. 

Even leading Democrats are saying that the Republicans will probably win the House of Representatives back in November.  There is not a lot a chatter about what may happen in the Senate.  The President's approval rating is lower than his disapproval rating.  That is not good.  Remember, however, that we are dealing with a Chicago politician.  There is a scenario under which President Obama could easily be reelected in 2012, and all of us need to be aware of this in order to prevent his reelection. 

If Congress turns over to the Republicans in November, they will not take office until January.  If Congress does not extend the Bush tax cuts and if Congress uses its lame duck session to pass new taxes, cap and trade, etc., the economy will nose dive in January.  At this point, since the Republicans are in charge of Congress, it will be easy to blame them for the downturn (unless the voters are paying attention).  This would pave the way for an Obama reelection.

However, life is never that simple.  The Hill reported today that Evan Bayh has stated that he agrees with House Minority Whip Eric Cantor's (R-Va.) statements that tax increases would hurt whatever economic recovery we are currently seeing.  There are a few Democrats asking party leaders to extend the Bush tax cuts in order to help the economy recover.  Evan Bayh has already announced his retirement from the Senate.  He is in a position to challenge President Obama from the right in a Democrat primary in 2012.

The Daily Beast reported on the Aspen Ideas Festival, where many people who supported President Obama in his bid for President expressed second thoughts.  One of the quotes from that article:

""The real problem we have," Mort Zuckerman said, "are some of the worst economic policies in place today that, in my judgment, go directly against the long-term interests of this country.""

Another quote:

"The curse of longterm unemployment is that if you pay people to do nothing, they'll find themselves doing nothing for very long periods of time," Ferguson said. "Long-term unemployment is at an all-time high in the United States, and it is a direct consequence of a misconceived public policy."

These are two examples of the disillusionment with President Obama now that he has been in office for a year and a half.  Keep in mind that many of the people at this Festival had supported Bill and Hillary Clinton in the past.

The statement made by Evan Bayh and the statements from the Aspen Ideas Festival are interesting in that they may portent a Democrat presidential primary in 2012.  I suspect someone will challenge President Obama from the left, but I also suspect either Evan Bayh or Hillary Clinton will challenge him from the right.

Power Line reported in April that U.N. Elects Iran to Commission on Women's Rights.   Iran was elected to the Commission on Women's Rights after it had given up its bid to obtain a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council.

From the news report in April:

"Buried 2,000 words deep in a U.N. press release distributed Wednesday on the filling of "vacancies in subsidiary bodies," was the stark announcement: Iran, along with representatives from 10 other nations, was "elected by acclamation," meaning that no open vote was requested or required by any member states -- including the United States."

I find it amazing that no western country objected to this 'election' or demanded an open vote. 

This month in Iran, Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani has been sentenced to stoning after being charged with adultery.   The head of Human Rights Headquarters of Iran's Judiciary, Mohammad Javad Larijani slammed Western protests against stoning emphasizing that stoning exists in Iran's constitution and it is "legal."  Mrs. Mohammadi Ashtiani has already received 99 lashes in the course of her imprisonment.  There are some questions as to whether her sentence for adultery was just.

Meanwhile, the United States dues to the United Nations are assessed at $598,292,101 for last year.  The United Nations may have started with noble goals and intentions, but that is not what it currently represents.  I would like to see the United Nations moved out of New York City (and all its back parking tickets paid), and I would like to see the United States resign from the United Nations.  We need to form a world organization that supports freedom and democracy for all people regardless of sex, race, or religion.  The United Nations is not that organization.

Politico today is reporting on some amazing statements by David Axelrod.   Mr. Axelrod was on Fox News Sunday.  When questioned about the fact that oil rigs are beginning to leave the Gulf of Mexico because of the drilling moratorium, Mr. Axelrod stated:

"These are rented rigs, and they go from place to place.  It's not an optimal situation, but obviously we're dealing with the greatest environmental catastrophe of all time. ... It's been a tremendous tragedy for that region. We don't want a repeat of it because we're imprudent."  

Mr. Axelrod further stated that the job losses in the Gulf were not due to the moratorium--they were due to the disruptions in fishing, tourism, etc.   While he is partially correct, a very large percentage of the jobs lost are because of the moratorium.  The industries that support drilling as well as the drilling make up a large portion of the economy along the Gulf coast. 

We need to remember that slightly under 32 percent of the oil used in the United States comes from the Gulf of Mexico.  We have voluntarily cut off one third of our oil supply.  I am not sure when we will begin to feel this at the gas pump, but I can guarantee that it will be coming.  When you remember that President Obama's ideal price for gasoline in this country is $7 a gallon (this would be created by his Cap and Trade program), you wonder exactly what the moratorium is about.  I suspect we will see gasoline prices climb sharply just after the November election, but I am sure that will be explained as pure coincidence.

Until we have a cheap, reliable, alternative source of energy, we need to continue drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.  We cannot expect to balance the budget and subsidize every uneconomical green energy source that comes along.  Spain has proved that--they recently abandoned their green energy program because it was expensive and was destroying jobs.  We need to learn from their experience.

