September 2010 Archives

This article is based on a story posted at CBN.com.  The article states that scientists have found a direct link to show that Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is genetic.  A study shows that:

"Children with ADHD are twice as likely to have missing or extra chromosomes, according to the study published Thursday in the medical journal The Lancet."

The article points out that:

"ADHD is one of the most common child mental disorders and is estimated to affect around 3 to 5 percent of children globally."

So where is the hope?  I personally do not understand the difference between Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) and Attention Deficity Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), but I have some hope for parents of children with ADD.  There is a book entitled, "Driven to Distraction: Recognizing and Coping With Attention Deficit Disorder from Childhood through Adulthood" by Edward M. Hallowell, M. D. and John J. Ratey, M. D.  As someone who is married to a person I consider the poster child for ADD, I love this book.  Both the authors have ADD and the book has a lot of examples of simple things you can do as a person with ADD or the parent of a child with ADD that make life run more smoothly.  The book is available at Amazon.com.  I strongly recommend it.  It gave me hope to know that two men with ADD could successfully get through medical school and become doctors.  My husband is a successful computer person.  I would also like to add that one of my daughters has ADD and is a successful electrical engineer.  ADD seems to work differently in girls than boys, but I can say without a doubt that every child I have met with ADD is a bright child.  We just need to learn to help them deal with their uniqueness.  I am currently watching that process with one of my grandchildren.  In my family ADD evidently is genetic.

This story is based on an article at Politico on Tuesday.  The article reports that:

"The must-pass spending bill pending in the Senate includes a little-noticed provision that would pay the family of the late Sen. Robert C. Byrd for the salary he would have commanded in the next fiscal year." 

According to the Senate handbook:

"...upon the death of a senator who had been serving in office, "in the next appropriations bill, an item will be inserted for a gratuity to be paid to the widow(er) or other next- of-kin, in the amount of one-year's compensation."" 

According to the bill, the late senator's $193,400 salary to be split equally between Byrd's seven children and grandchildren.  I object.  Senator Byrd was not a young man; he did not leave behind a young widow with young children who would struggle financially--he left adult children and grandchildren.  American military killed in action don't get this sort of benefits.

The article further explains:

"The practice has been long followed by both parties and in both chambers, including in 2007 when the widows of the late Wyoming GOP Sen. Craig Thomas and the late Rep. Paul Gillmor (R-Ohio) each received $165,200 for the salary that the two men would have received." 

This is ridiculous.  The political club that is Congress needs to be broken up and its rules changed.  This is the year to do that.

This story is based on two articles.  The first article is from today's Wall Street Journal and states that "a senior McDonald's official informed the Department of Health and Human Services that the restaurant chain's insurer won't meet a 2011 requirement to spend at least 80% to 85% of its premium revenue on medical care."    The second article is from Yahoo News and states that McDonalds is denying reports that it is considering dropping health care coverage for some employees because they won't meet the government requirements for spending on medical care.

The article at Yahoo News points out:

"The world's largest hamburger chain provides its hourly workers with low-cost plans known as "mini-meds" or limited benefits plans. These plans typically cover things like doctor's office visits and prescription drugs. But they don't provide comprehensive coverage, and they often come with a cap on how much the insurer pays in annual benefits that is much lower than a major medical insurance plan."

First of all, I commend McDonalds for offering any medical insurance to its hourly employees.  A lot of companies can't afford to do that or simply don't do that.  It would be interesting to know how many hours a week an employee has to work to obtain the insurance.

This situation shows one of the unintended (or possibly intended) consequences of Obamacare.  We need to remember that corporations are in business to make money.  There is no crime in that and it is not illegal.  Many corporations like McDonalds donate large amounts to charities--McDonalds is the main contributor to the Ronald McDonald House.  If a company wants to stay in business, it has to protect its bottom line.  If the fine for not providing health insurance is considerably lower than the cost of providing it, corporations are not going to provide health insurance.  That is going to force more people into government healthcare and eventually eliminate private healthcare.

The only way to stop this runaway train is to vote Republican in November--and to hold the Republicans' feet to the fire in terms of REPEAL AND REPLACE.  It is quite possible that Obamacare cannot be repealed under President Obama, but it can be defunded and essentially stopped in its tracks.  A vote for any Democrat is a vote for Senator Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  Because Congress has gone home to campaign rather than vote to extend any of the 'Bush Tax Cuts', we are facing the largest tax increase in American history on January 1st--plus any additional taxes recommended by the deficit panel that reports to Congress and the President after the election.  Either tax increase (or both) will send this country into a recession.  If you think the economy is bad now, vote Democrat in November, if the Democrats win, this past year will look like a booming economy.

Well, some of the talk show hosts have been asking listeners to send in idea as to what the Democrats would do as an October surprise to cut their election loses.  Well, the first October surprise arrived today--but it is confusing and not really relevant to anything.  C'mon guys, you can do better than this!

Hot Air is reporting today that Gloria Allred held a press conference today to accuse Meg Whitman of having an illegal household worker for nine years.  Gloria Allred is claiming that Ms. Whitman knew the woman was an illegal alien, Meg Whitman claims that she had all of the documentation to prove the woman was here legally and had the right to work.  The household worker said she was fired when she went to the Whitmans and told them she was illegal and asked for help to become legal. 

This attempt to influence to California governor's election totally confuses me.  First of all, in case you have forgotten, Gloria Allred was the person who was talking to the press about sexual harrassment suits against Arnold Schwarzenegger just before his election as governor.  Those suits never resulted in any charges being proven.  She also accused Schwarzenegger of being a Nazi sympathizer just before the election. Hmmm.  Do I sense a pattern here?

The situation Meg Whitman was put in by this household worker was a no-win situation.  This person had been a member of her household staff for nine years when Ms. Whitman found out the person was illegal.  What was she supposed to do?  I can't figure out if the Democrats are trying to say that she is a horrible person because an illegal alien worked for her or if she is a horrible person because she fired the illegal alien.  Actually, I don't think either one works.

This is a totally dumb October surprise.  It doesn't even qualify as a good personal attack.  I really hope that the Democrats are losing their touch and will be forced to discuss issues rather than personally attack people..

Remember the phrase, "If you like your present health insurance, you can keep it."  Well, not if it's Medicare Advantage. 

Yesterday, the Washington Examiner and Boston.com reported that:

"Harvard Pilgrim Health Care has notified customers that it will drop its Medicare Advantage health insurance program at the end of the year, forcing 22,000 senior citizens in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine to seek alternative supplemental coverage."

This is not speculation--this is fact. 

Boston.com reports:

"Harvard Pilgrim in a second mailing this week will urge customers to switch to a new Medicare Supplement plan it will begin offering in October. Unlike Medicare Advantage, which is overseen by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the new Harvard Pilgrim plan will be overseen by the Massachusetts Division of Insurance.

"It will be "slightly more expensive'' than the Medicare Advantage plans, but competitive with supplemental insurance plans offered by rivals such as Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, the state's largest health insurer, Bowman said.

"She said the Medicare Supplement plan will feature some benefits not covered by the current plan, such as fitness reimbursements, but won't pay for prescription drugs, which are covered by some versions of the current plan. Instead, seniors can buy separate supplemental drug coverage through a partnership with Coventry Health Care, in Bethesda, Md."

So let's look at the promises broken--Medicare Advantage is no longer available in three New England states.  Rates for the elderly will be going up in their new plans and they will have to pay extra on top of that for drug coverage.  THIS IS NOT AN IMPROVEMENT!!!!

If you are tired of being lied to, vote Republican in November.  Do not send the people who jammed Obamacare into law while ignoring the wishes of the American people back to Congress.  It is definitely time for REPEAL AND REPLACE.  The only way to do that is to elect a Republican Congress.  I want Medicare Advantage to be there when I need it.  It is by far the most successful (and lowest cost) healthcare program for seniors.

This story is based on an article by Ed Morrissey posted at Hot Air yesterday.  It's not really news that the standards desired by the extreme elements of the environmental movement on greenhouse gas emissions will seriously hurt American industry, but did you know that stricter standards here will actually increase world-wide emissions.  Huh?  Yes, you read that right.  Let me explain.

The article at Hot Air starts out by explaining that the minority on the the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) is not the only group that fears the loss of nearly a million jobs from new EPA rules on greenhouse gases and other emissions issues.  The EPW was expected to release a report yesterday detailing the economic damage that an activist EPA will do to the American economy.

The article lists the jobs that will be lost and states that factories and other facilities will have to close when their boilers do not meet the new standard.  Jobs will be lost in those factories and in thier supply chains, putting financial strain on the communities where these plants are located.

The article concludes:

"Again, no facility in the US meets the standards proposed by the EPA.  Imposition of these standards would at least temporarily close almost 20 percent of all American cement producers and reduce long-term cement production from 8-15%.  The cement that will be needed for construction demand will have to be imported, primarily from China, which is expanding their cement production using environmental standards significantly below current American standards.  In other words, we can expect more pollution, not less -- just outsourced along with the jobs in the industry."

We need to elect a Congress that will move toward environmentalism in a balanced manner.  It does not do anyone any good for America to lose jobs in order to cut greenhouse gas emissions and then directly contribute to an increase in greenhouse gases elsewhere.

Anyone who supports a Democrat in the upcoming November election is voting for Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to do more of the same.  Even if you elect a conservative Democrat, if he votes for Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid as leaders, nothing will change.

This article has a number of sources, the main ones are the Washington Examiner on September 26th, Fox News on September 25th, and the American Thinker on September 26th.  The story deals with voter fraud found in Houston, Texas.

On Friday, August 27th, a warehouse fire destroyed nearly all of Harris County's 10,000 electronic voting machines.  Harris County Tax Assessor Collector [and voter registrar] Leo Vasquez has accused an ACORN-like organization called "Houston Votes" of submitting thousands of bogus voter registration applications in recent months in what he said appears to be a campaign to taint the voter rolls.

This is the time line of the events:

According to the American Thinker:

"A group of people took it upon themselves to work at polling places in 2008 and observed - and were shocked - by what they perceived to be voter fraud. Their next step was to create a citizen-based grassroots group to collect publicly available voting data and analyze what they found (with the help of donated computers and volunteer helpers). They admit they did not know what they were doing at first but where there is a will there is a way."

Fox News tells what happened next:

""The first thing we started to do was look at houses with more than six voters in them" Engelbrecht said, because those houses were the most likely to have fraudulent registrations attached to them. "Most voting districts had 1,800 if they were Republican and 2,400 of these houses if they were Democratic . . .

""But we came across one with 24,000, and that was where we started looking."

"Vacant lots had several voters registered on them. An eight-bed halfway house had more than 40 voters registered at its address," Engelbrecht said. "We then decided to look at who was registering the voters."

"Their work paid off. Two weeks ago the Harris County voter registrar took their work and the findings of his own investigation and handed them over to both the Texas secretary of state's office and the Harris County district attorney.

"Most of the findings focused on a group called Houston Votes, a voter registration group headed by Sean Caddle, who formerly worked for the Service Employees International Union. Among the findings were that only 1,793 of the 25,000 registrations the group submitted appeared to be valid. The other registrations included one of a woman who registered six times in the same day; registrations of non-citizens; so many applications from one Houston Voters collector in one day that it was deemed to be beyond human capability; and 1,597 registrations that named the same person multiple times, often with different signatures."

Twenty five thousand illegal votes is a serious matter.  The connection with someone who formerly worked for the SEIU is very interesting.  Meanwhile, the people in charge of voting in Houston have to find a way to make sure every legal vote is counted in November. 

Honest elections depend on the integrity of the Secretary of State in the state involved.  We need to pay attention to whom we vote for in all offices in November, but particularly to make sure that voters in every state elect a Secretary of State who is honest.

Yesterday Betsy McCaughey posted an article at the New York Post about the redistribution of health resources under Obamacare.  Ms. McCaughey points out that the government projections on the cost of Obamacare through 2019 show that employers and consumers will pay higher health insurance premiums than if Obamacare had not been passed. 

The article points out: 

"In 2014, a staggering 85.2 million people -- 31 percent of all nonelderly Americans -- will be on Medicaid and CHIP (the Medicaid-like children's health program). This accounts for the majority of those who'd gain health coverage. Amazingly, only 3 percent more people will have private insurance."

Obamacare loosens the requirements for Medicaid, pushing more people into government-paid healthcare--increasing the welfare-state mentality. 

The article further states:

"In 2014, a staggering 85.2 million people -- 31 percent of all nonelderly Americans -- will be on Medicaid and CHIP (the Medicaid-like children's health program). This accounts for the majority of those who'd gain health coverage. Amazingly, only 3 percent more people will have private insurance."

 

The result of this is the trampling of two basic American ideals--our basic work ethic and our committment to the people who raised us.

Ms. McCaughey concludes:

"Higher premiums are bad enough, but to see the older generation victimized in order to expand a welfare culture is a total reversal of American values."

I have one more thought.  Nancy Pelosi made a big deal about the fact that children can now be covered under their parents' health insurance until age 26.  She has said, "We see it as an entrepreneurial bill, a bill that says to someone, if you want to be creative and be a musician or whatever, you can leave your work, focus on your talent, your skill, your passion, your aspirations because you will have health care."  Maybe I am terribly old-fashioned, but I wanted to encourage my children to be out of the house and working at age 26.  If one of my children wanted to be an artisit or a musician, I would encourage them to do it while actually working for a living.  It seems to me that we have delayed the end of adolescence almost indefinitely already, and this bill continues the trend of not encouraging people to grow up and take responsibility for their own lives.  This is another step toward the nanny state.  The nanny state is not compatible with freedom.  We need to remember that. 

Hot Air posted a story on Sunday about the United Nations' appointment of Mazlan Othman, an obscure Malaysian astrophysicist, to act as Earth's first contact for any aliens that may come visiting.  Ms. Othman is the head of the UN's Office for Outer Space Affairs (Unoosa), 

The article states:

"Professor Richard Crowther, an expert in space law and governance at the UK Space Agency and who leads British delegations to the UN on such matters, said: "Othman is absolutely the nearest thing we have to a 'take me to your leader' person.""

I suppose we have to be ready for a "Mars Attacks" moment, but I wonder how much US taxpayer money this is costing.  Any alien that lands on earth is scientifically ahead of any nation on earth and should be treated with extreme respect regardless of whom they encounter (keeping in mind that if they have the technology to get here, they probably have the technology to do some serious damage here).

However, I really question how the United Nations spends its time and its money.  Please follow the link and read the article at Hot Air.  There are some interesting concluding thoughts.

This article is based on a story posted at BigGovernment.com posted yesterday.  I don't need to comment--I just want to post the quotes listed.  The quotes are from a panel discussion--Which Way for the Working Class? Elections 2010 and Beyond--Friday afternoon in New York City.

More than 400 people attended the event at the Great Hall at Cooper Union.  These are the quotes:

"(AFL-CIO President Richard) Trumka said it is vital to channel working-class anger away from Fox News and Tea Party extremists who are delivering

a cynical, deeply dishonest and incoherent message--that big government is somehow to blame for the current crisis that the budget deficit will eat our children, and that illegal immigrants took all the good jobs.

However, he added, "The good news is they haven't bought into right-wing ideology. They are just confused about who to blame." But:

We have to offer working people something other than the dead-end choice between the failed agenda of greed and the voices of hate and division and violence.

...In the short term, said Trumka, the labor movement has to "recapture the moment and take control of the national conversation." Building for the future,

we need to fundamentally restructure our economy and re-establish popular control over the private corporations which have distorted our economy and hijacked our government. That's a long-term job, but one we should start now."

On June 23rd I posted an article (rightwinggranny.com) about the arrest in Dearborn, Michigan, of four people charged with disorderly conduct because they were handing out copies of the Gospel of John outside an Arab cultural festival.  They were not inside the festival, nor were they causing a disturbance.  There is a video of the incident at Power Line.

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article yesterday to update the story.  According to the article:

"Much to the barely concealed chagrin of the Detroit Free Press, the Christian evangelists who were arrested for distributing St. John's gospel on a public street outside an Arab festival in Dearborn, Michigan, a few months back have been found not guilty of breaching the peace. One of the four defendants was apparently found guilty of the less serious offense of failing to obey a police officer's order."

Mr. Hinderaker points out:

"The policeman's order violated the First Amendment, so that conviction should be subject to reversal. It is good that a Michigan jury didn't buy this plainly unconstitutional prosecution, but the story, taken as a whole, is sobering. These evangelists incurred expenses that must have been well into five figures, at a bare minimum, and on top of that had a legitimate fear of criminal conviction--all for engaging in activity that falls within the heart of the First Amendment's protection."  

The Detroit Free Press had a different take on the situation:

""It's really about a hatred of Muslims," [Dearborn Mayor Jack] O'Reilly said. "That is what the whole heart of this is. ... Their idea is that there is no place for Muslims in America. They fail to understand the Constitution.""

I'm not a lawyer, but I thought the First Amendment protected the rights of all religions--not just Islam.  The fact that these four people were even charged with anything is chilling.  Why didn't the police respect their rights?

I spent Saturday at the Celebrate Holliston 2010 Day Parade and field day.  I was part of a group of supporters of Marty Lamb for Congress (to represent the Massachusetts 3rd Congressional District). 

I am supporting Marty Lamb because of his experience as a business owner and his belief in smaller government and lower taxes.  Marty Lamb's website gives details about his ideas and the changes he would support to make Washington more accountable to the voters.  One of the things I appreciate about Marty is his willingness to state specifically his solutions to the various problems we face as a state and a country.