Reuters is reporting today that the Taliban fighters in Afghanistan are getting younger and younger.  If you remember, during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980's, Iran used child soldiers.  Keep in mind that Iran is fighting us in Afghanistan.  They are supplying weapons, training, and probably soldiers.

According to a Brookings.edu account of Iran's behavior during the Iran-Iraq War::

"Thousands of children were pulled from schools, indoctrinated in the glory of martyrdom, and sent to the front lines only lightly armed with one or two grenades or a gun with one magazine of ammunition. Wearing keys around their necks (to signify their pending entrance into heaven), they were sent forward in the first waves of attacks to help clear paths through minefields with their bodies and overwhelm Iraqi defenses. Iran's spiritual leader at the time, Ayatollah Khomeini, delighted in the children's sacrifice and extolled that they were helping Iran to achieve "a situation which we cannot describe in any way except to say that it is a divine country.""

 

This, unfortunately, is the mentality we are up against.  The Reuters article recounts what is happening in Afghanistan:

"Over the last eight to nine years there has been a dynamic change in the age of fighters. Most fighters now are between 14 and 18 years-old," said Lieutenant Colonel Guy Jones, commander of 2-508th Parachute Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division, based in Arghandab.

"In 2002, fighters were 22 to 30-years-old and commanders were between 32 and 40," said Jones who is on his fourth tour in Afghanistan.

Jones pulls out a piece of paper from his pocket to illustrate his point. On the paper are the names of recently captured detainees with their photographs beside them. Their ages range from 14 to 20.

One wounded boy caught firing a weapon at U.S. forces is now recovering in hospital at the main foreign air base in Kandahar. He is only 13, said Jones."

I don't know how you give children their childhood back after they have been forced (or brainwashed) into become soldiers while they are young teenagers.  I pray that we can do something in Afghanistan to stop that sort of child abuse.

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted a video yesterday showing the head of the New Black Panthers, Malik Shabazz, recounting the episode at the Philadelphia polling place in 2008 from the Panthers' perspective.  It is interesting to see 'the other side' of the story.  It is also very obvious that this man and his organization have very little respect for the law.  If we are going to have a civilized society, respect for the law has to be part of that picture.  The arrest and prosecution of the men who intimidated voters in 2008 would have been a step in the right direction.  To make light of what they did only encourages more disrespect for the law.

If you have not followed this story, 'google' "J. Christian Adams" for further updates.

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal posted an article by John Fund about what is likely to happen in Congress if the Democrats lose their majority in the House of Representatives in November.  It's not a pretty picture.

Mr. Fund points out that the Democrats will leave Washington a week earlier than usual (July 30) and will not return until September.  This gives them little time to pass any meaningful legislation before they leave.  While some of us think that is a good thing, there are rumblings that a lame-duck session after the election could be used to pass a number of laws very unpopular with the American people. 

Some of the things being looked at for the session after the election--card check, cap and trade, dramatic tax increases (if the Bush tax cuts are not extended, there will be a dramatic tax increase on January 1, 2011, without Congress doing anything!), and lots of big spending projects.

Mr. Fund reports that one Senate aid told him that many of the big 'pork spenders' are leaving Congress this year, and see a lame-duck session as a 'last hurrah' for pork spending.  Generally the Congressional plan is to disregard the wishes of the American people they are supposed to represent and go after any pet projects they might have.

Mr. Fund concludes:

"Many Democrats insist there will be no dramatic lame-duck agenda. But a few months ago they also insisted the extraordinary maneuvers used to pass health care wouldn't be used. Desperate times may be seen as calling for desperate measures, and this November the election results may well make Democrats desperate."

Please remember that at this moment there is no such thing as a moderate Democrat.  As long as the Democrats in Congress are represented by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, the total disregard of the wishes of the American people will continue.

Yesterday's New Haven Register reported that Pratt & Whitney will not be allowed to close its Cheshire plant and an East Hartford division, which would result in Connecticut losing 1,000 jobs.   A federal appeals court decided that the company could not close the plants because it had not made every reasonable effort to keep the jobs here. 

According to the article:

"The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a previous decision by a federal judge that said the company violated its contract with the union by not making all reasonable attempts to spare the proposed job cuts.

"However, Parent said the injunction on the cuts lasts only through the duration of the current contract between Pratt and the union, which expires Dec. 5.

"Union leaders will fight to keep "job security language" that is included in their current three-year pact in the next one when they begin contract negotiations with Pratt in October, he said."

This is an example of a union preventing a company from doing what is necessary for the survival of the company.  If I were Pratt & Whitney, I would keep the plant open until December 5 if possible (I suspect the unions will strike if the 'job security language' is not included in their next contract), and then move as far away from Connecticut as possible.  Unions have a place in American business, but the people who run them have become worse than corporate fat cats.  Look at the salaries of union leaders, look at how the union spends its dues politically with no input from its members, and look at the underfunding of union pension funds.  If the unions would work with corporations instead of against them, we would all be better off.

Today's UK Telegraph reports that the National Health Service is undergoing its biggest change since it began sixty years ago. 

According to the article:

"The plan, contained in a white paper to be published next week, is designed to place key decisions about how patients are cared for in the hands of doctors who know them. Tens of thousands of administrative jobs in the health service will be lost as a result.

"At present, funds are given by the Government to primary care trusts, which pay for patients from their area to be treated in hospital.

"Under these plans, GPs -- who are currently not responsible for paying for hospital referrals -- would receive the money instead and pay the hospitals directly.

"The change will be compulsory."

The change puts between £60-£80 billion back in the hands of the family GP's who actually know the patients. 

The article further states:

"Responsibility will be handed to GPs working in local groups, who will commission services or provide them by working in rotas through co-ops. Mr Lansley believes that if GPs are responsible for their own budgets and have to commission out-of-hours care, most will decide to go back to offering weekend and evening cover themselves or in local groups.

"The loss of jobs, which The Daily Telegraph has been told will run into tens of thousands, is also likely to lead to outcry from public sector trade unions. Ministers are already braced for industrial action over plans for severe cuts in the Whitehall workforce."

Isn't it interesting that as the United Kingdom realizes how much money is wasted in the 'civil service' level of its healthcare, that we in America are about to establish that 'civil service' level in our healthcare.

Another reason for REPEAL AND REPLACE!!!!

This article is based on two sources--an article at Boston.com yesterday and an Associated Press article at CBS News yesterday.  Both stories report that Judge Joseph L. Tauro, a federal district court judge in Boston, ruled yesterday that "the federal Defense of Marriage law violates the Constitutional right of married same-sex couples to equal protection under the law and upends the federal government's long history of allowing states to set their own marriage laws."

I'm not interested in going into whether or not same-sex marriage should be legal, but I am amazed by how this whole thing is unfolding.  Same-sex marriage was never voted on by the people of Massachusetts.  The proper number of signatures were collected to put the issue on the ballot, but through political gamesmanship, it was never put on the ballot and voted on.  Same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts as a result of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruling in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health in 2004.  It was never voted on by the people of the state or legislated by elected officials.  The Defense of Marriage Act was passed (by elected officials) in 1996, specifically stating that states would not be obligated to recognized same-sex marriages performed in other states.  Now a judge is ready to throw out a law passed by elected officials and support a law that was enacted by unelected judges.  

Fast forward to the Arizona Immigration Law.  The Arizona Immigration Law was legally passed by the Arizone legislature and signed by the governor of Arizona.  The Arizona law is in harmony with federal laws regarding illegal immitration.  The Obama Administration is suing the state of Arizona, claiming that the law is unconstitutional.  If the left is willing to override a legally passed federal law with a state law that was never voted on, why are they not willing to support a state law that is in harmony with federal law? 

One of the building blocks to a free country is an organized system of laws.  I really don't think the founding fathers ever envisioned laws that were passed by judges having more authority than laws legally passed by elected officials.

Today's Washington Post is reporting that the United States will swap ten of the recently apprehended Russian spies for four Americans that the Russians claim are spies.

Eric Holder and Robert Mueller praised the arrests of the Russian spies as the result of years of investigations and counterintelligence work.  Stephen Sestanovich, a former National Security Council official who is an expert on Russia, questioned the wisdom of the quick release of the spies.  The United States did not really have very much time to learn anything from any of them.

I really wonder about the speed and the balance of this transaction.  Why did the Russians turn over four alleged spies when we surrendered ten?  Why was this done so quickly?  What was the risk to America or to the Russians of keeping these spies in prison in America for a year or two?  What message are we sending to the world about how we deal with spies?  Is catch and release a good way to deal with spies?

I am sure more of this story will come out eventually.  There has to be more, and I am sure some journalist will uncover it.  It might be very interesting.

YouCut is the website of the Republican whip, Eric Cantor.  It gives anyone the opportunity to vote on which budget cuts they would like to see.  It's a great site.

From the YouCut site:

"Prohibit Stimulus Funding for Promotional Signage And Recoup Previously Spent Funds
Saves: Tens of millions
Across the country, signs have been erected to alert citizens that certain projects are being funded by last year's stimulus bill. These signs, often along highways, provide no meaningful information, create no jobs, and have been criticized as taxpayer funded advertisements for the stimulus bill. Unfortunately, no accurate information exists on the total number of signs erected and their cost to taxpayers. Press reports from across the country indicate, however, that the costs could well be in the millions of dollars. This proposal would prohibit funding for any additional signs, would require agencies to report on the amount already spent on signs, and would recapture those funds for taxpayers by reducing the agencies' administrative expenses by an amount equal to that spent on signs."

I never thought of that.  What a great idea!

Stars and Stripes is reporting today that General David Petraeus will be clarifying the current Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan rather than issuing new rules. 

The article reports:

"Gen. David Petraeus, who became commander of all forces in Afghanistan on Sunday, is expected to issue a new tactical directive in a matter of days, according to Col. Rich Gross, the chief legal adviser to International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan.

"Gross said confusion in the field over the existing tactical directive, which seeks to lessen civilian casualties by specifying when force can be used against Taliban insurgents, has resulted in some soldiers feeling as if they are fighting a war with their hands tied."