Marty Lamb is running against Jim McGovern.  Congressman McGovern has a ZERO rating from both Americans for Tax Reform and Americans for Prosperity.  Congressman McGovern has a 100% rating from the American Immigration Lawyers Association and the American Bar Association.  The U. S. Chamber of Commerce gives him a 35% rating.  I believe the voters in the Third District of Massachusetts deserve better than that.

Yesterday's UK Telegraph posted an article by James Delingpole reporting on a strange agenda item on the Bilderberg's meeting in Spain in June.  Don't roll your eyes just yet--this isn't an article about a one-world government conspiracy. 

This is a list of the agenda for the meeting:

"The 58th Bilderberg Meeting will be held in Sitges, Spain 3 - 6 June 2010. The Conference will deal mainly with Financial Reform, Security, Cyber Technology, Energy, Pakistan, Afghanistan, World Food Problem, Global Cooling, Social Networking, Medical Science, EU-US relations."

Well, guys, which is it?  Are we threatened by global warming, global cooling, or just general cyclical climate changes? 

The article points out:

"The next few years are going to be very interesting. Watch the global power elite squirming to reposition itself as it slowly distances itself from Anthropogenic Global Warming ("Who? Us? No. We never thought of it as more than a quaint theory..."), and tries to find new ways of justifying green taxation and control. (Ocean acidification; biodiversity; et al). You'll notice sly shifts in policy spin. In Britain, for example, Chris "Chicken Little" Huhne's suicidal "dash for wind" will be re-invented as a vital step towards "energy security." There will be less talk of "combatting climate change" and more talk of "mitigation". You'll hear enviro-Nazis like Obama's Science Czar John Holdren avoid reference to "global warming" like the plague, preferring the more reliably vague phrase "global climate disruption.""

The global warming movement has never been about climate--it's about money and power.  When you look into the financing of the 'carbon credit' companies you find the names of Senators and people in public office who will make a lot of money if these ideas take root.  It is time to question anyone who supports extreme measures in the name of saving the earth.  We need to be protective of our environment, but we need to consider the needs of civilization also.

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is my candidate for the chutzpah award of 2010.  The Imam has stated that we must build the mosque at Ground Zero in order to prevent an attack similar the one that occurred on September 11th.  He stated in an interview on "60 Minutes" last night, "We have to wage peace." 

An article posted at Yahoo News yesterday states:

"Saying that the "campaign for winning hearts and minds is an important part" of any military fight against radical extremists from his faith, Rauf said he was "ready willing and able to serve our country and serve our faith tradition."

""If 9/11 happens there again, I want to be the first to die," said Rauf, who was born in Kuwait and is an naturalized American citizen. "It's my duty as an American Muslim to stand between you, the American non-Muslim, and the radicals who are trying to attack you.""

There is nothing I can add to the above comments.

Friday's Wall Street Journal posted an article on the disparity between the reading proficiency level of boys and girls. 

The article points out:

"This disparity goes back to 1992, and in some states the percentage of boys proficient in reading is now more than ten points below that of girls. The male-female reading gap is found in every socio-economic and ethnic category, including the children of white, college-educated parents."

The article also notes that there is no literacy gap between home-schooled boys and girls.  So what is going on?

The article points out:

"The appearance of the boy-girl literacy gap happens to coincide with the proliferation of video games and other electronic forms of entertainment over the last decade or two. Boys spend far more time "plugged in" than girls do. Could the reading gap have more to do with competition for boys' attention than with their supposed inability to focus on anything other than outhouse humor?

"Dr. Robert Weis, a psychology professor at Denison University, confirmed this suspicion in a randomized controlled trial of the effect of video games on academic ability. Boys with video games at home, he found, spend more time playing them than reading, and their academic performance suffers substantially. Hard to believe, isn't it, but Science has spoken."

The article concludes that the way to increase boys' reading ability is to decrease their time on video games.  That actually makes perfect sense.

The article also explores the trend in some educational circles to capture the attention of boys by reading 'grossout' books.  There are a few problems with this.  Eventually, we expect these boys to grow up and become gentlemen.  If we cater to their 'grossout' taste in the interest of teaching them to read, it may not be reasonable to expect them to become gentlemen in the future.  The cultural foundation of a child is laid during the first six to ten years.  Culturally, what are we teaching them?  Our elementary schools are laying the groundwork for what the next generation will be culturally and intellectually.  Do we want 'grossout' books to be part of the foundation of that generation?  We need to be concerned about the coarsening of the culture.  Having little boys reading 'grossout' books will not help improve the culture.

This article is based on three articles--one from Power Line on Saturday, one from Hot Air on Friday, and one from Big Government on Saturday.  The articles deal with the testimony given to the Civil Rights Commission by former Department of Justice voting rights section chief Christopher Coates on Friday. 

According to the Power Line article:

"A Justice Department prosecutor defied his superiors by testifying at a U.S. Civil Rights Commission hearing Friday, where he leveled an explosive allegation: top officials in the department gutted a voter intimidation case against a fringe African American militant group because the suspects were black and their alleged victims were white.

"The prosecutor, Christopher Coates, also said the downgrading of the case against the New Black Panther Party was evidence of a Justice Department culture which discouraged "race neutral" enforcement of civil rights laws, frowned on prosecuting minority perpetrators and folded under pressure from black and Latino rights groups. After President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder took office, the culture intensified, Coates told the panel, ultimately leading to his departure as chief of the voting rights section early this year."

Part of Mr. Coates testimony is posted at Hot Air:

"In the spring of 2009, Ms. King, who had by then been appointed Acting AAG for Civil Rights by the Obama Administration, called me to her office and specifically instructed me that I was not to ask any other applicants whether they would be willing to, in effect, race-neutrally enforce the VRA.  Ms. King took offense that I was asking such a question of job applicants and directed me not to ask it because she does not support equal enforcement of the provisions of the VRA and had been highly critical of the filing and prosecution of the Ike Brown case."

The article at Big Government reports:

"Coates hoped for a change in attitude when Julie Fernandez was appointed by the President to become assistant AG for Civil Rights, but those hopes were dashed when Ms Fernandez held a staff luncheon for the Voting Rights Division and declared that the Obama Administration was only interested in bringing the "traditional" types of section 2 cases that would provide political equality for racial and language minority voters. That, she said, is what we are all about.

"One of the most sacred rights and responsibilities of American citizenship is voting. We are supposed to be guaranteed that every person's vote is worth as much as every other person's vote. That guarantee has never been perfect, Blacks weren't allowed to vote until the 15th amendment in 1870, and women until 1920's 19th Amendment, but the tradition of the United States has been to aspire toward the concept of "one man, one vote."

"This past election we took a major step backwards, ACORN, perpetuated voter fraud in at least 14 states to the point where some districts had MORE than 100% of registered voters casting ballots. Ultimately this had little effect on the national results. But it was wide-spread enough to cause concern was enough to erode confidence in the system."

The politicization of the Justice Department is simply wrong.  It totally undermines the U. S. Constutition.  It defies the concept of "equal justice under the law."  To prosecute or not prosecute a case based on the race of the people involved is racism, regardless of the race of the people.  I would very much like to see justice in this case, but I would also like to see some reporting of the case by the major media.  You will notice that I easily found three different articles on the case.  The artice at Power LIne details what papers ackowledged the testimony and how much attention they paid to it.  The fact that the testimony was generally ignored by the major media should give all of us pause.

The daily outrage in the Washington Examiner on Friday was the spending of more than $50 million of taxpayer dollars to provide clean cooking stoves for developing countries in order "to reduce deaths from smoke inhalation and fight climate change."   This is money to be given to the United Nations for this purpose. 

The article stated:

"An official for the United Nations Foundation said that, "You're going to have to create a thriving cookstove industry that can supply both stoves and fuels that people want and need.""

First, I would like to remind whoever the person is who came up with this bright idea that the United Nations does not have a great track record on handling money.  Second of all, there is no concrete evidence that climate change (global warming) is man-made.  Third, I would like to point out that the United States has budget problems at home that need to be dealt with before we give $50 million to the United Nations.

I share the outrage!

In 2008, Paul J.P. Loscocco, a Republican from Holliston, stepped down from his State Senate seat.  Carolyn Dykema was elected to that seat with a narrow victory of less than 900 votes (according to Boston.com).  This year Carolyn Dykema is running for re-election against Jonathan Loya. 

The Clean Sweep Beacon Hill, PAC has endorsed Jonathan Loya, stating:

"Jonathan brings with him ideas that will make voters take notice.  Adding these to drive and initiative, he presents a spirit that is sorely lacking on Beacon Hill.  He demonstrates a strong mastery of the problems facing both his district and the Commonwealth.  In addition to knowing what's wrong, he brings fresh ideas and enthusiasm for positive action.  Nor is Jonathan content to stay with safe topics.  The issues he wants to tackle are problems real people experience daily: dirty and unsafe drinking water, inadequate education for our children and over-reliance on teaching to standardized tests to the detriment of individual learning, overbearing taxation, government waste and economic growth." 

Jonathan Loya's website also points out that he is a first time candidate who believes in term limits.  It also lists his qualifications and his ideas to help make Massachusetts a better place to live and work. He is running as an Independent candidate.  When I checked my list of candidates, I did not see a Republican running in this race.

If Washington is broken, Massachusetts is also broken.  The only way to fix it is to elect people who are not tied to special interests or who are not intent on becoming wealthy at the expense of the Massachusetts taxpayers.  I believe Jonathan Loya is one of those people.  If you live in the 8th Middlesex District of Massachusetts, I hope that you will vote for him.

What happens when you let a federal agency keep the fines it levies?  Bad things.  Posted at the American Thinker today is a chronicle of abuses of power by NOAA (The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration) in their oversight of the fishing industry.  NOAA's OLE (Office of Law Enforcement) has purchased 22 vessels at a cost of $2.7M using funds from fines and seizures.  The vessels are used for random boardings of working fishing boats.  Probable cause?  How quaint.  According to the article, fishermen's fines paid for some $600K of international travel expenses, $500K of which was not covered by NOAA's OLE policy.

The article states:

"Backup is provided in a scathing July 2010 Inspector General (IG) report on the NOAA law enforcement Asset Forfeiture Fund (AFF), made up of the money realized by fines and forfeitures from fishermen.  From January 2005 through June 2009, the AFF received some $96M, spent $49M, and had a balance of $8.4M.  My arithmetic suggests $40M is missing.  The IG's report describes NOAA's management of the AFF as an "abstract concept" and as "susceptible to both error and abuse."  You think?"

 

This is an example of the federal government seriously overstepping its bounds.  We need to elect a Congress in November that will not only investigate the problem, but also deal with it.  I commend the Massachusetts delegation for at least asking for the investigation, but what is Congress willing to do to solve the problem?  Generations of honest, hard-working fishermen are being driven out of business by a government that is out of control.  That should not happen in a democracy.  Let's elect people in November who respect the U. S. Constitution!

Ted Nugent posted an article in the Washington Times on Thursday entitled, "Freedom versus Shariah".  He opens his article by saying that we really don't know what the views of moderate Mulsims are.  We don't know if they recognize Israel, support women's rights, want the Mosque build at a location other than Ground Zero, and respect the rights of others to burn the Koran or draw Mohammad.  Generally speaking, they are silent.

The Center for Security Policy assembled a "Team B" and just released a report about the activities of non-moderate Muslims in America.  The article in the Washington Times points out:

"The most bone-chilling finding by Team B is that America faces the threat of Islamic Shariah law slowing poisoning our legal system and ultimately destroying it. Shariah is the Islamic doctrine in which Allah rules over everything, including legal, political and military doctrine. Shariah is incompatible with a society of free and thinking people."

This needs to be shouted from the front-page of every major newspaper in America.  Somehow it hasn't been. 

Mr. Nugent further points out:

"Shariah will only be allowed to poison our legal system and culture if we allow it. We should stand steadfast against it, outlaw it and make it known throughout the world that America stands with freedom and that we will not allow it to be compromised out of fear of upsetting Muslims or a false belief that we can coexist with a religious revolution whose goal is to destroy America."

One of the things I learned about while attending a briefing on terrorism recently was the concept of "abrogation."  This is the concept that the later written verses of the Koran supersede the previous verses.  That is why a Muslim can recite a verse to you that says in essence "make friends with the People of The Book (referring to Christians and Jews)" and not mention the verses that come later that say in essence "kill the infidels."  Unfortunately, the latter verses are the one that are recognized as the 'latest revelation' and thus more relevant.

We can put our heads in the sand or we can wake up and protect our country.  I vote for the latter.

I haven't studied the specifics of the pledge enough to feel comfortable commenting on it.  My comments are on some of the comments made by the Democrats in Congress when it was introduced and on why it was introduced.

If you look at the title of this blog, it shouldn't be a surprise that for the past few years I have been a registered Republican.  I was a Democrat until Jimmy Carter.  His Presidency convinced me that I was in the wrong political party.  Having said that I am a Republican, I need to also point out that I am a conservative before I am a Republican.  The behavior of the Republicans elected to office in the past few election cycles is horrible.  They might as well be Democrats.  If I wanted bigger government, more spending, more regulation, and higher taxes, I could have voted for the Democrats.  I suspect that I am not alone in that feeling.

A few of the Republicans currently in Congress actually have backbones.  Some of them are willing to work for smaller government, less regulation, and lower taxes.  These are the people who have put together the Pledge to America (see also Paul Ryan's Roadmap).  The Pledge is necessary because the American people no longer trust their elected officials.  The Pledge provides a plan that if followed, we can vote for these people again.  If the Pledge is not followed, we can vote them out!  We could debate for a long time whether the Tea Party has given some Republicans the strength to stand up for what they believe, but it really does not matter.  This is the time to fight runaway government!

One of the main Democrat responses to the Pledge is to say that it is not specific enough to be taken seriously.  Is this the same Democrat party that said, "We have to pass the healthcare bill in order to find out what is in it" ?  Is this the same Democrat party that is not willing to vote on raising taxes for all Americans on January 1 (not extending the Bush tax cuts for everyone) until after the November election?  Is this the same Democrat party that does not even have the courage to propose a specific government budget for next year until after the November election?  Seems a little hypocritical to me!

Yesterday the Wall Street Journal reported that as the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) expires on October 3rd, Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for TARP, has submitted his budget request for the coming year.  His request is for an increase in his staff from 140 people to 192 people. 

"The reason why we're ramping up is that the amount of fraud that is out there, the amount of case work that we're doing, has in some cases exceeded our expectations. The cases are very complex ... sophisticated white collar cases," he (Barofsky) said.

"Barofsky declined to talk about the budget request or how much his office is requesting, citing privacy rules governing the submission. But he said it's natural for investigations to heat up in the years after a program gets under way, as regulators, auditors and others begin to spot red flags."

Barofsky is opening four branch offices across the country, which he plans to staff with investigators. Meanwhile, the Treasury, which is in the midst of ending TARP, has about 220 people working on the program.

I think it is really great that Mr. Barofsky is planning to investigate fraud in the TARP.  I just wonder if increasing his staff by more than one-third when government spending is totally out of control is a reasonable move.

On Tuesday, Israel Today posted a story which partially explains why the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians is so difficult.  The story reported that the Palestinian Authority has taken racism to new heights by imposing an automatic death sentence on any local Arab who sells property to a Jew. 

According to the article:

"...(public prosecutor Ahmed) Al-Mughani told the Associated Press that the previous interpretation of the law had been too lax. The previous law had given Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas the power to choose whether Arabs who sold land to Jews would be executed or sentenced to life in prison. Abbas has not approved an execution since taking power in 2004, though a number of "traitors" have been killed in acts of "street justice" that went unpunished by the PA."

Why in the world do we want to create a racist, anti-Semitic state?  I would love to see peace in the Middle East, and I would love to see a country of Palestine that was a positive contributor to world peace and to the world economy.  What I don't want to see is America blessing the creation of a state whose sole ambition is to destroy Israel and any Jew it encounters.  I really think President Obama need to reevaluate the amount of energy he is spending on Middle East peace and concentrate on some of the problems at home.  Until the racism that is enshrined in the government of the Palestinian Authority ends, peace is not possible.

Normally I don't have a problem with people, PAC's (Political Action Committees), unions, or corporations making campaign contributions as long as those contributions are made public and done in accordance with the wishes and consent of the people represented by the groups named.  I do have a problem, however, with one recent corporate contribution.

Yesterday the Wall Street Journal reported that General Motors has made $90,500 worth of contributions to political campaigns to politicians running in this election cycle.  That's the same General Motors that is majority-owned by the U.S. government.  The U. S. government owns approximately roughly 61% of the company. 

According to the article:

"GM spokesman Greg Martin said the company stopped making political contributions in spring 2009 to focus on its taxpayer-financed bankruptcy reorganization.

"As we've emerged as a new company, we're not going to sit on the sidelines as our competitors and other industries who have PACs are participating in the political process," Mr. Martin said. He called GM's political action committee is "an effective means for our employees to pool their resources and have their collective voice heard.""

Until the company debuts its IPO (expected in November after the election) and again becomes a stockpayer owned corporation, I totally object to the company making political donations.  That is, in essence, the government giving money to the people they think should be elected.

The entire buy-out of General Motors, paying unions over preferred stockholders, firing the head of the company, was wrong.  This latest wrinkle only aggravates the situation.  The Obama Administration needs a Congress that will keep it in check and prevent this sort of thing from happening in the future.  The problem is not Wall Street--it is the federal government interferring in the free market--housing, automobiles, medical care, etc.  We need to elect a Congress that will stop the intrusive growth of government.  Please vote carefully in November.