I realize that there are two sides to every story, but we do need to remember that we are fighting an enemy that has their own Rules of Engagement.  We are fighting an enemy that does not hesitate to use civilians as shields or Mosques as military headquarters and then screams to high heaven if civilians are hurt or Mosques fired upon.  We can be either smart about this or stupid.  If we choose not to be smart, I suggest we bring our soldiers home. 

When Harry Truman dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan, a lot of people were killed.  However, a lot of Japanese lives were saved and a lot of American lives were saved because the war ended abruptly.  I am not suggesting by any stretch of the imagination that we use nuclear weapons on Afghanistan, but I am suggesting we subdue the country forcefully (as we did in Japan) and work from there.

I hope the Rules of Engagement will reflect a desire to win this war and bring our troops home.

Investors.com reported yesterday on the Obama Administration's delay in releasing the Annual Report of the Social Security Board of Trustees.  The report is routinely released between mid-April and mid-May.  The report, produced by the Office of the Actuary of the Social Security Administration, includes detailed information about Social Security and its financing over the next seventy-five years. 

According to the article:

"The Congressional Budget Office reported last week in its Long Term Budget Outlook that Social Security was already running a deficit this year.  According to last year's Social Security Trustees Report, that was not supposed to happen until 2015, with the trust fund to run out completely by 2037.

"With the disastrous Obama economy, the great Social Security surplus that started in the Reagan administration is gone completely." 

There is more to the report than Social Security, however.  The report also includes information about Medicare and its financing over the next seventy-five years.  According to the article:

"What the administration is trying to hide are sweeping draconian cuts to Medicare resulting from the ObamaCare legislation, which the annual report will document."

The article also reports:

"The CBO confessed to $500 billion in Medicare cuts in the first 10 years of Obama-Care alone. Based on those calculations, the minority staff of the Senate Budget Committee estimated the Medicare cuts as $800 billion in the first 10 years of implementation and $2.9 trillion over the first 20 years of ObamaCare.  Truthful annual trustees reports would further document these cuts."

We need to elect people in November who will REPEAL AND REPLACE President Obama's healthcare reform before it ruins American healthcare.

You don't have to look too far into the articles about the recess appointment of Dr. Donald Berwick to run Medicare and Medicaid to find concerns about rationed medical care.  The sources of this article are today's Washington Examiner, today's The Hill, and today's Washington Times.  Keep in mind that the name of this blog is "Right Wing Granny."  Although I have been blessed with good health, the concept of rationing medical care to the older generation is near and dear to me.

The Washington Times points out that although the Obama Administration has cited Dr. Berwick's credentials including current roles as a professor at Harvard Medical School and the Harvard School of Public Health as reasons he is eminently qualified to head Medicare and Medicaid, these credentials are not what they appear to be. 

According to the Washington Times:

"But Dr. Berwick hasn't seen a patient in years.  And the two Harvard professor positions listed on his White House biography as well as another position as a senior scientist at the Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston are essentially "honorary professorships," which require two or three seminars or meetings a year..."

The President is totally within his rights to nominate someone for a recess appointment.  It is unfortunate, however, that he is making an appointment without any debate to oversee a healthcare reform program that was passed over the wishes of the American people.  If the healthcare reform bill is such a good thing, why is this appointment being done in a way that will avoid discussing what healthcare reform means?

This article is based on two sources, The Hill and Power Line.  Both articles were published yesterday.

Ron Christie from The Hill attended the United States Commission on Civil Rights' hearings yesterday on the U. S. Department of Justice and the New Black Panther Party litigation.  If you have not yet seen the video of the new Black Panthers standing outside one of the polling places in Philadelphia, you can go to YouTube and watch it.  It is stunning.  The video only shows a small part of what was going on--there was serious intimidation of voters in Philadelphia.

According to The Hill:

"Here's where things get interesting. After the government had won its case in the absence of the defense to present itself, the Department of Justice abruptly changed course and sought to voluntarily dismiss the charges against three of the defendants while giving a slap on the hand to another by telling him that he was not able to go to Philadelphia polling stations through the 2012 elections. The big question as to why the Department of Justice would drop the charges on a clear-cut case of voter intimidation startled many; in today's commission hearing, I think we found the answer that had so far been elusive."

J. Christian Adams, testifying before the Commission on Civil Rights stated that senior officials within the Obama Justice Department had told employees that they were not to bring voting-rights cases where the alleged victim in the case was white.

Power Line reports the following via Pajamas Media:

"Several former DOJ employees have been in contact with Pajamas Media, interested in publicly supporting J. Christian Adams as he comes forward about the DOJ's failure to enforce the country's laws from a race-neutral perspective."

It is amazing that the mainstream media has not covered this story.  How this case is eventually handled will determine if America is capable of becoming a 'color blind' society.  It is wrong to intimidate voters whatever color they may be.  The actions of the new Black Panthers were a threat to voting rights--the actions of the Justice Department since the incident are a threat to our democracy.

Boston.com posted a story today about Rhode Island State Troopers enforcing immigration laws.  Instead of releasing people who are here illegally who are involved in accidents or stopped for traffic violations, the troopers are reporting illegals they encounter to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as ICE. 

The commander of the Rhode Island State Police, Colonel Brendan P. Doherty, has stated, "There are police chiefs throughout New England who hide from the issue . . . and I'm not hiding from it.  I would feel that I'm derelict in my duties to look the other way.''

In Massachusetts, Governor Patrick has opposed using state troopers to enforce immigration laws.  The two other people running for governor in November in Massachusetts would like to see the laws enforced. 

The article states:

"With Congress mired in an increasingly angry debate over the 12 million illegal immigrants nationwide, police are left to contend with the fallout, from hard-core criminals who hide their identities to hard-working laborers who drive without licenses because they need to earn money to send home to their families.

"By some accounts, having states collaborate more closely with ICE could improve public safety. ICE has repeatedly urged police departments to take advantage of its Law Enforcement Support Center in Vermont, a 24-hour network that is distinct from the controversial 287(g) program." 

America desperately needs to fix its immigration laws.  We need to let in more people who will assimilate into our society and work hard for their own prosperity and the prosperity of America.  Right now our immigration system is so wrapped up in red tape that it takes years to come to America legally.  I sympathize with those people who have decided to take short cuts, but the law needs to be enforced.  I would support 'immigration reform' if I thought the government was actually capable of fixing itself.

Hugh Hewitt posted a commentary at the Washington Examiner today regarding the Democrats' 'deeming' a $1.12 trillion budget passed on Thursday night. 

According to Hugh Hewitt:

"Ruses and gimmicks, games and deceits have run their course.  The public is fully aware of the crisis we face because of the Democrats' vast desire to spend money the country doesn't have on their political allies while waiting to spring massive taxes on their enemies--employers--until the lame duck session after the November voting but before the new Congress is seated."

The American voter is not stupid.  The conventional wisdom says that the Democrats will use the lame-duck session (assuming they lose Congress) to pass card check, cap and trade, and raise taxes.  The voters are still angry at the way the healthcare reform bill was passed, and the majority of Americans want the healthcare reform bill repealed.  I don't know if that will be possible, but it would truly be unwise for the Democrat party to dig themselves deeper in the spending hole they have created.  The Democrats may be insuring that it will be a long time before they find themselves in the majority again. 

Fox News reported yesterday on the new mission assignment for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).  NASA Administrator Charles Bolden detailed the three things President Obama asked him to do when he took over as the Administrator or NASA.  The first thing was to help inspire children to study science and math, the second was to expand our international relationships, and the third was to "find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering,""

Meanwhile, Judicial Watch posted an article on June 9, 2010, commenting on the fact that the budget cuts to NASA will force us to rely on Russia to ferry our astronauts to and from the International Space Station.  I guess that is an example of expanding our international relationships.  Are those the same Russians who have sleeper cells throughout our country?

I guess I am not aware of the Muslim nations and their historic contributions to science, math, and engineering.  If you 'google' Muslim scientists, you find out that the greatest Muslim contributions to science were between the 8th and 14th centuries A.D.  The modern-day scientists and engineers seem to be nuclear physicists.  In the Western World, one of the uses of science and engineering is to improve the living conditions of society--indoor plumbing, potable drinking water, generally improved sanitary conditions, medical facilities,etc.  In the Western World, these improvements have spread through the general population--generally they are accessible to all people.  In some of the stricter Muslim countries, half of the population has not been allowed to make a contribution to society--women are not allowed to go to school, to work, or run for political office.  Until Muslim countries begin to allow freedom for their citizens (freedom of education, freedom of religion, and equality of opportunity), I think it is a mistake to believe that a program of cooperation with Muslims would benefit anyone.  Until the radical element of Islam is denounced by the moderate element, we will have no idea who we are working with or what their goals may be.

Lurita Doan at Townhall.com posted her five suggestions for cutting the deficit.  These are five suggestions that would have very little impact on the average American.

1.  Cap the number of White House staffers and Czars.  Michelle Obama alone has amassed a staff that will cost the American taxpayers $6,364,000 over four years.  (That number is from the Canadian Free Press).  There are 42 Czars in the Obama Administration, each with staffing and office space requirements. According the Ms. Doan, "getting a grip on the czar's expenditures would equal or even exceed the $100billion-over-5-years budget cuts proposed by Defense Secretary Gates."

2.  Eliminate Agency and Congressional Slush Funds.  According to Ms. Doan, "these slush funds range from a few million to several hundred million and are not transparent to the American taxpayer, nor are most members of Congress aware of their existence or size."

3.  Cut certain bonuses for federal workers.  Annual retention bonuses and signing incentive bonuses can go as high as $50,000 per individual.  Ms. Doan explains, "many federal workers receive retention bonuses each month for decades while employed by the federal government."

4.  Eliminate phantom federal employees and their contigent slush funds.  Every year all Executive agencies place a line item in their budget for payroll and benefits as if they were fully staffed.  They are not fully staffed due to normal attrition and hiring practices, but they receive this money anyway.  According to Ms. Doan, "this funding provides a convenient slush fund within federal agencies that can then be re-allocated mid-year to other agency priorities not approved by Congress."