My sources for this article are National Review Online and nj.com.  Something very interesting has happened in New Jersey.  I am not sure exactly how this worked, but Governor Christie (my new hero) cut $7.5 million in public funding for Planned Parenthood clinics in the state.  Because the state legislature failed to override his veto of their trying to reinstate the cut, Planned Parenthood of Southern New Jersey saw a $160,000 cut in its funds.  Because of these cuts, appointments usually held at the Planned Parenthood Cherry Hill clinic will be moved to clinics in Camden, Bellmawr and Edgewater Park, the report said.

I have a few questions on this.  Why was the state giving $160,000 to an abortion clinic to begin with?  This was not a cut in the money spent on uninsured patients--this was a cut in the public funding for Planned Parenthood abortion clinics.  Why, in a time of economic hardship for taxpayers, was public money being used in this way?  Abortion is a moral issue and there are many people in the country who oppose abortion unless the life of the mother is truly threatened.  These people are taxpayers.  Why are their wishes being ignored?

Congratulations to Governor Christie! 

The Federal Government and the media are working very hard to avoid telling us how serious the unemployment situation is in America right now.  On September 9 at RightWingGranny, I posted an article explaining the the unemployment numbers released on that day were estimates, not real figures.  The article reported that:

"For the latest reporting week, nine states didn't file claims data to the Labor Department in Washington because of the federal holiday earlier this week, a Labor Department official told reporters. As a result, California and Virginia estimated their figures and the U.S. government estimated the other seven, the official said."

The estimated numbers was used as a rationale for the statement "applications for U.S. unemployment benefits declined more than forecast last week, easing concern that employers will accelerate firings as the world's largest economy cools"  The statement was based on estimates, not true numbers.  Well, guess what.  The real number are out.  CNN Money reported today that "the number of first-time filers for unemployment benefits rose to 465,000 in the week ended Sept. 18."  The article at CNN also mentioned that "it also marked an increase from the upwardly revised 453,000 initial claims filed in the previous week, which was shortened by Labor Day."

The article further states that investors were disappointed with the higher than expected numbers for this week and the upward revision of last week's numbers.  Didn't they read the small print that said last week's numbers were estimated by the government?  If the recession were truly over, as President Obama is telling us, wouldn't these numbers be going down? 

Good Grief!

What we teach our children matters.  The images we put in front of them from the beginning of their lives are important in forming their opinions and values.  With this in mind, I was glad to see that the producers of Sesame Street have pulled Katy Perry's duet with Elmo from the show.  To see the picture that clearly shows the reason why, follow this link to the New York Daily News. 

In the view of many people, the dress Katy Perry is wearing would be appropriate at certain occasions.  I am not one of those people.  If women expect to be treated as people with brains, emotions, and talents, rather than bodies, they need to learn to dress.  I am not suggesting being covered from head to foot, but there is no reason to display that kind of cleavage unless you are walking Times Square New York looking for work (and actually I think Times Square has undergone major positive changes since that statement applied). 

If we expect our young women to grow up with self-respect, we need to teach them that short skirts and low cleavage are not the road to success.  We need to teach them to value themselves for who they are rather than what they look like.  We live in a visual society, and that is not going to change.  What we can do is to change young women's ideas of how they need to look to be socially and professionally successful.  Until those ideas change, the stores will continue to sell topless, bottomless dresses, skin-tight jeans, and other articles of clothing that are truly not appropriate for anyone to wear.

Women are responsible for the respect they are given.  As I said, we don't need to be covered from top to bottom, but we do need to take an honest look in the mirror before we leave the house and see what impression we are giving to the people who see us.

Congratulations to Sesame Street for pulling the duet!

Today Nonie Darwish posted an article at Front Page Magazine containing some off-the-cuff comments by Imam Feisal Abdel Rauf, the Muslim cleric planning to build the Ground Zero Mosque.  The statements made by the Imam indicate that he is a stealth jihadist who supports the creation of an Islamic State, "The Ummah," in America.

The statements by the Imam were made on June 20, 2006.  After an interview, after the Imam was told that the interview had ended, the Imam spoke of his "game plan for achieving an Islamic State without borders, which--in his mind--had previously existed and should have continued to exist, if not for Western interference in the last century."  The Imam discussed other objectives--"manipulating U. S. foreign policy, advocating for Hamas, and getting "power" on his side to push back the opposing "interests.""

If you follow the link to the website above, you will find a video of the Imam.  The article quotes the Imam as follows:

"If the entertainment media, the news media, was broadcasted in print, describe and speak about the issues in a different way it can help change perceptions profoundly, because it's the media, which helps shape perceptions to a great degree. So if we have strategic action plays, designed plays, in the area of foreign policy, in the area of healing the divide, and then you unpack and give up Israel. You then have to have your offensive coaching stuff, your offensive coach and defensive coach and your head coach, we have to have our Palestinian coach, etc."

I wonder how long we will wait to see any of this in our morning paper.  Please read the article at Front Page Magazine to get the full content.

This is an interesting year to be running for Congress.  No one is actually sure what November will bring.  Massachusetts is looking like a two-party state for the first time in many years.  Many of the people who have previously run for office without Republican candidates to oppose them now face election campaigns against extremely qualified and motivated candidates.  President Clinton has stumped the Fourth Congressional District to help Barney Frank, who is being challenged by Sean Bielat, a serious and well-qualified candidate.

In the Third Congressional District incumbent Jim McGovern is being challenged by Marty Lamb, a local small businessman who has injected some humor into the campaign.  During the Republican primary (there were five candidates running in the Republican primary for the Third District--last year Congressman McGovern ran unopposed), Marty Lamb handed out barf bags with the words "Are You Sick Of Congress?" and his legislative platform printed on them.

This week, Marty Lamb's campaign office released this statement:

Marty Lamb, Republican candidate for Congress in Massachusetts Third District, sent one of his barf bags full of acorns over to Congressman McGovern's office to make the point that this long term incumbent has gone too far.

"People are sick over his vote to fund ACORN," said Lamb. "Failing to bar all federal funding for ACORN after being exposed for fraud shows you how extreme McGovern is and how he is so blinded by extreme partisanship."

Congressman James McGovern voted to keep funding this controversial group Acorn, Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now, even after they were exposed for fraud and corruption. The incumbent voted against recommitting H.R. 3221 to the Education and Labor Committee with instruction that it be immediately reported back with language that would bar federal agreements from being entered into with ACORN. This House vote came after a long list of numerous voter registration fraud convictions and the video was released of Acorn's workers helping set up a child prostitution business. (172 Democrats voted for recommitting.)

"What sort of message does this send to our children? Fraud and corruption are ok, if you are politically connected? What ever happened to accountability?" questioned Lamb. "Voting to continue to fund Acorn is just one of many votes that proves McGovern has gone too far."

Moreover, McGovern also voted to block an amendment from being considered on the House floor that would prevent any funding for the Census Bureau being made available to Acorn and voted to block another amendment from being considered on the House floor that would prohibit funding in fiscal year 2010 Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriates bill from being made available to Acorn.

Since 1994 Acorn has received $53 million in federal funding.

This is the kind of originality and creativity that we need in Washington.

This is not an article about racism.  That is another matter.  This is an article about soft bigotry and how it impacts the judgement and perspective of some of the people responsible for educating or children.

Scott Johnson at Power Line posted an article yesterday about an experiment conducted by by University of Illinois Professor Fred Gottheil.  The source of Mr. Johnson's story was Front Page Magazine.  According to Power Line:

"Prof. Fred Gottheil told Frontpagemag.com that he compiled a list of 675 email addresses from 900 signatures on a 2009 petition authored by Dr. David Lloyd, professor of English at the University of Southern California, urging the U.S. to abandon its ally, Israel. Prof. Gottheil discovered that six of the signers, who hailed from more than 150 college campuses, were members of his own faculty.

""Would these same 900 sign onto a statement expressing concern about human rights violations in the Muslim Middle East, such as honor killing, wife beating, female genital mutilation, and violence against gays and lesbians?" he wondered. "I felt it was worth a try."

"The results? "Almost non existent," he told Frontpage editor Jamie Glazov. Only 27 of the 675 "self-described social-justice seeking academics" agreed to sign Gottheil's Statement of Concern - less than 5 percent of the total who had publicly called for the censure of Israel for human rights violations."

The blindness of the liberal professors in America that is caused by a solid dislike of Israel is amazing.  In their anti-Israel stand, the professors have chosen to overlook the human rights violations contained in Sharia Law, a basic part of the Islamic faith.  I wonder how many of the signers of the original petition were woman who would not be allowed to hold university positions in a Muslim society.  I wonder how many signers of the original petition would willingly murder a rebellious daughter.  Sometimes a negative opinion of one thing causes our perspective to shift to the point where we totally ignore the serious misdeads of something else.  The professors who signed the first petition and not the second need to find a new perspective.

There is an effort being made to protect voters from voter intimidation; unfortunately, that effort is not coming from the White House or the Obama Justice Department.

This article is based on two stories posted on the internet yesterday, one at the Washington Times and one at the Washington Examiner.  The stories relate to the voter intimidation that took place in Philadelphia in the 2008 election.  The New Black Panthers are seen in a YouTube video holding billy clubs and intimidating voters.  The Justice Department did not invoke any serious charges against the Black Panthers and that has led to speculation that the case was dismissed for purely political reasons. 

Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit to obtain documents from the Justice Department related to the handling of this case. 

According to Judicial Watch, the documents they obtained:

"...contradict sworn testimony by Thomas Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, who testified before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission that no political leadership was involved in the decision (Judicial Watch v. Department of Justice (No. 10-851))."

This is the update on the case from the Judicial Watch website:

"The Justice Department originally filed its lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party following an incident that took place outside of a Philadelphia polling station on November 4, 2008. A video of the incident, showing a member of the New Black Panther Party brandishing police-style baton weapon, was widely distributed on the Internet. According to multiple witnesses, members of the New Black Panthers blocked access to polling stations, harassed voters and hurled racial epithets. Nonetheless, the Justice Department ultimately overruled the recommendations of its own staff and dismissed the majority of its charges.

""These documents show the Obama Justice Department's decision to drop the Black Panther case was certainly political and potentially corrupt," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "The Black Panther decision is a scandal for the Obama administration and it merits serious attention by investigators. Assistant Attorney General Perez seems to have been less than candid in his sworn testimony when he said no political appointees were involved in the decision. This scandal has just gotten a whole lot worse for the Obama Justice Department.""

I don't know how much of the media will actually report what has happened here, but it is obvious that the Justice Department has become political.  That is not only unfortunate, it is unconstitutional.  It is time to elect people who will go to Washington and clean this mess up.

Last night I attended a meeting of the Northborough Tea Party.  The purpose of the meeting was to bring together all the candidates who had participated in the recent Republican primary in a show of unity.  The meeting was held at the Northborough Library.  The room was packed, standing room only, and the crowd stayed after the meeting to talk with the candidates.

I live in Norfolk County, so many of the candidates were not in my district.  However, I was truly impressed with the qualifications and energy level of all the candidates who spoke.  There were four statewide candidates who spoke; they were well qualified and had good ideas for Massachusetts.

I have written before about Jim McKenna's successful write-in campaign to run against incumbent Martha Coakley for Massachusetts Attorney General.   Last night Jim reported that at last count, his write-in campaign had more than 25,000 votes.   It is unusual in this state for a write-in candidate to even reach the threshold of 10,000 votes to qualify to be on the ballot.  His vote count shows that he has the ability to organize and get things done.  His platform was simple--enforce the laws regarding illegal immigrants, and deal with the corruption that has invaded Beacon Hill.  He is an energetic candidate who will bring positive change to Massachusetts.

Bill Campbell is the Republican candidate for Massachusetts Secretary of State.   He stated his plans to protect our election process.  He opposes Election Day Registration--the risk of fraud is too great and the cost to the Commonwealth is too high.  He supports changes that will ensure military ballots are counted.   He also supports voters having to show identification when they vote.  In Massachusetts you can't buy a pack of cigarettes without showing identification--voting is much more important.

Mary Z. Connaughton is running for State Auditor.   She is a CPA and an auditor and is extremely qualified for the position.  Her platform included enhancing communication and government transparency through technology and the Internet.  If she is elected, she will audit the spending by the legislature, something that is not currently done.  She has the experience and the knowledge to bring positive change to Massachusetts.

Karyn Polito is the Republican candidate for State Treasurer.   Her platform included making changes in the state pension plans from this point forward.   The changes she proposed would save the State money and cut down on future unfunded liabilities.  Karyn has served as a state lawmaker and has a record of fighting tax increases and wasteful spending.  She would definitely be a force for fiscal sanity if she is elected.

It is exciting that the Republicans in Massachusetts have produced such an impressive group of candidates.  If you live in Massachusetts and truly want positive change, these are the people who deserve your vote.

John McCormack at the Weekly Standard posted an article on the internet with the title, "Koch Industries Lawyer to White House:  How Did You Get Our Tax Information?"

David Koch is the founder of the group Americans for Prosperity, a free-market political group. 

According to the article:

"...a senior Obama administration official told reporters at an August 27 on-the-record background briefing on corporate taxes:

"So in this country we have partnerships, we have S corps, we have LLCs, we have a series of entities that do not pay corporate income tax. Some of which are really giant firms, you know Koch Industries is a multibillion dollar businesses. So that creates a narrower base because we've literally got something like 50 percent of the business income in the U.S. is going to businesses that don't pay any corporate income tax. They point out [in the report] you could review the boundary between corporate and non-corporate taxation as a way to broaden the base."

The Weekly Standard sent an e-mail to White House press officials to confirm the quote; 72 hours later, the White House has not yet replied.  However, the Weekly Standard has confirmed the quote from an independent source who was at the briefing.

Mark Holden, senior vice president and general counsel of Koch Industries, is quoted in the article:

"I'm not accusing any one of any illegal conduct. But it's my understanding that under federal law, tax information, is confidential and it's not to be disclosed or obtained by individuals except under limited circumstances. ... I don't know what [the senior administration official] was referring to. I'm not sure what he's saying. I'm not sure what information he has. But if he got this information--confidential tax information--under the internal revenue code ... if he obtained it in a way that was inappropriate, that would be unlawful. But I don't know that that's the case."

At a time when Obamacare is adding sixteen thousand more agents to the IRS, all of us need to be concerned about the privacy of our tax information.  During the Presidential campaign we saw that Joe the Plumber's private files were accessed illegally when he spoke out against then-Senator Obama's plan to "spread the wealth around."  Admittedly that was done by a state worker and we don't know if it was done at the request of the campaign, but it was still illegal.

Free and fair elections are part of the foundation of democracy.  That includes freedom for everyone to speak their mind without fear of private personal or corporate records illegally accessed and exposed.

There are no guarantees that the Republicans will take over either the House or the Senate after November, but there are no guarantees that they won't either.  So some people who study these things have a few comments on what should happen next.  I found one today that I agreed with--I even agreed with the word he made up to describe what the Republicans needed.

Ron Meyer posted an article at the Daily Caller today entitled, "Republicans need some badassity."  He lists five traits we need in our leadership as we increase our numbers in Congress.

1.  Non-nancypelosiness

2.  Ability to articulate freedom

3.  Solution-oriented

4.  Love for Federalism

5.  Badassity

These qualities are pretty self-explanatory, but as usual, I will add my two cents.  1.  Ms. Pelosi represents San Francisco, not mainstream America.  That is fine for the people of San Francisco, but not for the rest of us.  2.  We need leadership that can educate us on our founding values, the freedoms we have historically had, and why they are important.  3.  "No" is not a solution, although it may be the beginning of finding one.  We need a leader who can come up with creative solutions (within the Constitution, thank you) to the problems we face.  4.  We need a leader who will turn power back to the states, not grab more power for the federal government.  Again, we need a leader who respects the Tenth Amendment. 

The article comments on trait No. 5:

"Yes, I made that word up, but I think you get what it means.

"One moment that comes to mind is when Boehner dropped the entire stimulus bill--over 1,400 pages--on the floor of the House, sending a thud across the chamber reminding everyone watching of its massive size."

The article also described Chris Christie as having trait No. 5.

The bottom line here is simple.  If the Republicans take power again, they need to act like Republicans.  The example to follow is Ronald Reagan.  He stood for his principles firmly, but politely.  He spoke softly, but there was never really any doubt about what he believed or that he would not give in on his principles.

America is a big country, and sometimes we are unaware of what is actually going on in other areas of our country.  Big Government posted a story yesterday by Sheriff Larry Dever Sheriff of Cochise County Arizona.  Sheriff Dever is an elected sheriff who has served for fourteen years.  He states in his article that he has always had a listed phone number.  He talks about the nighttime phone calls he has been receiving since 1998. 

According to the article:

"...Now I don't sleep, as my residents call each night sometimes panicky, sometimes resigned to this as a way of life, but always with a shaky voice: "they are at my door."  This is not a weekend activity.  This is every single night.  Cochise County is a gateway to tens of thousands of illegal aliens entering the U.S. to provide the rest of our country with drugs.  If my deputies and I are prohibited from enforcing the law to stop these border jumpers, your families in Plainsville, Ohio, or Charlotte, North Carolina, are going to continue to be in harm's way and see the percentage of crimes by illegal aliens rise."