5.  Reduce the number of committees and subcommittes in Congress.  There are currently 23 House committees with 104 House subcommittees and17 Senate standing committees with 70 subcommittees.  There are also approximately 69 Joint (Senate/House) committees as well as several Conference committees.  Ms. Doan points out, "with fewer congressional committees and less staff, there might be less time and resources devoted to witch-hunts and show trials, and more effort spent on the business of government."

None of these moves would even remotely impact the average American (other than to begin to reduce the deficit and grow the economy).  What are the chances of this administration even considering one of these ideas?

This is the letter General Petraeus sent to the troops today as he took command in Afghanistan.  Our thoughts and prayers are with him in his new assignment.

HEADQUARTERS

International Security Assistance Force/

United States Forces - Afghanistan

Kabul, Afghanistan

APO AE 09356

4 July 2010

HQ ISAF

To the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Civilians of NATO's International Security Assistance Force:

We serve in Afghanistan at a critical time. With the surge in ISAF strength and the growth of Afghan forces, we and our Afghan comrades have a new opportunity. Together, we can ensure that Afghanistan will not once again be ruled by those who embrace indiscriminate violence and transnational extremists, and we can ensure that AI Qaeda and other extremist elements cannot once again establish sanctuaries in Afghanistan from which they can launch attacks on our homelands and on the Afghan people.

This has been a hard fight. As you have soldiered together with our Afghan partners to reverse the Taliban momentum and to take away Taliban safe havens, the enemy has fought back. ISAF and Afghan Forces sustained particularly tough losses last month. Nonetheless, in the face of an enemy willing to carry out the most barbaric of attacks, progress has been achieved in some critical areas, and we are poised to realize more.

This effort is a contest of wills. Our enemies will do all that they can to shake our confidence and the confidence of the Afghan people. In turn, we must continue to demonstrate our resolve to the enemy.

We will do so through our relentless pursuit of the Taliban and others who mean Afghanistan harm, through our compassion for the Afghan people, and through our example and the values that we live.

Together with our Afghan partners, we must secure and serve the people of Afghanistan. We must help Afghan leaders develop their security forces and build their capacity to govern, so that they can increasingly take on the tasks of securing their country and seeing to the needs of the Afghan people.

This endeavor has to be a team effort. We must strive to contribute to the "Team of Teams" at work in Afghanistan and to achieve unity of effort with our diplomatic, international civilian, and Afghan partners as we carry out a comprehensive, civil-military counterinsurgency campaign.

We must also continue our emphasis on reducing the loss of Innocent civilian life to an absolute minimum.  We must never forget that the decisive terrain in Afghanistan is the human terrain.

Protecting those we are here to help nonetheless does require killing, capturing, or turning the insurgents. We will not shrink from that; indeed, you have been taking the fight to the enemy and we will continue to do so. Beyond that, as you and our Afghan partners on the ground get into tough situations, we must employ all assets to ensure your safety, keeping in mind, again, the importance of avoiding civilian casualties.

I appreciate your sacrifices and those of your families as we serve in a mission of vital importance to the people of Afghanistan, to our nations, and to the world. And I pledge my total commitment to our mission as we work together to help achieve a brighter future for a new country in an ancient land.

(It is a privilege to serve with you.)

DAVID H. PETRAEUS   General, United States Army Commander

I asked a friend of mine who is a military wife to write a short piece for me about her thoughts on Independence Day.  This is what she said:

The Fourth of July has had various meanings to me as I have journeyed through my life.

As a child, I was amazed with the wonder of it: the backyard pool party, the amazing fireworks, family get-togethers. The Fourth of July marked the middle of my summer vacation and a great excuse to barbeque.

As an undergrad, I majored in History. I became keenly aware of the significance of the Fourth of July: the Declaration of Independence, the founding fathers, the pursuit of democracy.

Now as I get older, I continually see the 4th of July in new lights. As a daughter of a 30 year Navy veteran and the wife of a 14 year Marine veteran, I understand the sacrifices made for our country's freedom. I often wonder why my husband has come home and others have not. But that is not for me to decide.

For me, the price of my freedom has meant my husband of almost 10 years has only been home for about 3 ½ to 4 years of our marriage. My three year old son only knows daddy for short periods of time and is more used to seeing his "Daddy Doll" than his actual father. And, for this, I am thankful; not for all the missed moments and quality time. But, instead, I am thankful for his courage, his sacrifice, his belief in our country and his unwavering defense of my freedom.

I often see the very freedoms my husband will die for as a paradox. So many of us don't even truly know the freedoms we have or we enjoy. I often watch the news and see anti-military and anti-government demonstrations. I am thankful for these demonstrations. I am thankful for the free speech to speak out against your government. At times, I get annoyed at the hypocrisy. Don't the protestors understand that without the military and the defense of freedom, there would be no right to protest?? The very ideals being protested are what allow the same liberties and freedoms to have protest. Yet, this is what American democracy is at its greatest: a paradox of freedoms. After all, it is only in America, where a citizen can protest the very government who campaigns for the freedom of protest.

So for this Fourth of July, I will celebrate the birth of our nation with a rare visit with my husband before he leaves on his umpteenth deployment. I implore all of my fellow citizens to celebrate, either through backyard barbeques and fireworks or civil protests. Please enjoy your freedom and rest assured my husband, and the hundreds of thousands of other dedicated members of the Armed Services, will continue to stand vigil over our freedoms.

Yesterday, the Washington Examiner reported on the fact that Congress had adjourned without passing a bill to extend unemployment benefits.  There are a few things not immediately apparent in that statement. 

The Republicans in Congress offerred a number of amendments to the bill to extend unemployment insurance--the amendments were aimed at passing the bill without increasing the deficit.  It's an election year, and even some Democrats are beginning to be alarmed at the growth of the deficit over the past eighteen months. 

According to the article this is how some of the negotiations went:

"The House passed a sixth-month extension on Thursday, but the Senate was long gone by then, having shut down early so that the late Sen. Robert Byrd's body could lie in repose in the chamber. Any future action by the Senate will have to wait until lawmakers return on July 12.

"On Wednesday, the Senate rejected a measure to extend benefits, with most Republicans and one Democrat, Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., opposed to the bill because it would add more than $33 billion to the nation's $1.3 trillion deficit. The Senate came up just one vote short of passage, with Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, Maine Republicans, voting yes."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky, then offered a bill that would extend benefits for two months, paid for by unused stimulus funds, and Senator Reid turned it down.

This is obviously going to be an election issue in November.  The challenge will be to remember that the unemployment benefits could have been passed at any time if the Democrats had agreed to pay for them without increasing the deficit.  But there are two other things to keep in mind here--unemployment benefits currently extend for almost two years (I know the economy is rough and jobs are scarce, but that seems like an awfully long time), and why are we still spending stimulus money?  Hasn't anyone figured out that the best way to stimulate the economy would be to give the stimulus money back to the taxpayer?

Newsbusters posted a story today on how unemployment numbers have been reported in recent years.  The Associated Press, in writing its story about the June unemployment figures stated:

"...Unemployment is expected to stary above 9 percent through the midterm elections in November.  And the Fed predicts joblessness could still be as high as 7.5 percent two years from now.  Normal is considered closer to 6 percent, and economists say it will probably take until the middle of this decade to achieve that."

Let's go back and see how unemployment numbers were handled during the Bush Administration.  According to the article at Newsbusters: 

"On October 7, 2003, USA Today told readers that "Californians face an $8 billion state budget deficit, persistent unemployment and struggling schools."   The Golden State's unemployment rate in September 2003 was 6.4%."

"On June 2003, Reuters reported on consumer sentiment relayed that "Consumer sentiment deteriorated sharply in early June, suggesting persistent unemployment is taking its toll on American's expectations for the economy's future."  The national unemployment rate in May 2003 was 6.1%.

The article also cites a March 29, 1987 book review at the New York Times, again declaring persistent unemployment under the Reagan Administration--the unemployment at the time was 6.5%.

If you are in the habit of getting your news from mainstream news sources, watch the wording--you can be led down the garden path before you even have a clue you are being taken for a ride.  I expect we will see many economic indicators be redefined between now and November!

Yesterday's Los Angeles Times posted an article about the June unemployment numbers released by the Department of Labor. 

According to the article:

"Employment-seekers decline by 652,000 June, which may reflect people giving up on job-hunting and a reluctance to hire. Overall, the jobless rate falls to 9.5% from 9.7%, the Labor Department reports."

These numbers reflect a downturn in economic growth also reflected by the fact that the average hours worked in manufacturing and other industries and average hourly earnings also declined in June.

Most of the job gains in June were in the leisure and hospitality industries--low-paying industries and also somewhat seasonal industries.  There was an increase of 9,000 in manufacturing jobs (less than the 25,400 in the prior five months).  The construction industry lost 22,000 jobs in June.

The percentage of the overall working-age population in the labor force fell in June to 64.7 per cent.  That is nearly the lowest in twenty-five years.

If this represents economic recovery, I'd hate to see what would be considered a recession.

Human Events reported yesterday on the latest financial slieght of hand done by the House of Representatives Democrats on Thursday night. 

According to the article:

"Last night, as part of a procedural vote on the emergency war supplemental bill, House Democrats attached a document that "deemed as passed" a non-existent $1.12 trillion budget. The execution of the "deeming" document allows Democrats to start spending money for Fiscal Year 2011 without the pesky constraints of a budget.

"The procedural vote passed 215-210 with no Republicans voting in favor and 38 Democrats crossing the aisle to vote against deeming the faux budget resolution passed."

This is ridiculous.  The Democrats didn't have the courage to actually pass a budget before the election in November, so they played political games.