He further states:

"And lest you think we are mainly apprehending a workforce eager to come work illegally for our residents, it's not about people anymore, it's about drug smugglers and other criminal aliens.  My deputies and I keep watch on the border each night, doing our best to apprehend the dozens of men with 75-pound backpacks filled with marijuana who hop the fence, usually when the Federal Border Patrol Agents have their official shift changes. Sadly, Border Patrol agents working this problem are more often than not limited in their capacity to cope by inept policy making in Washington, D.C. Our government is supposed to be making tactical decisions about a situation that worsens by the day and is truly chaotic and frankly, war-like."

One of our federal government's duties is to secure our borders.  Unfortunately, the current politicians in Washington are refusing to do that.  In fact, they are so busy doing things that the Constitution does not give them the power to do that there is no money or energy left to enforce the borders.

As the November election approaches, we need to examine all candidates to see which ones are willing to enforce our borders.  Illegal immigration should not be seen as a way to register voters and thus win elections--it is a very expensive problem that leads to other problems in crime, healthcare and education.  We need to cut the amount of red tape for people who want to come here legally and contribute to American society, but we don't need to open the doors for drug dealers and criminals to casually stroll across the border illegally.

Yesterday Power Line reported on protests at the Right Nation 2010 convention, which has been going on in Chicago.  Andrew Breitbart, who attended the convention, was spit on and called a homosexual by supposed "religious" activists.  There is video of the encounter at Power Line and at the Big Government website.

There are a few things to pay attention to here.  The protesters were from the group Organizing For America (OFA), essentially a left-leaning union group.  I don't know if the protesters were paid or simply 'strongly' encouraged to show up, but they were bussed in!  I have heard stories locally about union workers who were told that if they did not attend a protest, their access to union jobs would be negatively impacted.  There is also a very small chance that these protesters were actually 'religious' protesters.

As the Tea Party gains strength because people are becoming tired of exponential government growth and spending, there will be both obvious and covert pushback from the political class who feel threatened by the movement.  Remember also that the Tea Party Express is different from the Tea Party.  The Tea Party Express is a Political Action Committee (PAC).  They are organized, they raise money, they support candidates, and they operate as any other PAC.  The Tea Party is a loosely organized group of citizens with no central leader, no dues, and no agenda other than educating people on the founding principles of America and preserving those principles.  One of our local tea parties meets regularly at the local library and studies the founding documents of America.  The local tea party also sponsored debates between Republican primary candidates.  Tea Party candidates tend to be Republican because they are generally more in line with Republican ideas.  Also, contrary to popular myth, the Democrat party would not generally be open to the kind of small government ideas the Tea Party embraces.

Anyway, my point is simple.  As we approach the November elections, be aware that things may not be what they appear to be.  Protesters may be paid, articles in the local paper may be based on things that are not true, and mischief will abound.  Pay attention and stay informed!

This story is not a joke.  It is based on a real article in the New York Times on September 15th of this year.

The article states:

"A curious phenomenon has emerged at the intersection of fashion, sports and crime: dozens of men and women who have robbed, beaten, stabbed and shot at their fellow New Yorkers have done so while wearing Yankees caps or clothing."

The article further states:

"Since 2000, more than 100 people who have been suspects or persons of interest in connection with serious crimes in New York City wore Yankees apparel at the time of the crimes or at the time of their arrest or arraignment. The tally is based on a review of New York Police Department news releases, surveillance video and images of robberies and other crimes, as well as police sketches and newspaper articles that described suspects' clothing. No other sports team comes close.

"The Mets, forever in the shadow of their Bronx rivals, are perhaps grateful to be losing this one: only about a dozen people in the same review were found to be wearing Mets gear."

There is no one proven theory on why this trend exists although the article lists a few possibilities.  The article then goes on to cite some of the criminal history that Yankee caps have been involved in. 

This is one of those stories that makes me proud to be a Red Sox fan!

I've lost track of how many czars President Obama has appointed, but now we have one more.  According to a story in CNS News posted on Friday, Wall Street critic Elizabeth Warren has been named as a special advisor to set up a new government agency (oh joy!) to protect consumers in their dealings with banks, mortgage companies and other financial institutions. 

The article points out:

"Obama did not nominate Warren to be the bureau's (Financial Protection Bureau) director, however. Instead he is creating a role that allows her to avoid a lengthy confirmation fight with Senate Republicans who view her as too critical of Wall Street and big banks. The business and banking community opposed Warren as director, contending she would make the agency too aggressive."

This is an end run around the U. S. Constitution.  The Senate is supposed to have the roll of "advise and consent" on the President's appointees to various positions.  The Democrat Senate is probably not going to make a fuss about not having their duties respected, but hopefully there will be a change in the makeup of the Senate in November.

If you want this sort of abuse of Presidential power to continue, vote Democrat in November.  If you would like to see America go back to her Constitution, vote Republican.  It is that simple.  If the Republicans do not behave better after taking control of Congress this time, we will have to vote them out too!  We are the voters.  We have the power of the ballot.  If you are not happy with how things are currently going, get out and vote in November.  Better still, get out and work for the candidate that most represents your values and ideas.  The time for sitting on the couch and complaining is over.  It is time to act.

Yesterday, John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article about two recent events--the arrest of terrorists in London who planned to kill the Pope and the fact that Molly Norris, who suggested "Everyone Draw Mohammed Day" has gone into hiding due to death threats.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the religion behind these threats (Islam) has at least an element to it that is not peace-loving.  Islam is a political movement that operates under the disguise of a religion.  There are non-political Muslims, who love their god and have no interest in the political aspect of the religion, but they are afraid to speak out against the radical Muslims who resort to terrorism in an effort to spread their influence.  Until the religion-only Muslims begin to take control of their religion, we will have to deal with the terrorist element of the political-Islamic movement.

The London arrest involved street sweepers who were allegedly planning to place bombs in bins that would blow up the Pope as he traveled through central London.  Needless to say, many innocent people would also have been injured or killed in the explosions.

At the Seattle Weekly, Mark D. Fefer, the editor, has stated that "on the insistence of top security specialists at the F.B.I., she is, as they put it, 'going ghost': moving, changing her name, and essentially wiping away her identity."  

This is the enemy we are currently facing--operating under the name of a religion of peace.  Until we realize that the ultimate aim of political-Islam is a worldwide caliphate enforcing Sharia Law, we cannot even fight this battle, much less win it.

Today's Washington Post posted a story stating that Neil M. Barofsky, the special inspector general for bailout funds has pledged to investigate "whether political considerations played a role in favoring hourly over salaried retirees."   The investigation is being done at the request of the Republicans in Congress.

At question is the role of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. (PBGC) and Delphi, formerly a division of General Motors.  General Motors spun off Delphi in 1999, and Delphi subsequently went bankrupt.  The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. eventually took over Delphi's underfunded pension funds, paying its beneficiaries pennies on the dollar.  However, according to the article:

"But the UAW, unlike the salaried employees, had negotiated a prior agreement under which GM agreed to "top off" members' pensions if an independent Delphi ever went bust. Honoring this commitment added $2.1 billion to the GM pension plan's deficit in the fall of 2008, a time when GM, too, was rapidly going down the tubes."

Thus, the Obama Administration honored the UAW pensions, but refused to pay the white-collar workers any more than they were legally supposed to get. 

The article further states:

"We're talking a massive cost burden worth tens of billions of dollars. In theory, the PBGC could have taken it over, putting all UAW pensioners in the same position as Delphi's salaried retirees. To be sure, given the PBGC's precarious finances, this could have imposed a hit on taxpayers as well. But the administration might at least have pressed the UAW to reform its pensions, which are far more generous than those enjoyed by most workers."

According to Steven Rattner, one of the members of the auto task force, in his book "Overhaul,"   General Motors did suggest that the UAW accept a pension freeze, but UAW officials refused even to discuss the idea.  In order not to jeopardize the negotiations, the Obama Administration agreed to fund the pensions.  Mr. Rattner says the decision was one of 'crisis management.'  It will be interesting to see what the investigation turns up. 

The September 27, 2010, issue of The Weekly Standard has an article by Matthew Continetti about President Obama's tax policies.  The opening paragraph states:

"The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire on January 1. President Obama wants to extend the current rates for households making less than $250,000, limiting the increase to the rich. Republicans say raising taxes in a weak economy is a mistake, full stop. And guess what, plenty of rank and file Democrats agree with them. Who says bipartisanship is dead?"

Thirty-one Democrats have sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi asking her not to raise taxes.  The article points out:

""The more money we leave in private hands, the quicker our recovery will be," Joe Lieberman told the Chamber of Commerce in Middlesex, Connecticut, last week. "Raising taxes in a weak economy could impair recovery," Ben Nelson said in a recent press release."

One aspect of this debate is that it proves that despite the Democrats' claims at the time, George Bush's tax cuts were not all for the rich!

The question that needs to be asked here is, "Whose money is it anyway?"  The argument from the President centers around 'fairness' and the 'cost of the tax cuts.'  Why is it more fair to take money from people who have worked hard to earn it and not take money from people who earned less?  When did it become the government's job to decide how much money you could earn before they started taking it away from you?  How can tax cuts cost when the money belongs to the people who earned it--not the government?

The article concludes:

"What if the key to recovery is aligning incentives in a way that promotes work, saving, and investment? In that case, wouldn't you want to allow taxpayers to keep the dollars they earn? Wouldn't you want to encourage people to earn more, rather than encourage dependence on government subsidies and transfers?"

When a behavior is rewarded, it increases.  When people are allowed to keep more of what they earn, they work harder to earn more.  The Obama Administration is moving in the wrong direction for recovery.  Congress is correct in wanting to extend all of the Bush tax cuts.  Pay attention to how your Congressmen vote, and remember these votes when you vote in November.

Anyone who reads this blog on a regular basis knows that I am not a fan of the United Nations.  However, most of the time they at least try to act like grown ups.  John Hinderaker at Power Line posted a story yesterday about the United Nations latest antics.

The Bush Administration avoided joining the United Nations' Human Rights Council because of its virulent prejudice against Israel and lack of any meaningful commitment to human rights.  The Obama Administration decided to join the Council hoping that "engagement" could bring about reform.   Well, back to square one.

The article reports:

"Wednesday in Geneva during the current session of the U.N. Human Rights Council, the Obama administration became a willing participant in the U.N.'s imposition of an apartheid-style ban on representatives of the state of Israel. Despite the promises made by the administration that by joining the Council the United States would not become part of the problem, U.S. Ambassador to the Council Eileen Donahoe chose to attend and fully participate in a meeting that deliberately excluded anyone representing the Jewish state. ...

"While Israelis are left standing in the hall during the Council's regional group meetings, this week for the first time Libya took its seat as a full-fledged Council member. Other full voting members of the U.N.'s lead human rights body include such model citizens as Saudi Arabia, China, Cuba, Russia and Kyrgyzstan."

The record of the U. N. Human Rights Council is abysmal.  The article points out that "moreover, the Council has never adopted a single resolution on Iran, and behind closed doors it terminated a tentative examination of human rights in Iran on March 26, 2007."

Joining the U.N. Human Rights Council was a mistake.  We have given legitimacy to an organization that has nothing to do with actually supporting human rights.  We need to remove ourselves from the Council as soon as possible!

We learned from the mortgage meltdown (or at least I hope we did) that government interference in free markets has (negative) unintended consequences.  Well, I guess not all of us have learned.

John Hinderaker at Power Line reported yesterday that Democrats on the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection will hold a hearing next week on the proposed regulation of the gold industry. 

The article states:

"Just as the government is trying to prevent people from investing in anything other than T-Bills by raising taxes on taxable interest and dividends to confiscatory levels, it's also trying to prevent you from parking your wealth in assets, like gold, that compete with the paper dollars issued by the Federal Reserve and the Treasury. A press release from Rep. Anthony Weiner, Democrat of New York, not yet (as of this instant) posted on Mr. Weiner's Web site, announces that a September 23 hearing of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection (a subcommittee of Rep. Henry Waxman's Commerce Committee) will focus on "legislation that would regulate gold-selling companies, an industry who's [sic] relentless advertising is now staple of cable television.""

There are two obvious aspects of this--one, T-Bills are not selling--gold is, and two, most of the gold advertising is done on conservative news or talk radio shows.   Gold is marketed as a world-wide commodity, how in the world does Congress think they can regulate it?  This is nothing more than a shot across the bow at conservative news outlets and talk radio.  Somehow, I don't think Fox News or talk radio will be intimidated.  This is also an attempt to turn the market on to T-Bills.  As the national debt increases, I don't see that working either.

It will be interesting to watch the progress of these hearings.

Today's Boston Herald is reporting that James McKenna, a former prosecutor from Millbury, has run a successful write-in primary campaign for state Attorney General and will be running against incumbent Martha Coakley. 

The article reports:

"McKenna worked for 10 years as a prosecutor, including three years as an assistant district attorney in the organized crime division of the Suffolk County district attorney's office and six years as a prosecutor in the Worcester County district attorney's office.

"In 1998 he moved to a private practice in insurance law and criminal appeals, but also served as a special assistant district attorney to ask the Supreme Judicial Court to affirm the conviction of the man found guilty of the 1994 murder of Paxton Police Chief Robert Mortell."

Attorney McKenna stated that he decided to attempt a write-in campaign after the Republicans failed to recruit a candidate to run against Martha Coakley.  Successful write-in campaigns are unusual and require a lot of organization.  Massachusetts Republican Party Chairman Jennifer Nassour has stated that the party will support McKenna in the November election. 

Today The Hill is reporting that Senator Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) has stated that he will introduce comprehensive immigration reform legislation in the Senate before the end of the year.  Senator Menendez made this announcement after a White House meeting with President Obama. 

According to the article:

"Menendez and Reps. Nydia Velazquez (D-N.Y.) and Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) met with the president at the White House on Thursday afternoon to discuss the ongoing Senate negotiations over the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act and its inclusion in the defense authorization bill.

"Obama supports the DREAM Act, as do Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)."

The purpose of this announcement is to wake up the Democrat base in the hope that they will get out and vote in November.  This legislation will not pass, although the Democrats may try to force it through in a lame-duck session after the election.  This is a political move aimed at stopping the criticism by Hispanics that they voted for President Obama and have gotten nothing in return. 

We desperately need immigration reform.  We need to make it easier for people who want to come to America to work to come here.  But we also need to deal with the problem of people who are here illegally.  I am not sure it is reasonable to expect people to respect our laws when they broke the law to get here.  It is time to reevaluate our immigration rules, cut through red tape, and allow the people who want to contribute to our society to immigrate..

Yesterday's Washington Examiner posted an article about the rapid increase in poverty during the Obama Administration.  The official poverty rate figure will be released next week, but predictions are already out that the increase will jump nearly two points to 15 percent, the largest single-year increase since the government began keeping track.

The previous record for a single-year increase was held by the Carter Administration in 1980.  The article points out that our current financial problems go back to a housing bubble created by government-mandated mortgages going to millions of people who could never repay them.  The article points out that when the government interferes with the free market, there will always be unintended consequences.  We are currently paying the price for the government's interference in the housing market.

The article concludes:

"...Often, those consequences harm most the very people who are the intended beneficiaries.  "The most important anti-poverty effort is growing the economy and making sure there are enough jobs out there," Obama said last Friday at press conference.  If Obama really believes that, he'll prove it by reversing course and moving to reduce government spending, regulation, debt and taxes.  If he refuses, more Americans will find themselves in the poorhouse."

As John Kennedy stated in June 25, 1963:

"As they say on my own Cape Cod, a rising tide lifts all the boats. And a partnership, by definition, serves both partners, without domination or unfair advantage."

Today those words would put him out of sync with his own Democrat party.  If you want to go back to prosperity, cut taxes and reduce spending, vote Republican in November.

Something to think about as you prepare to vote in November.  What were the qualifications this man had for the office to which he was elected?  What were the beliefs of the people he surrounded himself with and chose as advisors?

"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency.  It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool.  It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president." 

                             Author Unknown

Today's Boston Herald posted a story on a primary election victory by Republican Jeffrey Perry, who will be facing Democrat William Keating in the race for the seat being vacated by U.S. Representative William Delahunt (Tenth Congressional District in Massachusetts).

Representative William Delahunt decided not to seek re-election after a controversy arose over his handling of the shooting case involving Amy Fisher while serving as the Norfolk County District Attorney.  The Republicans have targeted that seat for a pick-up, so the race will receive a lot of press.  Jeff Perry received 61% of the vote in a field of four candidates.

However, Massachusetts is not a reliable Democrat state right now.  People are angry at the people in Washington who don't seem to be listening to them--both parties are angry with their representatives, and anything could happen in November.

There were a few other victories in the Massachusetts primaries last night that bear watching.  In the Fourth Congressional District (seat now held by Barney Frank), Sean Bielat received 60% of the votes in the Republican primary.  In the Third Congressional District, newcomer to politics Marty Lamb received 31% of the votes in a five-candidate field.  He will run against Jim McGovern.

Everything is Massachusetts has changed since the election of Scott Brown.  November is going to be interesting.  Neither Democrats or Republicans can afford to take anything for granted!

Today's Washington Examiner posted a short commentary by  J.P. Freire on Christine O'Donnell's primary election victory in Delaware.  The commentary opens with the doomsday comments from various sources that her primary victory will keep the Republicans from taking over the Senate. 

The article points out that the Republican Party establishment has made it very difficult for conservative candidates to get elected, and as a result, the grass roots of the party have taken matters into their own hands.  The Republican establishment has, on more than one occasion, supported a traditional part-time Republican (read "RINO") over a conservative.  They have claimed that they were following the Buckley rule, but ignored it when convenient.  Now they are seeing the results of their actions.