The House Republican Budget staff pointed out:

-       This is not a budget. The measure fails to meet the most basic, commonly understood objectives of any budget. It does not set congressional priorities; it does not align overall spending, tax, deficit, and debt levels; and it does nothing to address the runaway spending of Federal entitlement programs.
-       It is not a 'congressional budget resolution.' The measure does not satisfy even the most basic criteria of a budget resolution as set forth in the Congressional Budget Act.
-       It creates a deception of spending 'restraint.' While claiming restraint in discretionary spending, the resolution increases non-emergency spending by $30 billion over 2010, and includes a number of gimmicks that give a green light to higher spending.
-       It continues relying on the flawed and over-sold pay-as-you-go [pay-go] procedure. Pay-go - which Democrats have used mainly to raise taxes, and have ignored when it was inconvenient - does nothing to reduce deficits or restrain spending growth in existing law.
-       Outsourcing fiscal responsibilities. The measure is another hand-off by the Democratic Majority of Congress's power of the purse - this time relying on the Fiscal Commission created by the President to do Congress's job.

Unless you want to see this sort of foolishness continue (as your children and grandchildren are driven deepen into debt by the government), vote anyone who supported this "deemed as passed" budget trick out of office in November.

Yesterday's Orlando Sentinel reported that the distribution of Bibles on a Religious Freedom Day was stopped by school officials in Collier County, claiming that "Bibles do not provide any educational benefit to the students and the distribution should stop.'

A lawsuit has been filed to overturn the ruling.  World Changers, the group distributing the Bibles, included a disclaimer of any school endorsement or sponsorship and that receiving a Bible was purely voluntary.  

If you can't distribute Bibles in celebration of religious freedom, what constitutes religious freedom?

Yesterday Big Journalism reported on a story that doesn't seem to have gotten too much coverage in the mainstream media.  The El Paso City Hall was hit by seven bullets believed to have been fired by one or more AK-47s from across the border.  No one was hurt, but needless to say the experience was somewhat unnerving.  This is the first time since the drug war began in Juarez in 2008 that the gun fire has come across the border in El Paso. 

The story also reports:

"Similar cross-border shootings have occurred in other cities. Last September, the University of Texas at Brownsville was closed for a weekend after a building and a parked car on campus were hit by bullets fired during a shootout across the border in Matamoros, Mexico." 

Texas Attorney General Gregg Abbott has sent a letter to President Obama asking for immediate and effective action to secure the border.  It is becoming very obvious that border security needs to be a higher priority than immigration reform.  Granting amnesty to all illegals will not stop the drug war in Mexico, and it will not lessen the danger to American citizens.

CNN's Religion Blog is reporting today that Mosab Hassan Yousef has been granted political asylum in the United States.  Right Wing Granny reported on April 30 that the homeland security department was planning to deport Yousef on charges that he was a terrorist.

I think it is wonderful that Mr.Yousef is being allowed to remain in America, but I also hope that our homeland security department will use him as a resource to understand how the terrorists target America.  Mr. Yousef is the son of a Hamas leader and in the past worked for Israel as a spy.  His insight into Hamas and other Middle Eastern terrorist organizations would be invaluable to our homeland security.

Yesterday Investors.com posted an article stating:

"On Monday, the ground-based Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system, part of the U.S. missile defense shield, successfully shot down a ballistic missile launched from a ship's deck off Kauai, Hawaii. The test simulated an Iranian SCUD launched from the deck of a ship off the U.S. coast, which, if armed with a nuke, could devastate the American heartland."

Also on Monday, the Obama Administration revealed a new policy regarding space.  The new policy:

"the U.S. will "consider proposals and concepts for arms control measures if they are equitable, effectively verifiable and enhance the national security of the United States and its allies.""

The article further states:

"These "proposals and concepts" could come soon in the form of the PAROS (prevention of arms race in space) treaty. Like the nuclear freeze once proposed at the height of the Cold War, these Munich clones are designed not to prevent war, but to disarm America. Russia, China, North Korea and Iran, among others, would like to see us unilaterally give up our ability to render their huge investments in nuclear missiles irrelevant."

What this means is that in the interests of 'international friendliness' we will take down our missle shield--leaving us unable to defend ourselves against a rogue missile attack.  How this makes the world safer in any way is totally beyond me.  Would you put a sign on your front door that says, "We have no security system, we don't own a gun, and there is good stuff inside?"  That is what we are doing.  We are taking down defensive weapons--not offensive weapons.  There are no guarantees that all countries in the world are getting rid of their offensive weapons.  Have we simply decided that America is not worth defending?

Today's Washington Examiner is reporting on the House Democrat's plan to pass a war funding bill this week that includes 15 billion in domestic spening, including $10 billion to cover the salaries of about 140,000 public school employees.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has stated that he needs the $33 billion in the war spending bill to fund defense operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

So far the House has been unwilling to take up the Senate version of the war spending bill because they want to add domestic spending that they are not able to get passed any other way. 

There is also a move among liberal Democrats to attach a withdrawal date to any funding for the war. 

Admittedly, this has been a long war, and I wonder if the average American has the desire to see it through.  We need to look at some of the consequences of letting politicians (rather than the military) set a withdrawal date.  Why in the world would the Taliban negotiate with someone who is going to be gone in a year anyway?  Why in the world would the average Afghan help an American knowing that in a year that American would not be there to protect him?  We need to remember that September 11th began in Afghanistan because the Taliban were in control and planned the attack.  We have a choice--eliminate the Taliban or accept the fact that events like September 11th will occur in our country on a regular basis.