I don't know if Christine O'Donnell can win in Delaware.  I do know that voters across the country will no longer accept the status quo.  When the Republicans act the same as the Democrats, they can now expect to be challenged in a primary and voted out of office.  The Republican party has a choice--remain part of the established political class and fade into oblivion or wake up and get back to its conservative roots.

On a personal note, while I was standing at my local polling place holding a "Marty Lamb for Congress" sign (he won in his primary!), the woman next to me, who was holding a sign for another candidate for a different office told me "she was not voting for any more Republican weenies!"  She wasn't going to vote for Democrats, but she was not going to vote for any Republican that was not willing to take a strong conservative stand.  And I live in Massachusetts!

I'm not ready to put up the victory flag to celebrate a Republican takeover of the Senate, but the Democrat leadership is sure not trying to look good right now.  Yesterday the CNN Political Ticker reported that Senator Harry Reid is adding the DREAM Act, a controversial immigration measure to the defense bill.  "Don't ask, don't tell" has already been added to the defense bill.

The DREAM (Development, Relief and Education of Alien Minors) Act provides a path to citizenship for young illegal immigrants who go to college or serve in the military.

The defense bill usually passes easily with bi-partisan support.  Adding these two measures will make the bill much more difficult to pass--I doubt even Democrats want to take an unpopular stand on immigration right now.

This is the kind of decision that will cause more Americans to vote Republican in November.

Yesterday, Paul Mirengoff at Power Line posted an article about the constitutional reforms approved by voters in Turkey over the weekend. 

The article points out:

"...voters approved a sweeping package of constitutional reforms and, in the process, gave Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan a vote of confidence. Erdogan's party has deep Islamic roots but, as J.E. Dyer points out, has been stymied to some degree in carrying out its Islamic vision by a combination of the courts and the military."

The new reforms expand the constitutional court from 11 to 17 judges, with Prime Minister Erdogan appointing 14 of them.  This is troubling considering Prime Minister Erdogan's lack of respect for free speech, a free press, and women's rights.

The change also will diminish the role of Turkey's military in Turkish politics.  Since the military has traditionally had strong ties with Israel, this change is seen as a moving away from Israel.

What is actually happening here is that we are watching a secular democracy morph into an Islamic caliphate.  I am not sure how long this process will take, but Turkey in the past year has loosened its ties to Israel and strengthened its ties to Iran and Syria.  This is something we need to pay attention to.  Not all revolutions ionvolve gunfire.

Yesterday's Washington Examiner posted an article about a letter sent by Glenn Fine, Inspector General of the Justice Department, to Representative Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and Representative Frank Wolf (R-Virginia).  The letter states that the Inspector General is planning to investigate "the enforcement of civil rights laws by the Voting Section of the Department's Civil Rights Division."   This has to do with the handling of the case involving the New Black Panther Party wearing military style uniforms and intimidating voters in Philadelphia during the 2008 Presidential Election.   In case you haven't seen the video, it is still posted on TouTube.

The article states that Representative Wolf's concerns about voting rights go way back:

"He noted that of the Virginia delegation, he is the only one to have voted for the Voting Rights Act, and he was then ripped by the Richmond Times Dispatch for it.  "If there are three guys in Mississippi engaging in voter intimidation, it needs to be dealt with.  And if it's two guys in Philadelphia, as in the case of the New Black Panther Party, they should be dealt with too.""

Hopefully this case will be settled in time to make it clear that voter intimidation is unacceptable.  If we are to continue as a free country, we need free elections.

The Hill reported today on the attack on John Boehner by President Obama regarding extending the Bush tax cuts.  House Republican leader Boehner stated Sunday that he would agree to extending the Bush tax cuts for the middle class without extending all of the tax cuts if that were his only option. 

Meanwhile, some Democrats have asked the President to avoid raising taxes as long as we are in a recession.  Letting the Bush tax cuts expire will result in tax increases for every American.  The lowest-income Americans would see their tax rate jump from 10 percent to 15 percent of income. 

What happened on Sunday in the interview with John Boehner was the setting of a trap.  If he said that he would not support a partial extension of the Bush tax cuts, he was going to be branded as not supporting taxes for the middle class.  He avoided that trap, but in the process felt the heat of many conservatives who want the entire Bush tax package extended.  Democrats are worried about the November elections, so they saying that if you vote Republican, John Boehner will be the Speaker of the House.  If they can paint John Boehner as a villian, they may be able to convince you to stay with the Democrats.  Watch for more attacks on John Boehner in the near future. 

The attack on John Boehner is a textbook example of President Obama's (and the Democrat's) campaign strategy.  It is Rule No. 11 in Saul Alinsky's RULES FOR RADICALS:

"Rule 11.  Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it,  Don't try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies.  Identify a responsible individual.  Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame."

Expect more attacks in the future.  The 'silly season' is upon us.

Today's Minneapolis Star Tribune posted a story on Sarah Shourd, the American girl held prisoner in Iran for wandering over the Iranian border while hiking.  The Iranians had said she would be freed this past weekend, but as of now, she is still being held prisoner. 

The article states:

"The lawyer of an American woman cleared for release from an Iranian prison said Monday he is still waiting for word that the $500,000 bail has been paid." 

Why are they charging $500,000 bail when they are saying they are releasing her on humanitarian grounds because she has had health problems? 

The Pew polling group released a poll in August showing that only 30 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Islam, down from 41 percent in 2005.  It's actions like those of the Iranian government that are responsible for the less favorable view.  Sarah was one of three hikers in an area where the border of Iran is not clearly marked.  The hikers wandered across the border and have been in prison in Iran ever since.  The fact that Iran is demanding $500,000 for her release sounds more like a kidnapping than an arrest.

Something to keep in mind when you vote in November!

Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn't know this. It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it.  Be sure and show it to your kids. They need a little history lesson on what's what and it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts!!!
Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and card were not to be used for identification purposes. Since nearly everyone in the United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the message was removed.

Our Social Security 

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social 
Security (FICA) Program. He promised: 

1.) That participation in the Program would be 
Completely voluntary, 

No longer Voluntary 


2.) That the participants would only have to pay 
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual 
Incomes into the Program, 

Now 7.65% 
on the first $90,000 
  

3.) That the money the participants elected to put 
into the Program would be deductible from 
their income for tax purposes each year, 

No longer tax deductible 


4.) That the money the participants put into the 
independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the 
general operating fund, and therefore, would 
only be used to fund the Social Security 
Retirement Program, and no other 
Government program, and, 

Under Johnson the money was moved to 
The General Fund and Spent 


5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income. 

Under Clinton & Gore 
Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed 

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are 
now receiving a Social Security check every month -- 
and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of 
the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put 
away' -- you may be interested in the following: 

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

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the 
independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the 
general fund so that Congress could spend it? 

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically 
controlled House and Senate. 

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

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax 
deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding? 

A: The Democratic Party. 

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

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social 
Security annuities? 

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the 
'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the 
Senate, while he was Vice President of the  US 

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

Q: Which Political Party decided to start
giving annuity payments to immigrants? 

AND MY FAVORITE: 

A: That's right! 

Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. 

Can American elections be bought?  I don't mean in the traditional sense of buying votes and bribing people for their votes, I mean in the sense of raiding the US Treasury to give benefits to people in exchange for their votes.

That is the subject of an editorial in Friday's Washington Examiner.  The Federal Reserve points out in a recent report that there are "widespread signs of deceleration" in our economy following a "burst" of growth in the last quarter of 2009 and the first quarter of 2010.  The burst of growth was triggered by the Obama stimulus spending, unfortunately special interests like unions and public employees were the only people who were stimulated by the stimulus.  At the same time the government reports that Americans are spending less.  They are tightening their belts and hunkering down because they don't know what will happen next. 

The editorial explains:

"According to the Heritage Foundation's 2010 Index of Dependence on Government, the number of Americans receiving a government check jumped nearly 14 percent in 2009 - the largest single-year increase since 1970 and 49 percent higher than in 2001. In May, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reported that the portion of personal income Americans received from private sector paychecks declined to a record low of 41.9 percent, while income from government programs climbed 17.9 percent.   And with nearly half of American wage earners now paying no federal income taxes, the burden of increasing levels of government spending on housing, health care, welfare, education and other entitlements is being borne by a shrinking pool of taxpayers."

The bottom line here is that more people have become dependent on the government while the number of jobs in the private sector is shrinking.  At the same time, fewer people are paying taxes and have any interest in what the tax rates are.  In plain English, as fewer people 'have skin in the game' in the rate of taxation, there is nothing to stop Congress from raising taxes on the people who do pay them.

The editorial mentioned a relevant quote:

"Alexis de Tocqueville prophetically warned, "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.""

The question will be whether or not the public will agree to be bribed.

I hate writing about September 11.   It reminds me of things I would rather forget-- my daughter who was living in lower Manhattan at the time and couldn't get home from work, her friends who worked at Cantor-Fitzgerald who never came home at all, my nephew, working on the set of a television series in Brooklyn who watched the towers fall and wondered if his brother was in them (thankfully, he wasn't), and finally, sitting in a friend's house waiting for a phone call from her daughter who worked in the second tower.   That call never came.

It's nine years later and where are we?  Our military family member is doing another tour in Afghanistan, having been there before and having seen Iraq.   Our National Security head refers to the events of September 11 as 'man-made catastrophes.'   It hasn't yet occurred to our government that we not only need to make the border of our country secure, we need to know who is coming across it.  The last two attempted terrorist attacks have been stopped due to sheer luck and incompetent terrorists.  And there are probably about the same number of people in the world who hate us and wish to do us harm as there were on September 10.  It's just that on September 11, we became aware of them.

I don't know how you deal with the terrorists (who seem to be Muslims) without offending in some way those Muslims who are not terrorists.  I suspect that when we dealt with the Germans in World War II by bombing Dresden we might have offended Germans who did not support Hitler.  However, had the Germans who did not support Hitler had the courage to remove him from office, that bombing would never had occurred.  You will notice that even after the horrific events of World War II, German is a contributing member to world society.  The ugly that was in their country in the 1930's and 1940's is gone (or at least not in control of the country).  Meanwhile, we have set up constitutions in both Iraq and Afghanistan that recognize Sharia Law.  Have we not learned anything?  First of all, Sharia Law and democracy are incompatible.  Second of all, do we as a free nation want to institutionalize discrimination against women.  We are supporting the ugly that gave us September 11.

As I remember the many people impacted by the events of September 11--both that day and since, I need to remember the sacrifices of the people who uphold our laws, protect our freedom, and help keep us safe.  The policemen and firemen who died that day and the military men and women who have served overseas since that day are our heroes.  We need to remember them today and every day and be thankful for the price they pay and have paid for our freedom.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article yesterday about a statement by HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.  Evidently the Obama Administration is trying to combat the negative opinion that people have about Obamacare.  It is understandable that they would want to do this, but the method is a bit questionable.

According to the article, Ms. Sebelius stated that she would not allow insurance companies to blame any rate increases on the new law: 

"There will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases.

"Simply stated, we will not stand idly by as insurers blame their premium hikes and increased profits on the requirement that they provide consumers with basic protections."

According to the article:

(In a letter  to the insurance lobby,) "she warned that bad actors may be excluded from new health insurance markets that will open in 2014 under the law. They'd lose out on a big pool of customers, as many as 30 million people nationwide."

Please remember as you vote in November, that this is the face of the Democrat Administration we now have in office.  We cannot change who our President is until 2012, but we can elect a Congress that will hold him and his administration accountable. 

The Congressional Budget Office has already released numbers that show Obamacare will increase the cost of healthcare and health insurance.  Massachusetts, which has had statewide healthcare and health insurance since 2006, has had increases in health insurance premiums every year since the law was enacted.  Are the insurance supposed to lie about the cause of the increases in their premiums?

I have no problem with the Obama Administration claiming that the extra cost is worth it--I expect them to do that--it's their signature legislature, but I do have a problem with their trying to muzzle anyone who dares to tell the truth.

Yesterday's Washington Post reported that Capitol Hill employees owed $9.3 million in overdue taxes at the end of last year.  The article stated that 4 percent, of the 18,000 Hill workers owe money.

The article reported that:

"The average unpaid tax bill is $12,787 among the Senate's delinquent taxpayers and $15,498 among those working in the House."

I strongly suggest 'you do not try this at home.' 

The article further stated:

"IRS debt among government workers has surfaced repeatedly as a political issue over the years, most recently when Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) introduced legislation this year to fire federal workers who owe back taxes unless they have entered into a payment plan. Eight Republicans co-sponsored the bill. No Democrats have signed on, and some have said firings would reduce the government's prospects of being paid."

This is further evidence that we have created a 'political class'--a group of people given the power to make laws but not having the obligation to live under the laws they create.  The President, Congress, and federal workers are not under Social Security.  Thus, where is their motivation to make sure it remains solvent?  Obamacare has all sorts of benefits to government workers that the rest of us will never see.  For the ordinary citizen, non-payment of taxes is a serious problem, leading to large fines and possible seizure of assets. 

The cure for this is simple.  First of all, term limits would force legislators to live under the laws they pass.  Secondly, it's time to begin to consider carefully how you vote in November.  A vote for any Democrat is a vote to continue the perks of the 'political class.'  It's time to vote out the members of Congress who have been there for more than six years and start again. There are exceptions to this idea-- Paul Ryan, and Eric Cantor are good examples.   I am sure there are others, but my point is to remind you to please vote carefully.

I don't support the burning of the Koran by Reverend Terry Jones of Florida, but I find the protests from the Muslim world somewhat puzzling.

The Drudge Report posted a link to a 2007 article at associatedcontent.com about attacks on Christians in Gaza City after Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah movement defeated the Palestinian Authority. 

According to the article:

"Father Manuel Musallem, head of Gaza's Latin church, told the AP that Muslims have ransacked, burned and looted a school and convent that are part of the Gaza Strip's small Romany Catholic community. He told the AP that crosses were broken, damage was done to a statue of Jesus, and at the Rosary Sister School and nearby convent, prayer books were burned."

The article further states:

"Father Musalam additionally told The Jerusalem Post that the Muslim gunmen used rocket-propeled grenades (RPGs) to blow through the doors of the church and school, before burning Bibles and destroying every cross they could get their hands on.

Again, I don't support the burning of the Koran, but it seems to me that this whole ruckus is a little blown out of proportion.  Maybe we need to take a closer look at a religion that threatens violence against our country and its citizens if a person representing only himself exercises his right of free speech.  Meanwhile that religion is quite comfortable destroying churches, books, and artifacts from other religions.  (Remember the Taliban blowing up the Buddahs in Afghanistan in March of 2001.)

The recent history of Muslim crimes against Christians and Jews speaks for itself.  My question is simple, is Islam compatible with freedom?

In reporting on the unemployment figures released for last week, Bloomberg.com reported today that:

"For the latest reporting week, nine states didn't file claims data to the Labor Department in Washington because of the federal holiday earlier this week, a Labor Department official told reporters. As a result, California and Virginia estimated their figures and the U.S. government estimated the other seven, the official said."

So the statement that "applications for U.S. unemployment benefits declined more than forecast last week, easing concern that employers will accelerate firings as the world's largest economy cools" is based on guesswork.  The real numbers are not in play.

Two questions.  Will the real numbers ever be published?  Why publish anything if you don't have reliable information?  I am truly amazed at this report.

CNN Money is reporting today that many of the people who received the first-time homeowner tax credit will have to repay the government. 

The article reports:

"Those who bought properties during 2008 were to deduct, dollar for dollar, up to 10% of the home's purchase price or $7,500, whichever was less. The catch: The money was a no-interest loan that had to be repaid within 15 years.

"Had they waited to buy until 2009, they could have gotten a much sweeter deal. Congress extended the credit and made it a refund rather than a loan."

Wow.  Would I be mad if I had taken the credit in 2008!  It gets better.  The Inspector General is reporting that the Internal Revenue Service is having difficulty determining which taxpayers are under the 2008 program and are required to pay the money back and which taxpayers are under the 2009 program and not required to pay the money back.  Gee.  Organization is a wonderful thing.  Are you sure you want to turn your medical care over to these people? 

The article also mentions:

"The inspector general reported that 1,326 single people listed as dead by the Social Security Administration claimed more than $10 million in credits. The IRS threw out 528 of those 1,326 claims, saving $4 million."

It is also reported that more than 4% of the 1.8 million homebuyers who received the credit, had incorrect purchase dates recorded by the IRS.  The mistakes on the purchase dates were in both years--some taxpayers would incorrectly be asked to pay back the tax credit and others would not be asked to pay it back when they should be.

The bottom line here is that the program is a mess.  Hopefully the Inspector General and the IRS can clean up the mess and sort out who owes what.  However, my heart goes out to the people who did not realize that they would have to pay the money back and did not plan to do that.  The bottom line here is that money from the government generally comes with conditions.

Today's Wall Street Journal posted an article about President Obama's recent efforts to rally the Democrat race before the November election.  I would like to comment at this point that I don't think that Obama wants the Democrats to retain their majority after the November election.  If the Republicans succeed in shooting themselves in the foot and not gaining majorities at least in the House of Representatives in November, chances are that President Obama will be a one-term President.  If the Republicans win in November, it is possible that President Obama will serve two terms.  Why?  If the Democrats retain control of the House and Senate, the President has no one to blame for things that go wrong.  This man's political stategy is to blame the other guy.

The article details the President's plan to improve the economy:

"The speech was billed as a major policy address to kick-start a flagging economy. The president formally announced three proposals the White House had hinted were coming: $50 billion in infrastructure spending, expanding and making permanent the lapsed research tax credit for business, and a measure allowing businesses to write 100% of their investment costs off their taxes through 2011." 

The speech also included attacks on the House Minority Leader, John A. Boehner (R., Ohio).  The President criticized the Republicans for opposing the administration's economic plan.  In response, the Republicans have sought to emphasize, not dodge, their opposition to what they see as the failed policies of the Democrats. 

The article concludes:

"Asked why Republicans are pulling ahead of Democrats in current campaigns, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a potential rival to Mr. Obama in 2012, said Republicans "in a very unified fashion have opposed bad policy. And the public appreciates it when a party fights against what it knows is bad policy."" 

Sometimes 'no' is the right answer.

ABC News posted a story today on some statements made by Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf, described in the story as "a Muslim imam behind a proposed cultural center two blocks from New York's Ground Zero."  OK, right there I have problems.  The landing gear of one of the planes that hit the World Trade Center buildings fell through the roof and the building in question, causing it to be condemned.  Doesn't that make it part of Ground Zero?  Next, cultural center?  What culture is that?  Is that the moderate Muslim culture or the Wahabi Muslim culture?  How do we know?

The article quotes Imam Rauf:

"If we move from that location, the story will be that the radicals have taken over the discourse," Rauf told CNN. "The headlines in the Muslim world will be that Islam is under attack.

"There is a certain anger here [in America], no doubt," he said later in the interview. "But if we don't do this right, anger will explode in the Muslim world. If we don't do things correctly, this crisis could become much bigger than the Danish cartoon crisis [over images depicting the Prophet Mohammed], which resulted in attacks on Danish embassies in various parts of the Muslim world. And we have a much bigger footprint in the Muslim world."

This is a truly amazing statement.  It sounds remarkably like a threat.  Also in the interview, Imam Rauf voiced his displeasure over the Florida pastor who is burning the Koran, saying it would feed into the radical Muslims in the world.  Does anyone else see the road we are going down here?  If the Bibles are not burned because of fear of the 'Muslim street' and the Mosque is not moved because of fear of the 'Muslim street', are we not setting a precedent?  Notice that the Imam has no fear of American reaction to building the Mosque at Ground Zero.

I hope both the Pastor in Florida and the Imam will reconsider what they are doing.  Both actions create unnecessary strife.  If either one of these people truly wants to advance their (stated) cause, they need to reconsider their actions.  Both actions are a slap in the face to many innocent people who deserve better.

Pajamas Media posted an article yesterday by Christian Adams (a former Department of Justice attorney) concerning the enforcement of Section 8 of the "Motor Voter" law.

The article states:

"Motor Voter struck an important balance -- it sought to increase voter registration, as well as ensure voter integrity. Welfare offices and motor vehicle offices became voter registration centers. But the law also required states to conduct list maintenance to ensure ineligible names don't pollute the voting rolls. Dead people, ineligible felons, and people who moved away must be removed from the rolls by state election officials."

The article further states:

"The decision of the Holder DOJ to ignore the integrity provisions of Section 8 is deliberate and corrupt. In November 2009, political appointee Julie Fernandes told the entire assembled DOJ Voting Section that the Obama administration would not enforce the list maintenance provisions of Section 8. Section 8 "doesn't have anything to do with increasing minority turnout," Fernandes said. "We don't have any interest in enforcing that part of the law." End of story."

What does this mean to you and me?  Motor Voter provides a private right of action--Americans can bring lawsuits against states and voter registrars who are allowing dead and ineligible voters to taint the voter rolls.  I don't know how many Americans are willing to do that, but there is also one other way to counter this problem (although not quite so direct) .  Voters need to vote out of office all people connected in any way to the Obama Administration--and do it by large enough majorities so that dead voters cannot make a difference. 

We need to vote Republican in November; then we need to hold the Republican's feet to the fire to clean up some of the mess in the Obama Justice Department.  Remember, any vote for a Democrat is a vote for Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.  Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid do not represent the views of America.  If you want to see Washington cleaned up, we need new people.  In all honesty, there are only about ten Congressman I would like to see re-elected.  The rest of them need to go!

As a teenager, I remember looking forward to the arrival of TIME Magazine into the house every week.  I was a rather typical teenager and was not necessarily aware of everything that was happening around me, but TIME was a way that I could read about some of the current events and the history behind them.  I was too naive back then to know if TIME had a bias (during the 1960's), but either things have changed or I have become more aware.

The cover story on the September 13th issue of TIME Magazine is titled, "Why Israel Does Not Care About Peace."  Scott Johnson at Power Line posted an article yesterday about this cover story.  According to Power LIne:

"(Karl) Vick (who wrote the article at TIME) argues that the Jews are so obsessed with making money that they don't much care what happens in the future: "You see, Vick has discovered that the rather worldly Israelis, after stealing their land from Arabs, don't much care for the hard negotiations that the Obama administration is now engaged in ('big elemental thoughts'), not when it is a matter of -- yes, making money[.]""

My initial reaction to that kind of thinking would be to say that Israel is not the one raining rockets down on innocent civilian populations, but Bret Stephens in yesterday's Wall Street Journal (not linked--it is subscriber content) has a better reply:

"Nearly every Israeli has a child, sibling, boyfriend or parent in the army. Nearly every Israeli has been to the funeral of a fallen soldier, or a friend killed in a terrorist attack. Most Israeli homes and businesses come equipped with safe rooms or bomb shelters; every Israeli owns a gas mask. The whole country exists under the encroaching shadows of Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and the prospect of a nuclear Iran. How many Americans, to say nothing of Europeans, can say the same about their own lives?

"Yet when it comes to scoring cheap shots against the Jewish state, Time is not the sort of magazine to allow the obvious to disturb a prejudiced hypothesis. Can the magazine point to equally pointed cover stories about internal Palestinian affairs and what, perchance, they mean for the peace process? I checked: It last did so in April 2002 with a largely sympathetic portrait of Yasser Arafat "All Boxed In" by an invading Israeli army."

I am really sorry to see TIME Magazine go down the path of anti-Semitism.  I have fond memories of the magazine from my youth. 

Today's Washington Post posted a story about the closing of the last major GE factory making ordinary incandescent light bulbs in the United States.  The remaining 200 employees at the plant will lose their jobs.  Incandescent light bulbs have been a target of the 'global warming' movement and will not be sold legally by 2014.

The article reports:

"Rather than setting off a boom in the U.S. manufacture of replacement lights, the leading replacement lights are compact fluorescents, or CFLs, which are made almost entirely overseas, mostly in China."

Whoops.  The irony here is that CFLs were developed by American engineers in the 1970s, but because they require more hand labor to manufacture, none of the major brands make CFLs in the United States--labor is cheaper overseas. 

The article also reports:

"The company (GE) developed a plan to see what it would take to retrofit a plant that makes traditional incandescents into one that makes CFLs. Even with a $40 million investment and automation, the disparity in wages and other factors made it uneconomical. The new plant's CFLs would have cost about 50 percent more than those from China, GE officials said."

What the article does not mention is the fact that breaking a CFL bulb has complications.  According to the Environmental Protection Agency these are the steps to be taken after breaking a CFL bulb:

Before cleanup: air out the room

Cleanup steps for:

• Hard surfaces
• Carpeting or rug
• Clothing, bedding and other soft materials

Disposal of cleanup materials

Future cleaning of carpeting or rug: air out the room during and after vacuuming

Do you really believe that the majority of Americans will be aware of or follow these directions?  I may be out in left field here, but I suspect the accidental breakage and improper disposal of CFLs will do far more damage to the environment that continuing to use incandescent bulbs would ever do.

Today's Boston Globe posted an article by Jeff Jacoby on the race in the Fourth Congressional District in Massachusetts.  This is the District currently represented by Barney Frank.  Representative Frank has been in office since 1980.   There are both Republican and Democrat Party primaries in the Fourth Congressional District this year.  In the Democrat Primary, Rachel E. Brown is running against Barney Frank.  It is interesting that according to WKYC.com:

"Questioned at a town hall last year about the "Nazi policy" of health care reform, Frank told the speaker who made the comment that talking to her was "like talking to a dining room table."

"Fast forward to this year and the questioner, Rachel Brown, is challenging the 15-term Democrat's re-election bid."

I like that.  Congratulations to a lady with spunk!

In the Republican primary, Sean Bielat is running against Earl Sholley.  Earl Sholley has run unsuccessfully for the State Senate four times.  He is in his 60's.  Sean Bielat is the favorite in the primary. 

The article in the Boston Globe reports:

"Bielat is a whip-smart 35-year-old Marine, a successful business manager, and a first-time candidate for Congress out to topple the 29-year incumbent whom many consider the face of liberal Washington arrogance."

Sean Bielat represents the political journey of a lot of people in Massachusetts.  The Globe reports:

"...he's a former Democrat: As a Georgetown undergrad in the mid-1990s, he interned at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in Washington. But his views shifted -- slowly at first, during four years of active duty in the Marines (he remains a major in the Marine Corps Reserve), then more decisively at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard."

At the Kennedy School, he began his journey toward conservatism.  He found himself debating the accepted ideas at the School and forming his own political philosophy. 

The article concludes:

"Issues aside, it would be hard to imagine an incumbent and challenger more dissimilar in style and personality than Frank and Bielat. The incumbent is a political lifer; the challenger believes in political turnover ("two or three terms, then up or out''). The incumbent is notoriously peevish and rude; the challenger is sunny and courteous. The incumbent prides himself on not suffering fools gladly; the challenger knows that he can learn even from people he disagrees with."

If you are interested in bringing financial sanity to Washington (whether or not that is possible is probably fodder for about twenty more posts!) and ending the reign of Nancy Pelosi, I strongly suggest a vote for Sean Bielat in the Republican Primary and in the General Election.  Barney Frank has been in Washington too long and is responsible for too much damage to all Americans by his actions regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  If you believe America can recover financially from the current recession, vote for Sean Bielat.

The Kansas City Star posted an article on Saturday about the Taliban's attempts to reimpose Sharia Law on Afghanistan.

According to the article:

"President Hamid Karzai is under pressure from the Ulema Council of Afghanistan, the religious body composed of the clerics and preachers from across the country.  They see the implementation of Sharia (Islamic law) as a way to stop the growing insurgency in the country.  They seek bans on some programs run on some private TV channels, and during an intense parliamentary debate this year, many members called to non-Afghan serials aired on those channels un-Islamic.

"Early in August, more than 300 members of the council called on Karzai to revive Islamic punishments such as stoning, amputation and execution for various crimes.  Islamic clerics have deep influence in the traditionally conservative Afghan society."

There are a few things in play here.  One of the things I learned when I recently attended an information seminar regarding terrorism was the relationship between Sharia Law and democracy.  In Islam, democracy must yield to Sharia Law.  To support democracy over Sharia Law is in violation of 'true' Islam.  The Council wants Sharia Law because it is part of their practice of Islam (also because it puts them in control).  They cannot, in the context of their interpretation of Islam, accept democracy as law.  The Council is essentially on the same side as the Taliban.

One example of what is happening is cited in the article:

"Mohammed Tariq was looking after his uncle's music shop one recent afternoon when two bearded men with turbans pulled up on a motorcycle to deliver an ominous warning.

""Where is your uncle?" one of the armed men demanded of the 14-year-old boy. "Tell him to shut down this shop. If he doesn't, we will blow it up.""

The owner of the shop cleared the music cassettes from the shelves and stopped selling them.

This is thuggery in the name of religion.  There are Afghans who love music and regard it as part of their culture.  If they remain free to enjoy music, we may have a hope of bringing peace and freedom to Afghanistan.  Otherwise, we are trying to establish stability while our supposed allies are attempting to make sure they rule with an iron fist.  It doesn't sound promising.

Today's Jerusalem Post posted an article today about the peace talks Washington is hosting between Israel and the Palestinians.

First of all, if you have read this blog for a while, you have heard my favorite quote regarding the Palestinians:

"Walid Shoebat, a former PLO terrorist has stated, "Why is it that on June 4th 1967 I was a Jordanian and overnight I became a Palestinian?""

The 'Palestinians' made no claims to any of the land they now swear is theirs while that land was in the hands of Egypt and Jordan. 

Anyway, the Jerusalem Post reports:

"Just four days after meeting with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in Washington, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on Monday threatened again that the Palestinians will pull out of the direct talks if the construction freeze in the settlements, due to expire later this month, is not extended."

Later in the article:

"Abbas said that he made his position clear to US President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Netanyahu during last week's launch of the direct talks in Washington.

"Abbas stressed that he would not make any concessions to Israel."

So why are we having these negotiations?  Israel refuses to ban building in its own capital city (would we put a ban on building in Washington to pacify another country?), and President Abbas says if you don't stop building, and give me the 1967 borders, I'm not negotiating.  What is the world is that?

The Palestinian state that now exists is a failed state.  Any money received from a well-meaning international community goes to rockets and weapons--not to infrastructure.  The economy is run on a 'favoritism' basis--if you know the right people and do the right thing, you prosper.  It is not unlike Chicago under Al Capone.

Again, President Abbas,  if you truly want peace, acknowledge Israel's right to exist, stop teaching hate to your children, prosper your country within the boundaries you have, and stop sending rockets into the civilian population of Israel.  The land you have now prospered when the Israelis ran it--there were greenhouses and other ways for people to make a living.  If you are not willing to work to build the land you now how into a viable state, give it back to Israel--do not simply assume you are entitled to more of their land.

This article was written by Ann Green, one of the participants in the Marlboro Labor Day Parade yesterday.  Ann was part of the group supporting Marty Lamb.

This year getting angry isn't enough.  Listening to political soul-mates on talk radio isn't enough.  This year even voting isn't enough.  Neither is it a good idea to use the Scott Brown "miracle" as an excuse to sit back and hope that lightening strikes twice or to look at encouraging polls and become complacent.  It's time to leave your political comfort zone and get involved.

I'll leave it to other columnists to elaborate on how much is at stake this year; this is a call to action.  In Massachusetts, we have the dishonor of having a complete contingent of left wing to far left wing Democrat congressmen (and one woman).  They have helped bring us endless spending and entitlement programs, soaring unemployment rates, socialized medicine, self-destructive foreign policy, the inequitable treatment of our ally Israel, and suicidal tactics for dealing with terror threats and porous borders.  Those concerned about an obesity problem in this country need look no further than the increasingly corpulent federal government. 

My congressman Barney Frank has been in office for almost 30 years.  Like many in government, he has never held a private sector job.  He lives in a fantasy land where his constituents are a lower form of human, failed programs like his pets Freddie and Fannie can be propped up by an endless supply of government funding, defense spending is the only spending that can be cut, and all Republicans are greedy, evil and racist.  He recently told a group of Young Democrats to "give us more authority." 

In honor of July 4^th this year I reread the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  These documents make it very clear that the overriding goal of the Founding Fathers was to restrict the power of government over the states and the individual.  "Governments are instituted among men," the Declaration states, "Deriving their just powers from the Consent of the Governed."  The preface to the Bill of Rights goes further: "The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added."  The focus is not on what rights people have, but on what the government cannot do, a critical distinction.  The ship of state has sailed way off course.

Certainly you'll vote.  But you can do so much more.  Research the candidates in your state and congressional district if you don't already know who to vote for, and pick up the phone.  Call the campaign office and ask what they need.  You can donate money.  It doesn't have to be a lot; if a lot of people donate a little, it will add up to a lot.  Help raise money.  Respond to blog posts and news articles with brief, fact-based (no name-calling!) comments which support your candidate and include contact information.  Write letters to the editor in the local paper.  Put up a yard sign and slap a bumper sticker on your car; name recognition is key for challengers and new faces.  Make phone calls.  Hold a "meet and greet."  Hold signs for your candidate at public events and on primary and election day.  Work in the campaign office.  Stuff mailboxes with campaign literature.  Volunteer to drive people to the polls for the primary and for the final election. 

For the first time in my life, I'm more than superficially involved in a campaign, two in fact.  I'm working for Sean Bielat, a Marine and businessman who is running against Frank, and Marty Lamb, a close friend, attorney and small businessman who is running against Jim McGovern in the 3^rd  Massachusetts district. 

The Founders never envisioned a ruling class of legislators-for-life. We voters are the only ones who can return our nation to the one envisioned by the Founders, a United States governed by citizen legislators who, after a short term in office, return to their families and to their private sector jobs.  Ask yourself, what would Thomas Jefferson do?

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article yesterday about the Florida church's plan to burn the Quran.  He made some very interesting points that I had overlooked.

Although Mr. Hinderaker agrees with General Petraeus' statement that burning the Quran is a bad idea and will cost American lives, he wonders, "Still, is it not highly problematic when a senior military officer warns American citizens against exercising their undoubted First Amendment rights?" 

The article points out:

"What gives rise to this dilemma, of course, is the fanaticism of radical Muslims, who have, indeed, responded violently to real or perceived slights to their religion. There is no parallel phenomenon with other religions. The Taliban blew up ancient statues of Buddha without worrying for a moment that Buddhists would react violently. Saudi Arabia destroys Bibles as a matter of policy, but it never occurs to the Saudis to fear mobs of rampaging Christians--or even Congressional disfavor in this mostly-Christian nation." 

Mr. Hinderaker is a lawyer and sees this event from a lawyer's perspective:

"Radical Muslims want to establish a zone of protection around Islam that insulates it against the critiques to which everything else--not just other religions--is subject. If that isn't the laying of an important foundation stone of sharia, what is it? And if there is one religion that is uniquely exempted from scrutiny or criticism, is it absurd to say that that religion is "established" in the constitutional sense?"

Mr. Hinderaker concludes:

"In the end, our way of life is simply incompatible with the precepts of radical Islam. There is no way to reconcile the two. Rather than start down the road of self-censorship, our government officials, including the military, should stand up for American freedoms.

"Finally, an interesting question: how is this controversy similar to, and different from, that over the Ground Zero Mosque? Both involve actions that private citizens have a right to take, but arguably shouldn't. It is a worthwhile comparison, but that is a post for another day."

I think the church in question is doing something very foolish.  They might be making a point, but they are putting American lives at risk.  However, this discussion is further proof that freedom and extreme Islam are not compatible.  If the goal of the extreme Muslims is to set up a worldwide caliphate, what better way to start than to begin to limit the freedom of speech and expression in 'free' countries?  Because of the actions of a few overzealous church goers in Florida, we are opening the door to that possibility.

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that General Petraeus has stated that the planned burning of Qurans on Sept. 11 by a small Florida church could put the lives of American troops in danger and damage the war effort.  I totally agree.

The article reports:

"Hundreds of Afghans attended a demonstration in Kabul on Monday to protest the plans of Florida pastor Terry Jones, who has said he will burn copies of Islam's holy book to mark the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Afghan protesters chanted "death to America," and speakers called on the U.S. to withdraw its troops. Some protesters threw rocks at a passing military convoy."

Burning Qurans is simply not smart or constructive at this time.  Admittedly, the current wave of terrorism seems to be rooted in extreme Islam, but burning Qurans is not the way to solve the problem. 

Unfortunately, the church involved has other ideas:

"Mr. Jones, head of the 50-member Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Fla., said in a statement that "We understand the General's concerns. We are sure that his concerns are legitimate." Nonetheless, he added, "We must send a clear message to the radical element of Islam. We will no longer be controlled and dominated by their fears and threats.""

Do they understand that they are putting American soldiers in danger?  I realize that there is some overreaction on the part of some Muslims to anything they consider a slight against Islam.  I am not saying we should give in to that, but I think we have to think about the consequences of our own actions.  Until the moderate Muslims take over the religion of Islam, there are going to be certain problem areas.  I recently watched the South Park episode that involved Mohammed where Comedy Central cut a few frames out of the show because they did not want to offend Muslims.  I did notice that they have not done that for any other group.  I also do not regard it as a coincidence that the Times Square bomber was planning to set off his bomb close to the offices of Viacom, the parent company of Comedy Central. 

I think we need to let our military deal with the problem of militant Islam.  We need to be vigilant as citizens, but we don't need to stir up the pot--the pot is stirred up enough already.

During the end of August, I visited California for a family reunion and some time with my daughter and granddaughters.  During that time I drove through the Central Valley, formerly the breadbasket of the world.  What I saw was disturbing.  Farmers in California have been denied access to a major water supply (to protect a type of fish) by a judge citing the Endangered Species Act. 

An article at Newsbusters in March of 2009 stated:

"Farmers don't have access to this water that runs right through the center of their farmland.  It is being allocated to the delta smelt, a little fish protected by the Endangered Species Act.  Conservations say the smelt are dying in the irrigation pumps, so a judge ruled they must be shut off for much of the growing season."

A letter to the editor at the Herald and News in July 2009 stated:

"Thousands of people have also become unemployed or lost the ability to farm, which adversely affects both local and national economies.

"In addition to the California drought, there has been court-ordered protection of a 2-inch smelt fish that has stopped the pumping of water from the delta that is necessary for agriculture in central California. If it is listed as an endangered species, it's likely that California agriculture, which supplies a third of the nation's food supply, will be permanently changed."

Needless to say, there is some serious anger on the part of the farmers about the water shut-off.

These are some of the signs we saw driving north on our way to a family reunion in Santa Rosa.  As food prices rise and we import more food from China, I hope some of our leaders at various levels see the folly of this policy.  We drove through miles and miles of dust bowl where there used to crops that fed people and provided jobs.  It was sad.

Now for the real reason for the trip to California!

I hope everyone had a good summer.  Now it's time to get back to work and elect the leaders that will bring prosperity and jobs back to America.

The Hill posted an article yesterday stating, "Labor groups will be invited to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to talk about an alarming shortfall in state employee pension plans that some believe could lead to a new government bailout."  Just what we need--another bailout.  The article also pointed out that nearly half of all union members work in the public sector.

Well, I decided to take a look at how unions spend some of their money.

According to Heritage.org:

"The union movement spends much of this money on politics. In election year 2008, AFSCME spent $63 million on political campaigning and lobbying. That was 32 percent of its overall budget and well more than the $39 million it spent representing its members.[4] In 2009, the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) spent $29 million on representational activities and $47 million on political campaigning and lobbying.[5] The amount spent on politics represented 25 percent of the AFL-CIO's budget.[6] The AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) just announced their intention to spend $100 million on electing sympathetic candidates in this year's midterm elections.[7]"

Footnotes in the above paragraph:

4.  U.S. Department of Labor, "Office of Labor-Management Standards," AFSCME National Headquarters LM-2 Report, 2008, File No. 000-289. Database at http://www.unionreports.gov(August 26, 2010).

5.  U.S. Department of Labor, "Office of Labor-Management Standards," AFL-CIO National Headquarters LM-2 Report, 2009, File No. 000-106. Database at http://www.unionreports.gov(August 26, 2010).

6.  Ibid. The AFL-CIO national headquarters spent $189.5 million in 2009.

7.  Sam Stein, "Major Unions Pooling Resources for $100 Million 2010 Effort," The Huffington Post, August 25, 2010, at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/25/major-unions-pooling-reso_n_693940.html (August 26, 2010).

Just for the record, AFSCME is the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.  Don't you think that the $63 million they spent on campaigning in 2008 might have helped their pension fund?  Why should the American taxpayer have to bailout a pension fund for a union that spent its money on pollitics (to elect people who would support the American taxpayer bailing out their pension fund)? 

It's time for a change.  It's time for a mental readjustment.  We need to get back to the point where people were actually responsible for their actions and had to face the consequences.  We cannot continually bail out people who have spent their money for something other than their financial responsibilites.  We need to make sure pensions in the public sector are in line with pensions in the private sector.  Working for the government should not put you on the gravy train for life.  We have to begin acting like grown-ups (horrors!).

It is no surprise that the majority of the union money spent on politics goes to the Democrats.  The union leadership has taken out massive bank loans (see rightwinggranny.com article of September 3) to try to prevent a Republican takeover of the House of Representatives this November.  Why?  How many Republicans have voted for bailouts?

If you are interested in fiscal sanity, you need to vote Republican in November.  Any vote for a Democrat is a vote for Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.  As long as they are the Congressional leaders, the runaway spending will continue.  If our country is to survive in a form that we recognize, the Democrats need to be voted out of office this year.  Even at that, they may do considerable damage during a lame duck session (Cap and Trade, increased taxes, and card check have been discussed as possibilities), but if Republicans take the House, they can undo some of the damage to our economy.

For one idea showing how to restore fiscal sanity to the government, visit the website for Paul Ryan's Roadmap.  There are a number of good ideas to balance the budget out there.  This is one of them.  Please study the issues and vote carefully!

Yes, I oppose the building of a mosque at Ground Zero.  I consider the building in question part of Ground Zero because some of the landing gear from one of the planes involved in the attack landed on the roof of the building and damaged the top two floors of the building.  That said, I will support the building of a mosque at Ground Zero as soon as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Dubai, and other countries in the Middle East allow the construction and operation of Christian Churches in their countries.  The street goes both ways.

Today's New York Post posted an article on its website about the purchase of the building where the mosque at Ground Zero is planned.  The building had been owned by the Pomerantz family since the late 1960's.  New York developer Kevin Glodek offered $18 million cash for the building in 2007. 

According to the article:

"Glodek and his partners wanted to build a 60-story condo tower with retail space on the Park Place site, had inked a purchase agreement and even had keys to the existing building, according to sources and documents obtained by The Post."

Then at the end of 2007, Kukiko Mitani, whose late husband, Stephen Pomerantz, owned the property, went silent and the deal disappeared.  Prospective mosque builder Sharif El-Gamal paid $4.8 million for the property (sweetening the deal by offering a job as a property manager to Sethian Pomerantz, a son of the family).

The article states:

"Neither Mitani nor El-Gamal responded to requests for comment."

I have no idea what actually went on here, but it does look a little odd.

The American Thinker posted an article yesterday on what has happened to the complaint against the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) filed with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) by the Right To Work Foundation. 

According to the article:

"...To meet their ambitious fundraising targets, Service Employees International Union bosses are now threatening to fine any local affiliate that doesn't meet its PAC contribution requirements.

"The only problem with this racket is that FEC guidelines explicitly prohibit organizations from collecting PAC funds by threatening members with financial reprisals.  SEIU bosses aren't exactly hiding their intentions, either--they actually wrote this fundraising provision into the union's constitution at their annual convention."

How did they avoid legal problems even though they were doing something illegal?  The article explains:

"Although the FEC dismissed the Foundation's complaint in April, Foundation attorneys were only notified of the decision 23 days after the fact. Adding insult to injury, the FEC finally got around to releasing the reasoning behind its dismissal in August, 111 days after the original decision was made.

"Coincidentally, all FEC appeals must be filed within 60 days of any ruling.  By delaying its announcement and only releasing its reasoning until well after the window period had expired, the FEC effectively made it impossible to appeal the decision to federal court."

What is this really about?  Why is the SEIU willing to break the laws regarding campaign funds in order to elect Democrats?  It's about money (I guess it usually is).  Card Check would take the secret ballot out of unionization of companies and force companies into collective bargaining very quickly.  Increased membership by the unions would shore up an underfunded pension fund that the taxpayers may have to bail out eventually anyway.  The Obama Administration showed the unions favoritism in the Chrysler bankruptcy deal when it paid back unions before preferred stockholders.  By funding Democrat campaigns, the unions can be sure that their thuggery and illegal activities will be overlooked.

If you care to support continuing union thuggery, vote Democrat in November.  Even if you feel that your candidate is above this sort of behavior, as soon as an elected Democrat votes for Nancy Pelosi in the House of Representatives or Harry Reid in the Senate as their leaders, they are endorsing a continuation of this sort of behavior.

The Democrats will try to buy the election in November because their poll numbers are so low.  Don't be fooled by glitzy adds and smear campaigns, check everything you hear.  Do your own research and draw your own conclusions.  Happy voting.

It has been said that Jews are the canary in the coal mine of western civilization. When they start to be abused and mistreated, it is a sign that a poisonous atmosphere has developed that threatens all of society.

John Hinderaker posted an article at Power Line yesterday expressing concern about the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe.  Part of the problem is that Europe has a growing Muslim population that has not assimilated into the European culture.  Unfortunately, anti-Semitism is part of that particular Muslim culture. 

However, anti-Semitism in Europe is not totally a Muslim thing.  On Thursdday, Karel De Gucht, the European trade commissioner, was interviewed on a Belgian radio station.  This is an account of the interview:

"On Thursday, with the Middle East peace process in the news, Mr. De Gucht picked yet another fight. Jews, he told Belgian radio, have a "belief" that they are "always right." He described his frustration at debating the Middle East because "it is not easy even with a moderate Jew to have a conversation."

"He continued: "Don't underestimate the power of the Jewish lobby in the capital. That is best organized lobby in the states. And they have an influence on politicians, Republicans and Democrats.""

This is his apology, issued later:

"I gave an interview yesterday to the Flemish radio. I was also asked about the Middle East peace talks. I gave my personal point of view. I regret that the comments that I made have been interpreted in a sense that I did not intend. I did not mean in any possible way to cause offense or stigmatize the Jewish Community. I want to make clear that anti-Semitism has no place in today's world and is fundamentally against our European values."

I am sorry he believes that Israel is so difficult to deal with.  When Hezbollah stockpiles weapons in southern Lebanon under the watchful eye of the United Nations, hiding them in residential areas so that Israel would have to kill civilians to destroy the weapons (see Boston.com today) and kassam rockets are launched into Sderot, Israel, from Gaza on a regular basis, Israel has a right to be concerned about her security.  When many of her neighbors have pledged to 'drive her into the sea', Israel has a right to be concerned about her security.  When one of her neighbors wants to claim half of her capital city as their capital, Israel has a right to be concerned about her security.

Anti-Semitism is not a healthy thing.  All problems are not the fault of the Jews--that was the kind of logic that Hitler used.  All of us need to be careful not to fall into that trap.

Yesterday U.K.Reuters reported on the Initial Public Offering (IPO) of General Motors stock by the Treasury Department.  The plan is to sell the IPO below cost in order to entice buyers. 

The article reports:

"Subsequent offerings of the government's holdings may be profitable depending on how investors trade the newly listed stock, the sources said."

The article points out that it may be years before the accounting is over and taxpayers know if they will get their money back.  The decision to price the initial offering below cost follows the usual Wall Street practice of giving a discount to the first investors in a new stock. 

The stock is scheduled to be sold beginning on November 18th, beginning its sales campaign right after the November elections. 

According to the article:

"The U.S. government pumped $49.5 billion worth of taxpayer money into the automaker and took nearly 61 percent of its common stock.

"GM has paid back $6.7 billion in debt to the Treasury and returned another $700 million in interest and dividends. The U.S. government also holds $2.1 billion in perpetual preferred shares in the automaker.

"That leaves the government with a roughly $40 billion investment in the GM common stock that will debut in an IPO along with a new class of preferred shares that will convert into common shares under a mandatory provision."

The auto company still needs to address a pension shortfall estimated at about $26 billion.

I hope that the taxpayers get paid back, but I also hope that the money received is used to pay down the deficit--not to increase spending.

This article is based on an article in the Washington Examiner on Friday and an article in the Jerusalem Post on Friday.

The article in the Washington Examiner points out:

"The compromises the two sides seek would involve the thorniest issues that have doggedthe parties for decades:  the borders of an eventual Palestinian state, the political status of Jerusalem, West Bank settlements, the fate of Palestinian refugees and security."

The Jerusalem Post article illustrates one of the obstacles:

"The current round of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks will not succeed, Hizbullah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah said during a "Jerusalem Day" commemoration speech on Friday.

"Nasrallah characterized the talks as "stillborn" and said, "Jerusalem, and not even one of its streets, can not be the capital of the state called Israel.""

Until the Arab states (and, unfortunately, Arab terrorist groups) acknowledge Israel's right to exist with Jerusalem as its capital, there will not be peace in the Middle East.  The land Israel conquered in 1967 was land that was originally given to it by the United Nations (actually the land given to Israel in 1948 by the United Nations was much smaller than what Israel had been initially promised in the Balfour Declaration and by the League of Nations).  The one thing that Israel should not be asked to give up is her capital, Jerusalem.  What other nation in the history of the world has ever been asked to turn over half of its capital to people who are pledged to 'drive it into the sea?'

Until hatred is not taught to children in Gaza and the West Bank, until people like Nasrallah are condemned for making the kind of statements quoted above, and until the neighbors of Israel acknowledge her right to exist with Jerusalem as her capital, there will be no peace in the Middle East.

The article below is completely neutral, not anti republican or democrat. 

Charlie Reese, a retired reporter for the Orlando Sentinel has hit the nail directly on the head, defining clearly who it is that in the final analysis must assume responsibility for the judgments made that impact each one of us every day. 

It's a short but good read.  Worth the time.  Worth remembering! 

 545 vs. 300,000,000 

EVERY CITIZEN NEEDS TO READ THIS AND THINK ABOUT WHAT THIS J OURNALIST HAS SCRIPTED IN THIS MESSAGE.  READ IT AND THEN REALLY THINK ABOUT OUR CURRENT POLITICAL DEBACLE. 

Charley Reese has been a journalist for 49 years. 

545 PEOPLE -- By Charlie Reese 

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them. 

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits? 

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes? 

You and I don't propose a federal budget.  The president does. 

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations.  The House of Representatives does. 

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does. 

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does. 

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does. 

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country. 

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress.  In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank. 

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason.  They have no legal authority.  They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing.  I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash.  The politician has the power to accept or reject it.  No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes. 

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault.  They cooperate in this common con regardless of party. 

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall.  No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.... .  The   president can only propose a budget.  He cannot force the Congress to accept it. 

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes.  Who is the speaker of the House?  Nancy Pelosi.  She is the leader of the majority party.  She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want.  If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to. 

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 
545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility.  I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.  When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist. 

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. 

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red ... 

If the Army & Marines are in  IRAQ  , it's because they want them in  IRAQ . If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way. 

There are no insoluble government problems. 

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power.  Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do. 

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. 

They, and they alone, have the power.. 

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses. 

Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees... 

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess! 
  
Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the  Orlando  Sentinel Newspaper. 

What you do with this article now that you have read it.........  is up to you. 



Sales Tax 
School Tax 
Liquor Tax 
Luxury Tax 
Excise Taxes 
Property Tax 
Cigarette Tax 
Medicare Tax 
Inventory Tax 
Real Estate Tax 
Well Permit Tax 
Fuel Permit Tax 
Inheritance Tax 
Road Usage Tax 
CDL license Tax 
Dog License Tax 
State Income Tax 
Food License Tax 
Vehicle Sales Tax 
Gross Receipts Tax 
Social Security Tax 
Service Charge Tax 
Fishing License Tax 
Federal Income Tax 
Building Permit Tax 
IRS Interest Charges 
Hunting License Tax 
Marriage License Tax 
Corporate Income Tax 
Personal Property Tax 
 Accounts Receivable Tax 
Recreational Vehicle Tax 
Workers Compensation Tax 
Watercraft Registration Tax 
Telephone Usage Charge Tax 
Telephone Federal Excise Tax 
 Telephone State and Local Tax 
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax) 
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA) 
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA) 
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax 
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
Utility Taxes Vehicle License Registration Tax 
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes 
Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax 
  

 Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, & our nation was the most prosperous in the world. 
 We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids. 

What in the h--- happened?  Can you spell 'politicians? ' I hope this goes around the  USA  at least 100 times!!! 
 YOU can help it get there!!! 
GO AHEAD - - - BE AN AMERICAN!!! 

PS.

If you do the right thing and pass this on - which is entirely up to you - 

Thank You

Yesterday, Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article about some campaign statements by five freshmen Democrats seeking re-election.  All five claim to have voted against the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).  There is only one problem--they were not in Congress when it was passed.  By the time they were in Congress, the money had already been allocated.  There was a vote on a disapproval resolution (which they supported) which was purely symbolic --the money was already spent.

According to the article at Hot Air:

• Mary Jo Kilroy says she "voted against the bank bailout."
• Kathy Dahlkemper says she voted "against a bailout that helped Wall Street."
• Frank Kratovil claims to have cast his vote in opposition to "the big bank bailout."
• Dina Titus' ad maintains she "even voted against the bank bailout."
• Glenn Nye's ad tells viewers he went "against his own party" and "voted against the Wall Street bailout."

This is garbage.  The thing to remember here is that as long as Democrats in the House of Representatives elect Nancy Pelosi as the Speaker of the House, the runaway spending will continue.  As long as Democrats control the House of Representatives, the runaway spending will continue.  The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.  If the voters continue to elect Democrats, runaway spending will continue.  Northing will change.  The Republicans do not completely have their act together on the subject of spending, but if enough Tea Party candidates are elected, the Republicans will get the message.  There is a reasonable hope that they will deal with the runaway spending.  There is almost no hope that the Democrats will address the issue of spending--their solution to the deficit will be to increase taxes on everyone and permanently cripple the economy.

As you watch the campaigns for the House of Representatives and Senate across the country during this election cycle, think about what the Democrat majorities in the House and Senate have done in the past two years.  Are you willing to see those policies continue?  What are the consequences of continuing in the direction we are now headed?  Don't be fooled by claims that candidates voted against spending when the votes were strictly for show.  If you have doubts about a candidates voting record or his vote on a specific bill, please visit Thomas.gov.  All votes taken in the House and Senate are recorded there.

We need informed voters to keep America strong and free.  This election is very important--all of us need to stay informed.

The Washington Examiner posted an editorial yesterday detailing the decline in Labor Union membership (and the popularity of labor unions) as the influence of Labor Unions in the Obama Administration has grown to new levels. 

The article points out:

"First, with only 7 percent of the total, fewer employees in the private sector are union members today than ever before.  Even when numbers for both the private and public sectors are combined, only 12 percent of American workers are union members.  Fewer members mean less income from compulsory dues.  Less money coming into union treasuries ought to result in fewer partisan campaign contributions going out.

"But by borrowing millions from the same banks that labor leaders so often demonize as greedy enemies of the working man, union bosses in 2008 were able to spend record amounts on electing Democrats at all levels of government."

What did the unions get for their money?  Let's look at four examples of the Obama Administration showing partiality to unions:

1.  Ten days after becoming President, President Obama signed three executive orders limiting what federal contractors can say to employees during union organizing drives, made it more difficult for federal contractors to fire incompetent employees, and directed federal contractors to make sure their employees were aware of their organizing rights.

2.  The next executive order required federal agencies to use union-favored Project Labor Agreements on largely federally funded construction projects.

3.  The Landrum-Griffin Labor Management Reporting Disclosure Act of 1959, designed to increase union financial transparency on forms required to be filed with the government, was strengthened during the Bush Administration so that union members would know what was being done with their dues.  Hilda Solis, Obama's secretary of labor, has nullified those disclosure rules.

4.  When the Obama Administration forced General Motors and Chrysler into bankruptcy, they imposed settlements on the companies that granted ownership stakes of 17.5 percent and 55 percent, respectively, to the United Auto Workers Union.  This was a total violation of standing bankruptcy laws.

If you would like to see this kind of political favoritism continue, re-elect your Democrat Congressman.  If you are sick of watching unions buy political favors, vote Republican.

Roger Hedgecock at Human Events posted an article today about the 'culture wars.'  Mr. Hedgecock believes:

"Underlying all politics is the culture. It is changing. The dominant liberal culture has yielded division and decay in American society--and a government-directed economy destroying our standard of living. The rejection of liberal culture has begun; the rejection of liberal politics will follow."

The examples Mr. Hedgecock cites of the progressive culture include driving Christianity from the public square, Planned Parenthood fighting for abortion rights, the ACLU fighting for the right to burn and desecrate the American flag, and civil rights morphed into race-based preferences.

The progressive agenda in 2010 has reached a point where much of the general public thinks it has gone too far.  Mr. Hedgecock cites the examples of the Ground Zero Mosque being touted as an example of America's religious freedom at the same time the liberals sued to remove a cross in a remote area of California's Mojave Desert and sponsored hate crime legislation that would put Christian pastors in jail for reading Biblical passages condemning homosexuality.

There was further hypocrisy in the healthcare debate regarding federal funding of abortion.  In 2008 liberals promised federally-funded abortion.  When the healthcare bill was being debated, Representative Bart Stupak and some other Democrats demanded that the ban on federal funding of abortion continue.  Promises were made, an executive order issued, and the issue was supposedly put to rest.  Later it was discovered that:

"Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was given the power to write regulations governing required coverage in all health insurance plans under the Obamacare bill. A notorious pro-abortion advocate, Sebelius prepared to require abortion as a covered procedure, with federal funding for those who could not afford it."

This was another example of liberal culture moving forward over the objections of many Americans.  Mr. Hedgecock points out:

"Americans by 60-70% want this "reform" repealed. Obama and Co. won the legislative battle, but lost the culture. Now they are losing the politics as well."

Culturally, America tends to be center right.  The northeast leans left, as does the west coast, but the Americans who live in the rest of the country tend to be center right.  That is why President Obama is losing the support of the majority of Americans--he is governing from the extreme left.  As Americans, we do not seem to be very good at finding middle ground.  Hopefully after seeing the disaster the policies of the left have been we will move right.

This article is based on an article that was posted yesterday at Yahoo News and an article at the Washington Examiner yesterday.

Yahoo News reports that the Justice Department is filing a lawsuit against Joe Arpaio, the sheriff of Arizona's Maricopa County.  The lawsuit charges that Sheriff Arpaio is refusing to cooperate with a federal investigation into allegations of discrimination and illegal searches and seizures by the department.

According to Yahoo News:

"Arpaio told the Arizona Republic that he thought the lawsuit was "camouflage" for a federal attempt to curtail his anti-illegal immigration sweeps in mostly Latino communities. He also said he had begun cooperating with federal authorities and thought they were making headway toward a solution."

Well, all may not be what it appears to be.  The Washington Examiner article reveals:

"...in September 2008, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, known as ICE, did its own investigation of Arpaio's office-- and gave it a clean bill of health.  Arpaio's lawyers recently got a copy of the ICE report through the Freedom of Information Act."

It seems as if the Obama Justice Department has very strange ideas of what legal cases need to be follow up on and what legal cases need to be ignored.  I would be a whole lot more convinced that this was not a political lawsuit if the Justice Department had been willing to follow up on the voter intimidation suit against the Black Panters.  I believe that the Obama Administration uses the Justice Department for political reasons.  As long as the Democrats control Congress, this will continue.  Please vote Republican in November and bring justice back to the Justice Department.

Last week, South Coast Today posted an article about the protest by commercial fishermen staged off Martha's Vineyard. 

The article deals with the protest and the people who have been hurt by the overly strict regulations on fishing, but at the heart of the story is a runaway government agency.

According to the article:

Bob Vanasse, the executive director of the industry advocacy group Saving Seafood, put the issue in the best perspective.

It's not environmentalists versus fishermen, he said. It's both the environmentalists and fishermen versus a rogue bureaucratic agency.

Think Jane Lubchenco, the new National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration administrator who promised reform but delivered another round of weak-science regulation.

Think Dale Jones, the never-fired NOAA law enforcement director who shredded documents showing stricter enforcement of Northeast fishermen than all others. The man who refused to tell Congress whether his junket trips were funded by those same fishermen's fines.

Think of an agency that used decades worth of faulty data gathered on the Albatross, and that even now refuses to give up that faulty data.

Think of an agency that, based on a loophole, adopted the most Draconian regulations possible, even though the Magnuson Act forbid such extreme measures.

(The Magnuson Act that governs fisheries requires that regulations be the ones that have the least impact on the commercial fishing effort, and that's being ignored.)

Fourth District Congressman Barney Frank has proposed an amendment to Magnuson that would require a referendum among fishermen when the agency uses regulations that involve a fishing quota system.

Frank has given the White House a temporary reprieve on firing Lubchenco so this protest was one last effort to get the president's attention before Frank reopens the issue.

Besides the pleas of Frank and Sens. John Kerry and Scott Brown, Gov. Deval Patrick has demanded changes from Commerce Secretary Gary Locke.

And some 5,000 fishermen, back in February, went to the mall in Washington in an effort to get President Barack Obama's attention on the rogue agency.

But they did not.

This is a situation that impacts not only unemployment for East Coast fishermen, but also plays a part in where we get our seafood as a nation.  The government bureaucracy in the fishing industry has gotten out of hand and needs to be pushed back.  There is no way that what is being done to the fishermen could be Constitutional.

This post is based on two articles, one from the New York Post today, and one from Yahoo News yesterday.

The New York Post article is about what has happened to the concept of science being unbiased in the debate about man-caused globall warming.  The InterAcademy Council, an independent association of "the best scientists and engineers worldwide" (according to their website), has recently finished a review of the practices of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and has found many problems in the claims in the United Nations documents. 

For example, the article states:

"For example, the IPCC's much-vaunted Fourth Assessment Report claimed in 2007 that Himalayan glaciers were rapidly melting, and would possibly be gone by the year 2035.  The claim was actually false--yet the IPCC cited it as proof of man-made global warming."

What are the results of bogus science?  The article at the Post cites one instance:

"...based in large part on the fraudulent glacier story, "[ICPP Chairman] Rajendra Pachauri's Energy and Resources Institute, based in New Delhi, was awarded up to 3100,000 pounds by the Carnegie Corp...and the lion's share of a 2.5 million pound EU grant funded by European taxpayers."

"Thus, the Times concluded, "EU taxpayers are funding reasearch into a scientific claim about glaciers that any ice researcher should immediately recognize as bogus.""

Now to the story from Yahoo News.  According to the article:

"A bit of a propaganda war is heating up in California over Proposition 23, a citizen's initiative which could suspend the state's landmark greenhouse gas reduction law.

"Backed by manufacturers and Texas oil companies Valero and Tesoro, the ballot initiative would halt enforcement of the 2006 emissions law, AB32, until California unemployment, now over 12 percent, sinks to 5.5 percent for at least a year. Backers of the "California Jobs Initiative" say it is necessary to protect Californians from untimely financial hardship."

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles is fighting Proposition 23, stating that "more Californians will get sick if Prop. 23 passes." 

This is a very interesting battle.  I was in California last week and at one point someone living in San Jose told me that they had regulations on when they could use their fireplaces because at times the air quality was so bad.  I really hate to see that kind of government intrusion, but I also don't like the idea of brown air.  It is also interesting that the Mayor's campaign against the relaxation of the emissions law is aimed at the poor.

The article points out:

"The mayor surrounded himself with activists from Latino neighborhoods who released a statement saying that Prop. 23 "will hurt low-income communities and people of color first and worst," and called for the mobilization of voters from low-income areas. They circulated a four-page report laying out the environmental violations and fines assessed against the two companies."

I really don't know what the answer is here.  I know that California is very unique because of the way the winds and climate act and that impacts pollution in the state.  It would be nice to think that a compromise between the health of the people and the unemployment numbers can be worked out.

The claim that the change in the emissions law would impact the poor more than the average citizen reminds me of an old Rush Limbaugh comment on a potential New York Times headline.  Mr. Limbaugh once commented that if the newspapers had advance notice on when the world would end, the New York Times headline would be "World To End Tomorrow--Women and Children Hardest Hit."  I think we need to find a balance here.

Today's Washington Times reported on the release of two Yemenese men who were detained at Amsterdam airport on Monday.  Ahmed Mohamed Nasser al-Soofi and Hezam al-Murisi were arrested at Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport at the request of U.S. law enforcement officials.  The men were released today without being charged with anything. 

Initial tests of one of the men's luggage had shown a trace of explosives.  Later, more accurate tests did not reveal explosive material.

In a story posted on Monday ABC News reported:

"In addition, officials said, al Soofi was found to be carrying $7,000 in cash and a check of his luggage found a cell phone taped to a Pepto-Bismol bottle, three cell phones taped together, several watches taped together, a box cutter and three large knives. Officials said there was no indication of explosives and he and his luggage were cleared for the flight from Birmingham to Chicago O'Hare."

This whole story really does not make any sense.  I strongly suspect this was a test to see if the baggage inspectors would pick up the image of a cell-phone-triggered bomb.  Also, the list of things in the luggage does not sound like the normal contents of the suitcase of your everyday traveler.  Added to the mix is the fact that Yemen is to terrorism what Afghanistan was to terrorism up until September 11, 2001.

To me, this is an indication that generally speaking we are not serious about stopping terrorism.  The taping together of watches or cell phones is not normal packing procedure.  I strongly suspect that this was a dry run for something horrible that we will see in the future.

The Hatch Act of 1939 is a United States federal law whose main provision is to prohibit federal employees (civil servants) from engaging in partisan political activity.  According to a story in the Washington Examiner on Monday, Education Secretary Arne Duncan sent a memo to more than 4,000 employees of the Department of Education on Wednesday inviting them to join Al Sharpton's 'Reclaim the Dream' rally on Saturday.  Mr. Sharpton created the event in reponse to Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally at the Lincoln Memorial.

Technically, the e-mail does not violate the Hatch Act, but it made at least one department employee uncomfortable.

The article reports:

""It sends a signal that activity on behalf of one side of a political debate is expected within a department.  It's highly inappropriate...even in the absence of a direct threat," (David) Boaz (executive vice president of the libertarian Cato Institute) said.  "If we think of a Bush cabinet official sending an e-mail to civil servants asking them to attend a Glenn Beck rally, there would be a lot of outrage over that.""

Unfortunately, the conservative movement has been too polite too long.  We need to learn to apply the same standard of conduct to liberals that liberals apply to us.  If sending this e-mail is acceptable, then it is acceptable for someone on the right side of the political spectrum to do the same thing.  If sending this e-mail is unacceptable, then the people who sent it need to be reprimanded at least, and action taken against anyone who practices politics on government employees in the future.

The information in this article is from an e-mail I received from Representative John C. Fleming from Louisiana.  Representative Fleming is a Medical Doctor.  His website at fleming.house.gov has more detailed information and source information.

The Medicare cuts in the new healthcare reform act are approximately $500 billion.  This is a summary of the cuts that will be made in the next three years. 

In 2010, Medicare will cut reimbursements to inpatient psychiatric hospitals.

In 2011, these are the changes to Medicare:

• Medicare cuts to home health agencies begin.
• Wealthier seniors ($85K/$170K) begin paying higher Part D premiums.
• Medicare cuts begin to ambulance services, ambulatory surgery centers, diagnostic labs, and durable medical equipment.
• Seniors are prohibited from purchasing power wheelchairs unless they first rent for 13 months.
• New Medicare cuts to long term care hospitals begin.
• New Medicare cuts to hospitals and cuts to nursing homes begin (FY12)
• Medicare Advantage cuts begin. Participating seniors will face premium increases, benefit cuts, or both.

In 2012, the follow changes are made:

• Medicare reimbursements for dialysis treatments are cut.
• Medicare cuts to hospice begin.

In 2013 (after the Presidential election) Medicare reimbursements to hospitals that serve low-income seniors will be cut.

According to the email:

"WHAT THIS MEANS FOR YOU:  When providers get paid less by Medicare for services seniors depend on, many may be forced to decrease their services or close some of their locations just to make ends meet.   This means that seniors may experience a decrease in their access to essential care, which is already a problem for many in rural districts.  The cuts to Medicare Advantage may cause many of these insurance providers to stop offering plans to seniors, forcing seniors back into traditional Medicare."

The bottom line here is that healthcare reform is being done at the expense of senior citizens.  As the baby boomers become eligible for Medicare, the money that Medicare receives from the government will be cut.  The people who have paid into Medicare almost all of their lives are the ones whose benefits are being cut.  Meanwhile, there is nothing in this bill to prevent illegal aliens who have paid nothing into Medicare from getting all the expensive medical treatment they need (assuming they are the right age). 

This is a bill that needs to be repealed and replaced with true healthcare reform--reform that will allow the private sector to make enough money to treat the poor and the senior citizens to get the healthcare they need.  Vote Republican in November to see "Repeal and Replace."